 |
Hence, on the ground that the higher education of the young is necessary for the securing of their after social efficiency, on the ground that it is necessary for the economic and social security of the community, on the ground that aid in higher education is a help towards doing without help and that its provision in many cases cannot be fully met by the voluntary contribution of the individual, we may urge the need for the State's undertaking its adequate and efficient provision.
Further, we must remember that the State must take a "longer" view of the problem of education than is possible for the individual. At best the latter looks but one generation ahead. He is content to secure the education and the future welfare of his children. In the life of the State this is not sufficient. She must look to the needs of the remote future as well as of the immediate present, and hence her educational outlook must be wider and go farther than that of any mere private individual. Lastly, if we understand the true nature and function of the State, we need have no fear that the State should control the education of all the people. What we have to fear on the one side is the bureaucratic control of education, and on the other its control and direction by one class in the interests of itself. The State exists for—the reason of its very being is to secure—the welfare of the individual, and the State approaches its perfection when its organisation is fitted to secure and ensure the widest scope for the full and free development of each individual.
The evil of bureaucracy can be removed only by our representative bodies becoming more effective voices of the social and moral will of the community, just as the evil of class control can only be effectually abolished by the rise and spread of the true democratic spirit, ever seeking that the agencies of the State shall be directed towards the removing of the obstacles which hinder the full realisation of the life of each of its members.
FOOTNOTES:
[9] Cf. Graham Balfour, Educational System of Great Britain, p. 27, 2nd ed.
[10] Brass-workers of Berlin and Birmingham (King).
[11] "It must not be forgotten that the instruction of the common schools (Volksschule), closing with the pupil's fourteenth year, ends too soon, that the period most susceptible to aid, most in need of education, the years from fifteen to twenty ... are now not only allowed to lie perfectly fallow, but to lose and waste what has been so laboriously acquired during the preceding period at school." In the rural parts of Northern Germany efforts are being made to remedy this evil by the institution of schools providing half-year winter courses. Cf. Professor Paulsen's The German Universities and University Study, p. 117 (English translation).
[12] Cf. Education and Empire.
CHAPTER V
THE RELATION OF THE STATE TO EDUCATION—THE COST OF EDUCATION
But while we may hold that it is the duty of the State to see that the means for the education of the children of the nation is both adequate in extent and efficient in quality, and so organised that it affords opportunities for each to secure the education which is needed to equip him for his after-work in life, it by no means follows as a logical consequence that the whole cost of this provision should be borne by the community in its corporate capacity and that the individual parent should, if he so chooses, be relieved from any direct payment for the education of his children. To assert this would be implicitly to affirm that the education of a man's children is no part of his duty—that it is an obligation which does not fall upon him as an individual, but only as a member of a community, and that so long as he pays willingly the proportion of the cost of education assigned to him by taxes and rates, he has fulfilled his obligation. Education, on such a view, becomes a matter of national concern in which as a private individual the parent has no direct interest. This position carried out to its logical conclusion would imply that the child and his future belong wholly to the State, and it would also involve the establishment of a communal system of education such as is set forth in the Republic of Plato. Further, such a position logically leads to the contention that the other necessities of life requisite for securing the social efficiency of the future members of the State should also be provided by the State in its corporate capacity acting as the guardian of the young, and from this we are but a short way from the position that it belongs to the community to superintend the propagation of the species, and to regulate the marriages of its individual members. This is State socialism in its most extreme form, and is contrary to the spirit of a true liberalism, a true democracy, and a true Christianity.
The opposing position—the position of liberalism untainted by socialism—is that it is the duty of the State to see that as far as possible the social inequalities which arise through the individualistic organisation of society are removed or remedied, and that equality of opportunity is secured to each to make the best of his own individual life. In the educational sphere this implies that any obstacles in the way of a man's educating his children should be removed, if and in so far as these obstacles are irremovable by any private effort of his own, and that the opportunity of obtaining the best possible education should be open to the children of the poor if they are fitted by nature to profit by such an education. It further implies that the means of higher education, provided at the public expense, should not be wasted on the children of any class if by nature they are unfitted to benefit by the means placed at their disposal; i.e., a national system of education must be democratic in the sense that the means of higher education shall be open to all, rich and poor, in order that each individual may be enabled to fit himself for the particular service for which by nature he is best suited. It must see, further, that any obstacles which prevent the full use of these means by particular individuals are, as far as may be possible, removed. A national system of education, on the other hand, must be aristocratic in the sense that it is selective of the best ability. Lastly, it must be restrictive, in order that the means of higher education may be utilised to the best advantage, and not misused on those who are unfitted to benefit therefrom.
Closely connected with the position that it is the duty of the State to see not merely to the adequate and efficient provision of the means of education, but also that the whole cost of the provision should be borne by the State, is the contention that because the State imposes a legal obligation upon the individual parent to provide a certain measure of education for his children, it is also a logical conclusion from this step that education should be free. "The object of public education is the protection of society, and society must pay for its protection, whether it takes the form of a policeman or a pedagogue."[13]
But the provision of the means of elementary education, and the imposing of a legal obligation upon each individual parent to utilise the means provided, is not merely or solely for the protection of society. Education confers not only a social benefit upon the community, but a particular benefit upon the individual. Its provision falls not within the merely negative benefits conferred by the State by its protection of the majority against the ignorance and wickedness of the minority, but it belongs to the positive benefits conferred by Government upon its individual members. The State in part undertakes the provision of the means of education, as Mill pointed out, in order to protect the majority against the evil consequences likely to result from the ignorance and want of education of the minority. As this provision confers a common benefit on all, so far, but only in so far, as education is protective, can its cost be laid upon the shoulders of the general taxpayer.
But the provision by the State of the means of education is not merely undertaken for the protection of any given society against the ignorance and the lawlessness of its own individual members, it is also undertaken in order to secure the increased efficiency of the nation as an economic and military unit in antagonism, more or less, with similar units. At the present day this is one main motive at work in the demand made for the better and more intensive training of the industrial classes. To secure the industrial and military efficiency of the nation is explicitly set forth as the main aim of the German organisation of the means of education. We may deplore this tendency of our times. We may condemn the rise of the intensely national spirit of the modern world, and regret that the ideal of universal peace and universal harmony between the nations of the earth seems to fade for ever and for ever as we move. But we have to look the facts in the face, and to realise that the educational system of a nation must endeavour to secure the industrial and military efficiency of its future members as a means of security and protection against other competing nations and as one of the essential conditions for the self-preservation of the particular State in that war of nation against nation which Hobbes so eloquently describes: "For the nature of war, consists not in actual fighting; but in the known disposition thereto, during all the time there is no assurance to the contrary."[14]
In so far, then, as the provision of education by the State is undertaken with this end in view, it may be maintained that part, at least, of the cost of its provision should be borne by the general taxpayer in return for the greater national and economic security which he enjoys through the greater efficiency of the nation as an economic and military unit.
But the spread and the higher efficiency of education confers in addition both a local and an individual benefit. It confers a local benefit, in so far as by its means advantages accrue to any particular district. It confers an individual benefit, in so far as through the means of education placed at his disposal the individual is enabled to attain to a higher degree of social efficiency than would otherwise have been possible.
