1
?
that there is not given in our schools four hours exclusively secular instruction, instruction in which God is a forbidden word, providence an unscientific expression, and faith and prayer things not recognised in the Code. The spirit in which some Inspectors of Schools interpreted the word secular is easily understood from the story told at a recent public meeting in London of an Inspector who objected to an answer which made Solomon, the wisest man, on the grounds that after the time for secular instruction began, Solomon, as a Bible personage, was unknown to the "secular" historian.
Why again should you make a certain number of daily attendances at school a sine qua non before any boy can be admitted to the examination? If in a fewer number of days his teachers have brought him fully up to the required standard why refuse them their reward? Even if you must fix some minimum of attendance why fix it at 200? It is not so in England. It is not so in Singapore, but why do so at all in Os is a h connection with payment by results? Pay for the results, ask no question as to how the result is attained A. View or at least do not insist upon its being attained according to your ideas and your methods exclusively. Matteis You are entitled to claim that a public school, government aided, shall be kept open for so many working days in the year, and for so many hours in the day, and if you give a capitation grant for attendance may fairly stipulate for a certain number of days as a minimum, but do not mix up the question of attendance with the question of results.
you
Let me suggest the following alterations in the Grant-in-Aid Scheme published as a second appendix
to Mr. STEWART's last report.
1.--In the first line omit the word "Elementary." Schools that come under the higher standards
are not elementary in any sense of the word, and the use of the word might lead to complica- tions bercafter.
2.-In Section 1 § strike out Elementary."
and let the clause read: "The time devoted to instruction in the subjects of standards is not less than four hours daily."
3.--In § Section 4 strike out the word "secular
4. In Section 2 § b strike out the words "provided they are either before or after the four hours secular instruction required by this Code." If we improperly mix religious instruction with instruction in the subjects of the standards the examinations will show it, and we will suffer in pocket and in reputation.
5.--In § d strike out the word "secular." The concluding words of the sentence sufficiently specify the kind of the book required. If the books are not what they ought to be, again the exami- nation will show it.
6. --To Section 4 § & the insertion of the word "paid" before teacher would obviate certain difficult- ies. The Superior of the Christian Brothers is at the same time Manager and Teacher. What you really want is to get hold of the responsible person, the master and not the paid servant, where there are paid teachers. In our schools, managed by priests and religious, there are no paid teachers. In Section 8 the same word or the word salaried ought to be introduced before the words "teacher" and "master" wherever they occur. A personal payment to one of the Christian Brothers of a fourth of the grant is simply a payment to the Superior. The object of the clause is perfectly clear and perfectly reasonable, but is inapplicable to the teaching members of a religious congregation who have no divided interest.
7.-In Section 10 strike out the word "secular instruction" and let the Section read: "Grant will be made for definite results in the subject mentioned in the standards hereinafter referred to, and no other."
8.-In Section 14 substitute "the basis of education will be that the school is kept open for not less than 200 days in each year and for not less than four hours per day of instruction in the sub- jecta of several standards.”
9.In section 15 strike out the words "and they may not be withheld without reasonable excuse." If we withhold children from examination for any reason, we get a diminished grant and a bad report. Why interferc further with our discretion or with the wishes of parents? Why make the Inspector an Inquisitor?
10.--In Section 25 the amount of the capitation grant needs reconsideration as previously suggested.
-We call the attention to these two facts: 1st that at home the ground for schools or something equivalent is given by the Government and a certain amount is fixed for building which should be determined also here; 2nd, in Singapore the standards are easier and the grant larger, Finally in all documents connected with the scheme get rid of the offensive word "sccular" and substitute some such phrase as has been suggested above. Government wants instruction given in certain specified subjects and is willing to pay for every boy girl fairly instructed in these subjects. Government can say so, without using a word which has been made the battle cry of a party hostile to all religion, and offensive to those who value religion as worth all the sevalar education in the world.