Further, if we look at this question not from the point of view of benefit received, but from that of the obligation imposed, we reach a similar result. It is an obligation upon the State to see that the means of education and their due co-ordination and organisation are of such a nature both in extent and in quality as to furnish a complete system of means for the training up of the youth of the country to perform efficiently all the services required by such a complex community as the modern State. This duty devolves upon the State chiefly for the reason set forth by Adam Smith in his discussion of the functions of government. It is the duty of the sovereign, he declares, to erect and maintain certain "public institutions which it can never be for the interest of any individual to erect and maintain, because the profit could never repay the expense to the individual, or small number of individuals, though it may frequently do much more than repay it to a great society."[15]
It becomes further an obligation placed upon the local authority to aid the central authority of the State in the establishment and distribution of the means of education. The local authority by its more intimate knowledge of local circumstances is the most competent to judge of the nature of the education suited to serve its own particular needs, and is best qualified to undertake the distribution of the means.
But the obligation to take advantage of the means for the future benefit of his children is a moral obligation placed upon the shoulders of the individual parent. It becomes a legal obligation only when, and in so far as, the moral obligation is not realised by a certain number of the community. Certainly one reason for the making of the education of a man's children a legal obligation is the protection of society against the ignorance and wickedness of the minority, but the other and principal aim is to endeavour to secure that what at first was imposed as a merely external or legal obligation may pass into a moral and inherent obligation, so that the individual from being governed by outward restraint may in time be governed by an inward and self-imposed ideal.
It is no doubt difficult in any particular case to determine exactly what precise part of the cost should be allocated to each of the three benefiting parties, but in any national organisation of the means of education this threefold distribution of cost should somehow or other be undertaken.
From this it follows, that while it may legitimately be laid down that upon the State must fall the obligation of securing the adequate provision and the due distribution of the means of education, yet the further duty of the State in this respect is limited to the removing of obstacles which stand in the way of the fulfilment of the parent's obligation to educate his children, and to the securing to each child equality of opportunity to obtain an education in kind and quality which will serve to fit him hereafter to perform his special duty to society.
Although since 1891 elementary education has been practically free in this country and the whole cost of its provision is now undertaken at the public expense, yet except from the socialistic position that the provision of education is a communal and not a personal and moral obligation, this public provision of the funds for elementary education can be upheld from the individualistic point of view only on two grounds. In the first place, it might be maintained that the protective benefit derived from the imparting of the elements of education is so great to all that its cost may legitimately be laid upon the community in its corporate capacity. It is on this ground of education being beneficial to the whole society that Adam Smith declares that the expense of the institutions for education may, without injustice, be defrayed by the general contributions of the whole society. But at the same time Adam Smith recognises that education provides an immediate and personal benefit, and that the expense might with equal propriety be laid upon the shoulders of those benefited.
In the second place, it may be maintained that the imposition of school fees created such a hindrance in a large number of cases to the fulfilment of the moral obligation that it was expedient on the part of the State to remove this obstacle by freeing education as a whole. In support of this, it might be further urged that the difficulty of discriminating between the marginal cases in which the imposition of school fees really proved a hindrance and those in which it did not is great, and that the partial relief of payment of school fees laid the stigma of pauperism upon many who from unpreventable causes were unable to meet the direct cost of the education of their children.
But, except on the grounds that either the protective benefit to society is so great and so important, or that the charging of any part of the cost directly to the parent imposes a hindrance in a large number of cases, there is no justification for the contention that because the State compels the individual to educate his children, therefore the State should fully provide the means.
If this be so, then the further contention that the means of education from the elementary to the university stage should be provided at the public expense, and that no part of the cost should be laid directly upon the individual parent's shoulders, must also be judged to be erroneous.
The first duty of the State, in the matter of the provision of higher education, is limited to seeing that the provision of the means of higher education is adequate to the demand made for it; further, it may endeavour to encourage and to stimulate this demand in various ways. The means being provided, the second duty of the State is to endeavour to secure that any hindrance which might reasonably prevent the use of these means by those fitted to benefit therefrom should be removed. But the only justification for the interference of the State is that the compulsion exacted in the matter of taxes or otherwise is of small moment compared with the capacity for freedom and intellectual development set free in the individuals benefited. In other words, the cost involved by the removal of the hindrance must be reckoned as small compared with the ultimate good to the community as manifested in the higher development—in the higher welfare of its individual members.
But the practical realisation of the ideal need not involve that education should be free from the lowest to the topmost rung of the so-called educational ladder. It is indeed questionable whether the ladder simile has not been a potent instrument in giving a wrong direction to our ideals of the essential nature of what an educational organisation should aim at. Education should indeed provide a system of advancing means, but the system of means may lead to many and various aims instead of one. However that may be, what we wish to insist upon is that the State's duty in this matter can be fulfilled not by freeing education as a whole, but by establishing a system of bursaries or allowances, enabling each individual who otherwise would be hindered from using the means to take advantage of the higher education provided.
In the awarding of aid of this nature, the two tests of ability to profit from the education and of need of material means must both be employed. If the former test only is applied, then the result is that in many cases the advantage is secured by those best able to pay for higher education. If the objection be made that the granting of aid on mere need shown is to place the stigma of pauperism upon the recipient, then the only answer is that in so thinking the individual misconceives the real nature of the aid, fails to understand that it is help towards doing without help—aid to enable the individual to reach a higher and fuller development of his powers, both for his own future welfare and for the betterment of society.
FOOTNOTES:
[13] National Education and National Life, ibid. p. 101.
[14] Hobbes, Leviathan, p. 1. chap. xiii.
[15] Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, ed. J. Shield Nicholson (Nelsons).
CHAPTER VI
THE RELATION OF THE STATE TO EDUCATION—MEDICAL EXAMINATION AND INSPECTION OF SCHOOL CHILDREN
In considering the question of the relation of the State to education, we have adopted the position that it is the duty of the State to see to the adequate provision of the means of education, to their due distribution and to their proper organisation. At the same time we found that the obligation of the State in this respect did not necessarily involve that the whole cost of this provision should be borne at the public expense, and that no part of the burden should be placed on the shoulders of the individual parents. As regards the provision of elementary education, we indeed found that the whole burden might be legitimately laid upon the general taxpayer, upon the grounds either that the protective benefit of elementary education to the community was great, or that the hindrance opposed by the imposition of school fees to the fulfilment of a man's moral obligation to provide for the education of his children was so general that a case might be made out for freeing elementary education as a whole. But except from the position that the provision of education was a communal and not a personal obligation, we found no grounds for the contention that education throughout its various stages should be a charge upon the community as a whole.
But the provision of the means of education may involve much more than the mere provision of adequately equipped school buildings and of fully trained teachers, and we have now to inquire what other provision is necessary in order to secure the after social efficiency of the children of the nation, and what part of this provision rightly may be included within the scope of the duties of the State.
Is the medical inspection of children attending Public Elementary Schools one of these duties, and, if so, what action on the part of the State does this involve?
The importance of the thorough and systematic medical examination of children attending school as a necessary measure to secure their after physical and economic efficiency as well as for their intellectual development and welfare during the school period has been recognised by many Continental countries. To take but one or two illustrative examples, we may note that in Brussels every place of public instruction is visited at least once in every ten weeks by one of the sixteen doctors appointed for this purpose. The school doctor amongst other duties has to report on the state of the various classrooms, their heating, lighting and ventilation, and also upon the condition in which he has found the playgrounds, lavatories and cloakrooms attached to the school. Cases of illness involving temporary absence from school are reported to him as well as the cases involving prolonged absence from school.
Children are medically examined upon admission to school, and a record is made of their age, height, weight, chest measurement, etc. "Any natural or accidental infirmity is chronicled, state of eyes and teeth, dental operations performed at school, etc. This examination is repeated annually, so as to keep a record of each child's physical development." Great attention, moreover, is paid to the cleanliness of the children attending school, and the children are examined daily by the teacher upon their entrance to school.[16]
In most of the large towns of Germany a system of periodical medical examination and inspection of children attending school has also been established. E.g., in 1901 Berlin appointed ten doctors for this purpose, with the following amongst other duties:—
1. To examine children on their first admission as to their fitness to attend school.
2. To examine children with the co-operation of a specialist for the presence of defect in the particular sense organs (sight, hearing).
3. To examine children who are supposed to be defective and who may require special treatment.
4. To examine periodically the school buildings and arrangements and to report on any hygienic defects.[17]
In England, although there is no specific provision for the incurring of the expense of conducting the medical inspection of children attending the Public Elementary Schools, it is generally held that the expense may be legitimately included in the general powers assigned to educational authorities under the Act of 1870; and, especially since 1892, in several areas, a definite system of medical inspection has been established, and in many others there is a likelihood that some system of medical inspection will be organised in the immediate future. According to the Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on the Medical Inspection and Feeding of School Children, published in November 1905, out of 328 local education authorities, 48 had established a more or less definitely organised system of medical examination, whilst in eighteen other districts teachers and sanitary officers had undertaken organised work for the amelioration of the physical condition of children attending Public Elementary Schools. As a rule, this inspection is limited "to the examination of the children and to the discovering of defects of eyesight, hearing, or physical development." When the existence of the defect is discovered, the parent is notified, but as a general rule the public authority does not include within its duties the treatment of the ailments and defects or the provision of remedial instruments when required.
Further, in no case has there been carried out a thorough anthropometric record, such as that in vogue in the schools of Brussels, of the condition of the physical nature of the child upon admission to school and his subsequent physical development.
In Scotland we find no general or adequate system of medical inspection carried out by the local school authorities. The Report of the Royal Commission on Physical Training (Scotland), issued in March 1903, declares, however, that such a system is urgently needed, mainly for remedial purposes. By this means defects in the organs of sight or hearing, in mental development, in physical weakness, or in state of nutrition, such as demand special treatment in connection with school work, might be detected, and by simple means removed or mitigated. But although in the Education (Scotland) Bill of 1905 provision was made for the institution of medical inspection at the public expense, yet through the failure of the Bill to pass nothing of a systematic nature has been done to organise the medical inspection of Elementary School children in any district in Scotland.
From this brief account of what either has been already done or is proposed to be done, it is apparent that there is a gradual awakening of the nation to the fact that the care of the physical nature of the child during the school period is of fundamental importance from the point of view of the future welfare and efficiency of the nation. In the endeavour to reach this aim it is necessary that the examination of the child should be undertaken in a systematic manner, and that means should be adopted for the remedy of any defects. In particular every child on admission to school should be examined in order to discover whether there is any defect present in the special organs of sense,[18] and periodical examinations should be made in order to discover whether the school work is tending to produce any injury to the various senses. For it is a well-known fact that often cases of seeming stupidity and seeming carelessness are not due either to the want of intelligence on the one hand or of inattention on the other, on the part of the child, but may be traced to slight defects of eyesight and of hearing. In order that they may discover these defects teachers ought to be trained in the observation of the main symptoms which imply defects, and should be practised in the art of applying the simpler and more obvious remedies for eye and ear defects. More difficult cases should be referred to the medical officer of the school. Again, it ought to be a matter of inquiry at the beginning of the school period as to whether the child possesses any physical defect which would make it difficult for him to undertake the full work of the school. In some cases it would be found that the child was altogether unable to undertake this work, and measures should be taken to remedy the defect before the child enters upon the school course. Lastly, it is now realised that more attention must be paid to the differences that exist between individual children, and that in the case of children with a low degree of intelligence it is much better both for themselves and for the school generally to institute special classes or special schools for their education.
But in order that this medical examination may be thoroughly and systematically carried out, special legislative authority must be given to education authorities to incur expense under this head, and regulations must be laid down by the central authority for the carrying out of this inspection so as to secure something like a uniform system of examination throughout the country. For this purpose there should be attached to each school area a medical officer, or officers, charged with the sole duty of attending to the hygienic conditions under which the school work is carried on, and of periodically examining the children attending the schools of his district.
That the duty of carrying out the medical examination of school children falls upon the State and should be met out of public funds may be justified on various grounds. In the first place, it is necessary as a measure of protection, in order to prevent the child's growing up imperfectly, and thus becoming in adult life a less efficient member of society. School work often accentuates certain troubles, and these if neglected tend gradually to render the individual more and more unfitted to undertake some special occupation in after-life. Any eye specialist could furnish evidence of numerous cases in which the eyes have been ruined through some slight defect becoming intensified through misuse.
In the second place, the examination for physical and mental defect cannot in a large number of cases be left to the self-interest and judgment of the individual parent, and unless undertaken by the public authority will not be undertaken at all.
In the third place, if it is left to merely voluntary agencies, it is imperfectly done, and in many cases recourse is had to the various voluntary agencies when the trouble has become acute, and in some cases impossible of remedy.
On these three grounds—of its necessity for the future public welfare, that the self-interest of the parent often proves but a feeble motive power, and that the voluntary agencies placed at the disposal of the poor are unable systematically to undertake this work—we may maintain that the duty may legitimately be laid upon the State.
But the further question as to how far it becomes the duty of the State to undertake the provision of remedial measures either in the way of supplying medical aid or in the provision in necessitous cases of remedial measures, as e.g. spectacles in the case of defective eyesight, is a question of much greater difficulty.
At present any positive help of this nature is the exception rather than the rule, and is undertaken by agencies worked on the voluntary principle, and the remedial measures adopted are limited to the treatment of certain minor ailments. E.g., in Liverpool, Birmingham, and other places, Queen's nurses regularly visit the schools, and undertake either in school or at the homes of the children simple curative treatment of minor surgical cases. But while it may be held that the duty of the State is limited to the medical examination of school children in order to discover the presence of physical and mental defects, and that this being done, any further responsibility, whether in the way either of providing or procuring remedies, falls upon the individual parent, yet we have sufficient evidence to show that, in many cases, either through the poverty or the apathy and indifference of the parents, no steps are taken in the way of providing the necessary remedies, and as a consequence we have growing up in our midst children who in after-life will, through the lack of simple curative treatment undertaken at the proper time, become more or less socially inefficient.
Moreover, it is to be noted that in this matter the State has already recognised its public obligation to provide remedial aid in its provision for the education and lodging of the blind, the deaf and the dumb, and in the measures taken within recent years for the special education of the defective and the epileptic. The provision for these purposes may indeed be justified on the grounds that the expense of the education of children of the industrial classes so afflicted is beyond the powers of any one individual, or group of individuals, to supply, and that unless undertaken by the State it would not be efficiently made, with the consequence of throwing the maintenance hereafter of these particular classes upon the community: on the ground, therefore, of the future protective benefit to society, such expense may be legitimately laid upon the community as a whole. Further, in these cases, the danger of the weakening of the sense of parental responsibility is not an extreme danger to the Commonwealth, since the aid is definitely limited to a restricted number of cases, and since the moral obligation imposed upon the individual to provide for the education of his children could in many cases not be fulfilled without the by far greater portion of the expense being provided by means of public or voluntary aid.