AYT
38
With the alterations I have ventured to suggest the grant-in-aid scheme, standing by itself, is, so far as we are concerned, free from serious objection and I will say fair and liberal, but it is still an objection to it that it is but part of the larger scheme of Government Education, of which the Central School, and the system adopted there, is the chief part.
There are numerous objections to the Gough Street School and the system of which it is the coutre, but the one which condemns it in the eyes of Roman Catholics, and which has hitherto and may still determine us to keep aloof entirely and at whatever cost from any educational connection with the Govern ment, is its gross unfairness. It favours and largely endows the irreligious, or if you prefer it, the non- religious portion of the community. It excludes from its benefits that large section of the community, the Roman Catholic, that abhors and condemns the so called secular system of education, and it offers no corresponding advantages whatever to that section in any other direction. Broadly the whole community may be divided into two camps. In the one those who conscientiously believe that education must be secularists," religious and that unless it is so, it is worse than ignorance. In the other those who are either “. pure and simple, or who are indifferent. On the latter Government showers down its favours, builds schools with the public money, fits them up and furnishes them regardless of expense, provides an expen- sive staff of masters and sends for more the moment any shortcomings are visible.
Educates the children
of the rich and poor alike, all who care to come, whether they are fitting objects of public charity or not, no conditions, only that they must be indifferent to the religious aspect of the question or willing to sacri- fice their scruples for the mess of potage. This is unjust and unfair to the Roman Catholics, who, you know. cannot and will not come to your school. The few who do, defy their Church and their consciences by so doing, and you and I know that many of those who are the most strenuous supporters of the Central School as it is, and who have done most to open and keep it open to Europeans, have done so in the hope and with the object of, as they put it, emancipating the Catholic youth from the control of their priests and the influences of their religion. This is proselytism. This is persecution. This is not the equality of all men in the eyes of Government and of the law.
While it is part of the Government system of education to give special advantages to the one section of the population from which the other section is, ex necessitate rei, excluded, and when this is done as here, with the full knowledge of the Government, that it must be so, Roman Catholics as a body must, if they have any self respect, refuse to recognise the system or accept any aid from the Government short of that full and equal participation in the Government appropriations for education to which they are entitled.
The mischief began when SIR RICHARD MCDONNELL and his supporters forced open the Central *
School to Europeans in opposition to MR. STEWART and in defiance of the original scheme of Government education. The Central School was originally solely for Chinese, and for their education in English. The Central School and the Village Schools were intended originally for the elementary education of the poorer Chinese who could not afford to pay for an education. The condemnation of the Central School and of the system is that there are in the Colony 14,000 children going to no school, growing up without any training, but that of the streets, and that the money that ought to have been expended on poor schools and industrial schools for them has been wasted in attempting to teach English and English science to the children of wealthy Chinese who can afford to pay for their education. And what has it all lead to ? A conspicuous failure, for not fifty out of the five hundred "can be said to speak English" after all the money that has been expended.
We, Roman Catholics, demand equality of treatment with that of other section of the community which attaches no special importance to the religious side of education. We want that far more than we want money grants. We have done well without Government money. We can go on as we have done, but the education question will never be settled until full justice is done us, full equality conceded us.
Make the Central School what it was originally intended to be, a purely Chinese school. Make it. so far as it is a free sclinal or a poor school, truly such and reduce the standard of education to what is suitable for poor Chinese. If a higher grade of instruction is to be given, let the Chinese who need it pay for it. Spend the money saved in the Central School in increasing the number of Village Schools, and in opening industrial schools. There is one argument alone that ought to shut the Central School against all European children of Christian parents, the frightful immorality in language and manners of Chinese children. From the association the Chinese may possibly learn English, but the European will certainly learn a great deal he would be far better without.
The Government system of Education is faulty, because
1. It neglects the elementary and industrial education of the 14,000 poor children in the Colony, who need education and who can have none unless Government gives it, and tries to give a superficial and showy superior education to the children of those who can, as a rule, afford to pay for their children's schooling.
★
It sought
be
as to like ther
Mall, Gul S
Mude Wohoor Bent Ser
Che Central School & Plc punto
6
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.