In like manner, the expense of the special education of the morally defective in Industrial Schools and in other institutions may be justified on the ground of the present and future protective benefit to society. In these cases parental government has either altogether ceased or become too weak to act as an effective restraining force, and as a consequence the community for its own self-preservation has to undertake the control and education of the actual or incipient youthful criminal. In their Report the Royal Commissioners on Physical Training (Scotland) sadly declare that Industrial and similar institutions certainly give the boys and girls who come under their influence advantages in feeding and physical training which are not open to the children of independent and respectable though poor parents. The contrast between the condition of children as seen in the poorer day schools and children in Industrial institutions, whose parents have altogether failed to do their duty, is both marked and painful.[19]
And yet it might be urged that the protective benefit likely to be derived in the future by the provision of remedial means for the removal of the simpler defects in the case of the children of parents unable without great difficulty to supply these themselves is no less evident than in the more extreme cases. But here the only sound principle of guidance is to ask whether the remedial measures required are reasonably within the power of the parent to provide. If they are not, no community which exercises a wise forethought will suffer children to grow up gradually becoming more and more defective, more and more likely in after-life to be a burden upon its resources. But this question of the provision of remedial aid involves a much larger question, which we shall now discuss.
APPENDIX
As showing the need for the systematic examination of the special sense organs, I append a summary of the results arrived at and the conclusions reached by Dr. Wright Thomson after examination of the eyesight of children attending the Public Elementary Schools under the Glasgow School Board:—
"The teachers tested the visual acuteness of 52,493 children, and found 18,565, or 35 per cent., to be below what is regarded as the normal standard.
"I examined the 18,565 defectives by retinoscopy, and found that 11,209, or 21 per cent. of the whole, had ocular defects.
"The percentage with ocular defects was fairly constant in all the schools, but the percentage with defective vision was very variable—i.e., many children with normal eyes were found to see badly.
"The proportion of these cases was highest in the poor and closely-built districts and in old schools, and was lowest in the better class schools and in those near the outskirts of the city.
"The proportion of such cases in the country schools of Chryston and Cumbernauld was much lower than in any of the city schools; and in Industrial Schools, where the children are fed at school, the proportion was lower than among Board School children of a corresponding social class.
"Defective vision, apart from ocular defect, seems to be due, partly to want of training of the eyes for distant objects, and partly to exhaustion of the eyes, which is easily induced when work is carried on in bad light, or the nutrition of the children defective from bad feeding and unhealthy surroundings.
"Regarding training of the eyes for distant objects, much might be done in the infant department by the total abolition of sewing, which is definitely hurtful to such young eyes, and the substitution of competitive games involving the recognition of small objects at a distance of 20 feet or more.
"Teachers can determine the visual acuteness, but they cannot decide whether or not an ocular defect is present.
"Visual acuteness, especially among poor children, is variable at different times.
"Teachers should have access to sight-testing materials at all times, and should have the opportunity of referring suspected cases for medical opinion.
"An annual testing by the teachers, followed by medical inspection of the children found defective, would soon cause all existing defects to be corrected, and would lead to the detection of those which develop during school life."
An examination of 502 children attending the Church of Scotland Training College School, Glasgow, as regards defects in eyesight and hearing, was made by Drs. Rowan and Fullerton respectively, with the following results:—
"As regards eyesight—
"61.55 per cent. were passed as normal, while of those defective 7.57 were aware of the fact; some few of these had already received treatment, but 30.88 were quite unaware that there was anything wrong, these unfortunates being expected to do the same work as, and hold their own with, their more fortunate classmates.
"As regards hearing— 54.4 per cent. were found normal. 27.6 " " were defective. 18. " " were distinctly defective."
I append the very valuable suggestions and conclusions of Dr. Rowan, who conducted the examination on the eyesight of children:—
"After examining 502 children, which involved the examination of 1004 eyes, one is forced to certain conclusions. These children are taken at random, and in this way they may be considered as a fair sample of their age and class.
"I think one of the first things that force themselves on our notice is the difficulties under which many of those children labour, and of which they, their parents and teachers are quite unaware. The children are considered dull, careless, or lazy, as the case may be: they themselves, poor unfortunates, do not know how to complain, and seem just to struggle along as best they can, though this struggle, without adequate result, must discourage them, and in this indirect way, too, make their future prospects more hopeless.
"Some would be considerably benefited by treatment and operation, or both, while for some little can be done. Some of those who could be benefited are deprived of help by their parents' ignorance or prejudice.
"In the case of those for whom little or nothing can be done, and whose sight is very defective, it seems to me the question ought to be raised as to whether their present mode of education should not be replaced by some other, which would endeavour to develop their abilities in other ways than through their eyesight; in short, they should have special training with the view of fitting them for some form of employment for which they are more fitted than the ordinary occupations of everyday life. This raises a difficult question, and each case would have to be settled on its merits. The difficulty must be faced; otherwise the children will simply drift and become idle and useless, while, if educated, at any rate partly, on the system for the blind, they would become useful members of society.
"I think no one, after studying the result of this examination of what may be by some considered a small number of children, can doubt that a thorough medical examination of all school children should be made when they enter school, and this examination repeated at regular intervals.
"I hold this applies not only to the children of the poor, but to children in all ranks of life, as one constantly, and that, too, in private practice, meets with cases where children are considered dull and lazy, while the real fault lies with the parents, who have not taken the trouble to ascertain the physical fitness or unfitness of their children.
"I am glad to say it is now becoming more common for children to be taken to the family doctor, to a specialist, or to both, to be thoroughly overhauled before starting school-life; and in many cases with most satisfactory results, as their training can be modified or treatment ordered which prevents the development of those pathological conditions which, in many cases, would limit the choice of occupation, or, if these are already present, they can at least be modified or even overcome.
"I wish to emphasise the fact that those thorough medical examinations should be repeated in the case of all children at regular intervals, as in this way alone can a proper physical standard be maintained, and deviations from the normal detected promptly and in many cases cured before the sufferer is aware of their presence.
"How often in examining our adult patients do we find them much surprised when they are told and convinced by actual proof that all their life they have depended on one eye only! This fact, of course, they sometimes accidentally discover for themselves, and come with the statement that the eye has suddenly gone blind. In the majority of these cases the weaker eye is useless, and the possibility of making it of any use is, at their age, practically nil."
FOOTNOTES:
[16] Cf. Special Report on Educational Subjects, vol. ii.
[17] Cf. Report on Elementary Schools of Berlin and Charlottenburg, by G. Andrew, Esq.
[18] Cf. Appendix, pp. 62-65.
[19] Report Royal Commission on Physical Training (Scotland), vol. i. (Neill & Co,. Edinburgh).
CHAPTER VII
THE RELATION OF THE STATE TO EDUCATION—THE FEEDING OF SCHOOL CHILDREN
A much more important and far-reaching question than that of the State provision for the medical examination and inspection of children attending Public Elementary Schools is the question of whether, and to what extent, the State should undertake the provision of school meals for underfed children.
Of the existence of the evil of under and improper feeding of children, especially in many of our large towns, there is no doubt. The numerous voluntary agencies which have been brought into existence to cope with the former are sufficient evidence that the evil exists and that it is of a widespread nature. Again, the high rate of infant mortality amongst the children of the lower classes is largely due to ignorance on the part of parents of the nature and proper preparation of food suitable for children. Further, the social conditions under which many of the poor live in our large towns is a contributing cause of this improper feeding. In many cases there is no adequate provision in the home for the cooking and preparation of food, and in others the absence of the mother at work during the day necessitates the children "fending" for themselves in the providing of their meals. However, in considering this question we must carefully distinguish between three distinct causes operating to produce the condition of underfeeding, and as a consequence resulting in three distinct classes of underfed children. As the causes or groups of causes are different in nature, so the remedies also vary in character. Moreover, in many cases we find all three causes operating, now one and now the other, to produce the chronic underfeeding of the child.
In the first place, the underfeeding of the child may arise through the temporary poverty of the parent due to his temporary illness or temporary unemployment. In normal circumstances, in these cases relief is best afforded by means of the voluntary agencies of society. In abnormal circumstances, such as are caused by a widespread depression of industry, the evil may be met by a special effort on the part of the voluntary agencies or by municipalities or other bodies providing temporary relief-work.
In the second place, the underfeeding of the child may be due to the chronic and permanent poverty of the parent. The wages of the breadwinner even when in full work may be insufficient to afford adequate support for a numerous family. This condition of things is not peculiar to Great Britain, but is a common characteristic in the life of the poor of all civilised nations. This is where the real sting of the problem of underfeeding lies, and the causes at work tending to produce this condition of things are too deep-seated and too widely spread to be removed by any one remedy. Moreover, in endeavouring to cure this disease of the Commonwealth we are ever in danger of perpetuating and intensifying the causes at work tending to produce the evil.
In the third place, the underfeeding of the child may arise through the indifference, the selfishness, or the vice of the parents. In such cases the parents could feed their children, but do not. Manifestly in cases of this character there is no obligation placed upon the State and no rightful claim upon any charitable agency to provide food for the children. To give aid simply weakens further the parental sense of responsibility, and leaves a wider margin to be spent on vicious pleasures. But while there is no obligation placed upon the State to provide the necessaries of life for the child, there is need and justification in such cases for the intervention of the State. There is need, for otherwise the child suffers through the criminal neglect of the parents, and the community must interfere for the sake of the future social efficiency of the individual and of the nation. There is justification, for here as in the case of the parents of the morally defective, parental responsibility has either ceased to act or become too weak a motive force to be effective in securing the welfare of the child. As the individual parent neglects his duty, so and to the corresponding degree to which this neglect extends, must the duty be enforced by the State. But in the enforcing of this or of any duty we must be quite sure that the neglect is really due to the weakened sense of responsibility of the parent, that it is a condition of things which he could remove if he had the moral will to do so, and that the neglect is not due to causes beyond the power of the parent to remove.
Cases in which there is culpable neglect of the child due not to poverty, but to the fact that the money which should go to the proper nutrition of the child is squandered in drink, or on other enervating pleasures, are therefore cases in which recourse must be had to measures which enforce upon the parent the obligation to feed and clothe his children. The really difficult question is as to the best means of enforcing this obligation. Manifestly to punish by fine or imprisonment does little in many cases to alleviate the sufferings of the children. The punishment falls upon them as well as upon the parent, and where the latter is dead to, or careless of, the public opinion of his fellows, it fails to initiate that reform of conduct which ought to be the aim of all punishment. If indeed by imposition of fine, or by imprisonment, the individual realises his neglect of duty, repents, and as a consequence reforms, then good and well, but as a rule the neglect of the child is in such cases a moral disease of long standing and not easily cured, and so we find often that neither punishment by fine nor imprisonment, even when repeated several times, is effective in making the parent realise his responsibility and reform his conduct. All the while the child goes on suffering. He is no better fed during the period of fine or imprisonment, and the wrath of the parent is often visited upon his unoffending head.
The second method of cure proposed is to feed the children at the public expense and to recover the cost by process of law. But the practical difficulties in carrying out this plan are similar in kind to those formerly experienced in the recovery of unpaid school fees. The cost of recovering is often greater than the expense involved, and as a consequence local authorities are not inclined to prosecute. Further, there is the difficulty of discriminating between underfeeding due to wilful and culpable neglect and underfeeding due to the actual chronic poverty of the parent. If this plan is to be effective, some simpler method of recovery of cost than that which now prevails must be adopted. E.g., it might be enacted that the sum decreed for should be deducted from the weekly wages of the parent by his employer. Here again many difficulties would present themselves in the carrying out of this plan. In the case of certain employments this could not be done. In other cases, employers would be unwilling to undertake the invidious task. Moreover, the cost of collection might equal or be greater than the cost incurred. Above all, such a method would do little to alleviate the sufferings and better the nutrition of the child. In most cases the school provides but one meal a day. Experience has shown that in the case of children of the dissolute the free meal at the school means less food at home. Were the cost deducted from the weekly wages of the parent, the result would be intensified. So great have been the difficulties felt in this matter that with one or two exceptions no foreign country has made the attempt to recover the cost of feeding from the parent. Yet the disease requires a remedy. The evil is too dangerous to the future social welfare of the community to be allowed to go on unchecked and unremedied. Moreover, to endeavour to educate the persistently underfed children of our slums is to do them a twofold injury. By the exercises of the school we use up, in many cases, with little result, the small store of energy lodged in the brain and nervous system of the child, and leave nothing either for the repair of the nervous system or for the growth of his body generally. We prematurely exhaust his nervous system, and by so doing we hinder his bodily growth and development. To make matters worse, we often insist that the child in order to aid his physical development must undergo an exhausting system of physical exercises when what is most wanted for this purpose is good and nourishing food and a sufficiency of sleep. At the same time that we are neglecting the nutrition of his body we are spending an increasing yearly sum on the so-called education of his mind. What, then, is the remedy? If fining and imprisonment of the parent only accentuate the sufferings of the child, if they fail to make the parent realise his responsibility and reform his conduct, if the provision of a free meal at school means less food at home, then there is only one thorough-going remedy for the evil, and that is to take the child away from the parent, to educate and feed him at the public expense, and to recover the cost as far as possible from the parent. In Norway this drastic method has been adopted. Under a law passed on the 6th January 1896, the authorities are empowered "to place neglected children in suitable homes or families at the cost of the municipality, the parent, however, being liable, if called upon, to defray the cost."[20]
The reasons for taking this extreme step are obvious. By no method of punishing the persistently dissolute and neglectful parent can you be assured of securing the proper nutrition and welfare of the child. Parental affection in these cases is dead, and parental responsibility for the present and future welfare of the child has ceased to act as a motive force. As a consequence, the child grows up to be, at best, socially inefficient, and liable in later life to be a burden upon the community. In many cases, the evil and sordid influences of his home and social environment soon check any springs of good in his nature, and more than likely he becomes in later life not merely a socially inefficient member of the community but an active socially destructive agent. Hence, on the ground of the future protective benefit to society, on the ground of securing the future social efficiency of the individual, on the ground that it is only by some such system we can ever hope to raise the moral efficiency of the rising generation of the slums, the method above advocated is worthy of consideration.
Against the adoption of such a method of treatment of the dissolute parent many objections may be urged, and it would be foolish to minimise the dangers which might follow its systematic and thorough carrying into practice. But the possible injury to the community through the weakening of the sense of parental responsibility seems to me small in comparison with the future good likely to result from the increased physical, economic, and ethical efficiency of the next generation which might reasonably be expected to follow from the rigorous carrying out of such a plan for a time. The fear lest a larger and larger number of parents might endeavour to rid themselves of the direct care of their children, if this plan were adopted, need not deter us. If this plan were carried into practice, then some extension of the scope of the Industrial Acts would be rendered necessary, and some such extension seems to have been in the minds of the Select Committee in their Report on the Education (Provision of Meals) Bill, 1906, in considering their recommendations.[21]
But the importance of the two classes of cases already considered sinks into comparative insignificance compared with the third class of cases. Temporary underfeeding caused by temporary poverty can be met in many ways without to any appreciable degree lessening the sense of the moral obligation of the parent to provide the personal necessities of food and clothing for his children. In the case, again, of the persistently dissolute and neglectful parent, moral considerations have ceased to operate, and so the individual by some method or other must be forced to perform whatever part of the obligation can be exacted from him.
But in the third class of cases parental responsibility may be an active and willing force, yet the means available may be so limited in extent that the child is in the chronic condition of being underfed. No one who carefully considers the information recently supplied by the Board of Education as to the methods of feeding the children attending Public Elementary Schools in the great Continental cities and in America can arrive at any other conclusion than that here we are in the presence of an evil not local but general, and apparently incidental to the organisation of the modern industrial State. For whether by voluntary agencies, by municipal grants, or by State aid, every great Continental city has found it necessary to organise and institute some system of feeding school children.
The only inference to be drawn from such a condition of things is that in a large number of cases the normal wages of the labourer are insufficient to maintain himself and his family in anything like a decent standard of comfort. How large a proportion of the population of our great cities is in this condition it is difficult exactly to estimate, but there is no doubt that a very considerable number of cases of the chronic underfeeding of school children may be traced to the insufficiency of the home income to support the family. The moral obligation to provide the personal necessities of food and clothing for his children is active, but the means for the realisation of the obligation cannot be provided in many cases the endeavour fully to meet the needs of the child results in the lessened efficiency of the breadwinner of the family.
The real causes at work tending to keep the wages of the unskilled labourer ever hovering round a mere subsistence rate must be removed, if anything like a permanent cure of this social evil is to be effected. We must endeavour on the one hand to lessen the supply of unskilled labour. By so doing the reward of such labour will tend to be increased materially. On the other hand, we must during the next decade or two endeavour by every means in our power to ensure that a larger and larger number of the children of the very poor shall in the next generation pass into the ranks of skilled labour.
But in the meantime something must be done. The children are there; they still suffer; and their wrongs cry aloud for redress. It is certainly true that any aid given to the child will tend meanwhile to keep the wages at bare subsistence rates. It is also true that the distribution of relief only tends to make the poor comfortable in their poverty, instead of helping them to rise out of it. All this and much more might be urged against the demand to institute and organise the systematic public feeding of school children. But these evils are evils which fall upon the present adult population. Education has, however, to do with the future, with the next generation and not with this. Its aim is to secure that as large a number as possible of the children of the present generation will grow up to be economically and ethically efficient members of the community. To secure this end the problem of underfeeding is only one of the problems that must be solved. If we adopt some systematic plan for securing the full nutrition of the children of the present, this must go hand in hand with other remedies. During the stage of transition we shall have to take into account that for a time the wages of the poorest class of labourer will tend to remain at their present low rate; we shall have to face the danger that by giving such aid we may in some cases still further weaken the sense of moral obligation of the parents of the present generation. If, on the other hand, we do nothing, or if we look to the present voluntary agencies to go on doing what they can to remedy the evil, what then? Will the evil be lessened in the next generation? Assuredly not, if the experience of the present and of the past are safe guides as to what we may expect in the future.
Hence we have no hesitation in urging that the feeding of children attending the Public Elementary Schools should be organised on lines similar to the recommendations laid down in the Special Report from the Special Committee on Education (Provision of Meals) Bill, 1906.[22]
But if we carry out these recommendations and do nothing else, then it may be that we shall partially remedy the evil in the next generation, but we shall to a large extent perpetuate the present condition of things. Side by side with this, we must institute and set other agencies at work. By the institution of Free Kindergarten Schools in the poorer districts of our large towns, by postponing the beginning of the formal education of the child to a later age, by a scientific course of physical education, by better trade and technical schools, and if need be by the compulsory attendance of children at evening continuation schools, we must bend our every effort to secure that the ranks of the casual, the unskilled, and the unemployable shall be lessened, and the ranks of the skilled and intelligent worker increased.
As the freeing of elementary education can be justified on the ground that the education of the child is necessary for the future protection of the State, so on similar grounds it may be urged that the nutrition of the child is also necessary. Without this our merely educational agencies can never adequately secure the social efficiency of the coming generation. At the same time, unless in the future the need for free education and free food becomes less and less, and unless by the means sketched above we rear up a generation economically and morally independent, then truly we have not discovered the method by which man can be raised to independence and rationality.
APPENDIX
Recommendations of the Select Committee on Education (Provision of Meals) Bill, 1906.
"The evidence, verbal and documentary, placed before the Committee has led them to arrive at the following general conclusions:—
"1. That it is expedient that the Local Education Authority should be empowered to organise and direct the provision of a midday meal for children attending Public Elementary Schools, and that statutory powers should be given to Local Authorities to establish Committees to deal with school canteens.
"2. That such Committees should be composed of representatives of the Local Education Authority, representatives of the Voluntary Subscribers, and where thought desirable a representative of the Board of Guardians, and of the local branch of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, where such exists. That the Head Teacher, the School Attendance Officer, and the Relieving Officer should work in association with such Committee.
"3. That power should be given for the Local Education Authorities, when they deem it desirable, to raise loans and spend money on the provision of suitable accommodation and officials, and for the preparation, cooking, and serving of meals to the children attending Public Elementary Schools.
"4. That only in extreme and exceptional cases, where it can be shown that neither the parents' resources nor Local Voluntary Funds are sufficient to cover the cost, and after the consent of the Board of Education as to the necessity for such expenditure has been obtained, a Local Authority may have recourse to the rates for the provision of the cost of the actual food; the local rate for this purpose to in no case exceed 1/2d. in the L.
"5. That the Local Education Authority should, as far as possible, associate with itself, and encourage the continuance of, voluntary agencies in connection with the work of feeding of children.
"6. That whatever steps may be necessary, by way of extension of the Industrial Schools and the Prevention of Cruelty to Children Acts or otherwise, should be taken to secure that parents able to do so and neglecting to make proper provision for the feeding of their children shall be proceeded against for the recovery of the cost; and that the Guardians, or where available the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, and not the Local Education Authority, be empowered to prosecute in any cases coming under the law in respect to the neglect of parents to make proper provision for the feeding of their children.
"7. That payment for meals, prior to the meal, whenever possible, should be insisted upon from the parents.
"8. That it is undesirable that meals should be served in rooms habitually used for teaching purposes, and that the Regulations of the Board of Education should carry this recommendation into effect.
"9. That whilst strong testimony has been placed before the Committee to the effect that the teachers have given and are giving admirable service in the way of supervising the provision of meals to the children, it is the opinion of the Committee that it ought not to be made part of the conditions attaching to the appointment of any teacher that he (or she) shall or shall not take part in dispensing meals provided for the children, and that the Board of Education should carry this recommendation into effect."
FOOTNOTES:
[20] Cf. Underfed Children in Continental and American Cities (presented to Parliament, April 1906).
[21] Cf. Report on Education (Provision of Meals) Bill, especially Recommendation 6, Appendix, p. 75.
[22] Cf. Appendix, p. 75.
CHAPTER VIII
THE ORGANISATION OF THE MEANS OF EDUCATION
Throughout we have assumed that it is the duty of the State to see to the adequate provision, to the due distribution, and to the proper co-ordination of all the agencies of education, and we have taken up this position mainly on the ground that neither the adequate provision nor the proper co-ordination of the means of education can be safely left to the self-interest of the individual or any group of individuals. If left to be accomplished by purely voluntary agencies, both the provision and the co-ordination will remain imperfect, and as a nation we can no longer neglect the systematic organisation and grading of the means of education.
But a misapprehension must first be removed. In declaring that all the agencies of formal education should be under control of the State, it is not to be inferred that this control should be bureaucratic. In many minds State control is synonymous with government by inspectors and other officials of the central authority. But bureaucratic control in a nation whose government is founded on a representative basis is a disease rather than a normal condition of such government. In a country where the sovereign power is vested in an individual or in a limited number of individuals, bureaucratic control is and must be an essential feature of its government. On the other hand, where the government is founded upon the representative principle, the appearance of bureaucracy is an indication of some imperfection in the organisation of the State itself. The introduction of the representative principle may have been too premature or its extension too rapid, and as a consequence the government of the people by themselves is ineffective through the general want of an enlightened self-interest amongst the majority of the nation. In such a condition of affairs, if progress is to be made, it can only be accomplished effectively through an enlightened minority forcing its will upon the unenlightened and ignorant majority, and as a result we may have the creation of an army of official inspectors whose chief duty becomes to secure that the will of the central authority is realised. In such a condition of things the tendency ever is for more and more power to fall into the hands of the permanent officials.
But this condition of things may arise in a government founded upon the representative principle in another way. The organs through which the will of the people makes itself known may be imperfect, so that as a consequence it fails to find adequate expression, or its expression is felt only at infrequent intervals. If, for example, the central authority is so overburdened with work that little or insufficient attention is given to many matters of supreme importance for the welfare of the nation, then it follows that more and more power will pass into the hands of its executive and advisory officers. This condition of things will be further intensified if the governing bodies charged with the local control of national affairs are too weak or too unenlightened to make their voice effective. Now, the tendency to the bureaucratic control of the educational affairs of our own country may be traced to all three causes. The want of an enlightened self-interest in the matter of education amongst a large number of the people, the ineffectiveness of Parliament to deal thoroughly with purely educational questions, and the weakness in many cases of the local governing bodies have all contributed to the gradual creation of the bureaucratic control of education in Great Britain. But this form of control is not entirely evil, and in certain cases it may be a necessary stage in the development of a democracy passing from unenlightenment to enlightenment. The remedies for this imperfection, this disease of representative government in the matter of educational control, are (1) the spread of a more enlightened self-interest as to the value of education as a means of securing the social efficiency of the nation and of the individual, (2) the effective control of education by the central authority, and (3) the strengthening of the local authorities by devolving upon them more and more important educational duties. By this means the control of education by the State will become more and more the control of the people by themselves and for themselves, and the chief function of officials and inspectors will then be to advise central and local authorities how best to realise the educational aims desired by the common will of the people.
Let us now consider the main principles which should guide the State in her organisation of the means of education.
In the first place, and upon this all are agreed, the control of all grades of education, primary, secondary, and technical, should be entrusted to one body in each area or district. For there can be no co-ordination established between the work of the various school agencies, and there can be no differentiation of the functions to be undertaken by the various types of school, until there has been established unity of control.
In England, by the Act of 1902, a great step was taken towards the unification of all the agencies of education. According to its provisions, the School Board system was abolished. "Every County Council and County Borough Council, and the Borough Councils of every non-county borough with a population of over 10,000, and the District Council of every urban district with a population over 20,000, became the local education authority for elementary education, while the County Council and the County Borough Council became the authorities for higher education, with the supplementary aid of the Councils of all non-county boroughs and urban districts." By this means the unification of educational control has been realised, and already in many districts of England much has been done to further the means of higher education and to co-ordinate this stage with the preceding primary stage.
In Scotland the question of the extension of the area of educational control and of the unification of the various agencies directing education still awaits solution. Several plans have been put forward to effect these ends.[23]
In the first place, it has been proposed to retain the present parish School Boards for the purpose of elementary education, and to combine two or more School Boards for the purposes of providing secondary and technical education. This plan, however, meets with little favour. It would be difficult to carry into practice, and if realised would imperfectly fulfil the end of co-ordinating the work of the various school agencies. Its only recommendations are its apparent simplicity, and the fact that it could be carried out with the least possible change in the existing conditions.
In the second place, it is proposed to retain the School Board system, but to extend the area over which any particular educational authority exerts its control, and to place under its direction all grades of education. In the practical carrying out of this plan the present district areas of counties selected for other purposes have been proposed as educational units. On the other hand, it has been declared that in many cases these areas are unsuitable for educational purposes, and it has been proposed that new areas should be delimited for this purpose.
The chief merit, if it be a merit, of this plan is the retention in educational control of the ad hoc principle—i.e., of the principle of entrusting one single national interest to a body charged with the sole duty of conserving and furthering the interest. The only reasons advanced are the great importance of the educational interest and the fear that if it is entrusted to bodies charged with other duties this interest may tend to be neglected. But although both sentiment and the interests of political parties are involved in the advocacy of the ad hoc principle, it must be kept in mind that the School Board system in Scotland is universal and that the difficulties of the system which prevailed in England before its abolition do not exist in Scotland. As a consequence, it has been much more effective in Scotland than in England, and has a much firmer hold on the sentiments of the people.
In the third place, it has been proposed to hand over the educational duties of the country to the County Councils and to the Burgh Councils of the more important towns, to adopt, in principle, a system of educational control similar to that established in England by the Act of 1902.
Many reasons may be urged for the adoption of the last-named plan, and we shall briefly state the more important.
1. An ad hoc authority by its very nature is necessarily weaker than an authority entrusted not merely with the care of a single interest but with the care of the public interests as a whole. If there is to be decentralisation of any part of the functions of the central authority, then any form of decentralisation which consists in the handing over of particular interests to different local bodies, however it may be for the advantage of the particular interest is radically bad for the general interests of the community. The calling into existence of a number of local authorities each having the care of one particular interest, each pursuing its own aim independently and without consideration of the differing and often conflicting aims of the other bodies, each having the power of rating for its own particular purpose without any regard for the general interest of the taxpayer, is radically an unsound form of decentralisation.
2. The establishment of such a form of control fails, and must necessarily fail, in the local authorities securing the maximum of freedom and the minimum of interference from the executive officers of the central legislative authority. So long as the separate interests of the community are entrusted to different local authorities, so long must there remain to the central authority and to its executive officers the power of regulating and harmonising the various and often contending interests so as to secure that the general interest of the individual does not suffer, and the more keenly each particular body furthers the particular interest entrusted to its care the greater is the necessity for this central control and interference, and that the central control should be effective.
3. The separation of the so-called educational interests from the other interests of the community is not for the good of education itself. The real educational interests which have to be determined by the adult portion of the community are the exact nature of the services which a nation such as ours requires of its future members. This determined, the method of their attainment is best entrusted to the educational expert. The first-named end will be better realised by a body composed of men of diverse interests than by one which is made up of men with one intense but often narrow interest.
4. The larger the powers entrusted to any body and the more freedom possessed by it in devising and working out its schemes, the better chance there is of attracting the best men in the community to undertake the work.
5. It is questionable whether the interests of the teacher would not be better furthered by a local authority entrusted with the care of the interests of the community as a whole than by a body having charge of education alone. Men entrusted with the larger interests of the community are usually more ready to take wider views than the man who is narrowed down to one interest. As a rule, they know the value of good work done, and are ready and willing to pay for it wherever they find it.
6. Lastly, we may urge the test of practical experience. In England, and especially in London, since the control of education has passed into the hands of the County Councils a great advance has been made both in the furthering and in the co-ordination of the means of education.
Whether ultimately the control of education be vested in District School Boards or in the County and Burgh Councils, one reform is urgently needed in Scotland, and this is the extension of the area of educational control, under a strong local authority, and with the entire control of elementary, secondary, and technical education.
In the second place, whatever the area of control chosen it should be of such a nature as to admit within its bounds of schools of different grades and of different types, so that children may pass not only from the Elementary School to the Secondary, but may pass to the particular type of Secondary or Higher School which is best fitted to prepare them for their future life's work. In many cases, in Scotland, we cannot make the same clear distinction between the various types of school as they do in Germany, but must remain content with the division of a school into departments; yet in our large towns and in our most populous centres of industry we must establish schools of different types and with differing particular ends in view.
The third principle of organisation follows from the second. We must see that our educational system is so organised as to provide an efficient and sufficient supply of all the services which the community requires of its individual members. In particular, our Higher School system must be designed not merely for the supply of the so-called learned professions, but must also make due and adequate provision for the training of those who in after-life are destined for the higher industrial and commercial posts. In particular, we must see that there is due provision of Trade and Technical Schools, where our future artisans may become acquainted with the theoretical principles underlying their particular art.
Fourthly, we must endeavour to make our Elementary School system the basis and point of departure of all further and higher education. This would not involve that every child should be educated at a Primary and State-aided School, but it does mean and would involve that the Preparatory departments of our present Secondary Schools should model their curriculum on the lines laid down in our Elementary Schools.
Fifthly, in the organisation of the means of education, our system, as we have already pointed out, must be democratic in the sense that the means of higher education shall be open to all, rich and poor, in order that each may be enabled to find and thereafter to fit himself for that particular employment for which by nature he is best suited. It must further be aristocratic in the sense that it is selective of the best ability; and finally, it must be restrictive in order that the means of higher education may be utilised to the best advantage, and not misused on those who are unfitted to benefit therefrom.
Unity of control; adequacy of area; schools of various types, sufficient in number, and suited to meet the need for the supply of the various services required by the State; a common basis in elementary education; means of higher education open to all who can profit thereby; selection of the best; restriction of those unable to benefit from higher education—these are the principles which must in the future guide the State organisation of the means of education.
FOOTNOTE:
[23] For a fuller discussion of this question, see Scotch Education Reform, by Dr. Douglas and Professor Jones (Maclehose).
CHAPTER IX
THE AIM OF PHYSICAL EDUCATION
"A sound mind in a sound body is a short but full description of a happy state in this world. He that has these two has little more to wish for, and he that wants either of them will be but little the better for anything else."[24] In these words Locke sets forth for all time what should be aimed at in the physical education of the child, and in the light of modern physiological psychology the position must be emphasised anew that one of the essential conditions of sound intellectual and moral vigour is sound physical health, and that body and mind are not things apart, but that the health of the one ever conditions and is conditioned by the health of the other.
Moreover, at the present time, it is all the more necessary to insist upon the need for the systematic care of the physical culture of the child, since in many cases the conditions under which the children of the poor live in our great towns are most prejudicial to the full and free development of the organs of the body. The narrow, overbuilt streets in the poorer parts of our towns, the overcrowding of the people in tenements, the unhygienic conditions under which the vast majority of our very poor live and sleep, are all active forces in preventing the full and free development of the physical powers of the child. Thus the purely educational problem of how best to promote the physical health and development of the child by the systematic exercises of the school is involved in the much larger and more important social problem of how to better the conditions under which the very poor live. The agencies of the school can do little permanently to improve the physique of the children until, concurrently with the school, society endeavours to improve the social conditions under which the poorest of the population of our great cities herd together. For a similar reason much of the endeavour of the school to found and establish in the child's mind interests of social worth is counteracted by the evil influence of its home and social environment. If the physical, economic, and ethical efficiency of the children of the slums is ever to be secured, if we are ever to attain a permanent result, then concurrently with the creation of new and higher social interests must go hand in hand changes in the social environment of the child. Mere betterment of the physical conditions under which our slum population live is of no avail unless at the same time we have a corresponding change in the slum mind by the rise and prevalence of a higher ideal of the physical and material conditions under which their lives ought to be spent.
For experience has shown in many cases that the mere betterment of the material conditions under which the poor live without any corresponding change of ideals soon results in the re-creation of the miserable conditions which formerly prevailed. On the other hand, the mere instilling of new ideals into the minds of the rising generation will effect little, if during the greater part of the school period and altogether afterwards we leave the child to overcome the evil influences of his environment as best he may. The ideals of the school are too weak, too feebly established, to prevail against the ever present and ever potent influences of the environment unless side by side with the rise of the new ideals we at the same time endeavour to lessen, if we cannot altogether remove, the obstacles which prevent their realisation and prevalence. This problem of how to raise by education and by means of the other social agencies at work the children of the slums to a higher ideal of life and conduct and to secure their future social efficiency is the most urgent problem of our day and generation. Mere school reforms in physical and intellectual education will effect little unless the other aspects of the problem are attacked at the same time.
Further, our school system, which requires that the child should restrain his instinctive tendencies to action, and for certain hours each day assume a more or less passive and cramped attitude, is also prejudicial to the development and free play of the organs of the body which have entrusted to them the discharge of certain functional activities.
Hence the evil effects of the school itself must be removed or remedied by some means having as their aim the increased functional activity of the respiratory and circulatory systems of the body. And therefore the aim of any system of physical exercises should be not merely increase of bone and development of muscle but also the sustaining and improving of the bodily health of the child by "expanding the lungs, quickening the circulation, and shaking the viscera." This, as we shall see later, is not the only aim of physical education. It may further aid in mental growth and development, and be instrumental in the production of certain mental and moral qualities of value both to the individual and to the community.
Another cause operating in the school to prevent the full and free development of the body is the method of much of the teaching which prevails. A quite unnecessary strain is often put upon the nervous system of the child, and as a consequence a lassitude of body results which physical exercise not only does not tend to remove but actually tends to increase. Methods of teaching which fail to arouse any inherent interest in the attainment of an end of felt value to the child require for the evoking and maintaining of his active attention the operation of some powerful indirect interest, and if persisted in, such methods soon result in the overworking and exhaustion of some one particular system of nervous centres, and in the depletion through non-nutrition of other centres. As a consequence, the child is unable to take any part in physical exercises or in school games with profit to himself. He is content to loaf and do as little as he can. The evil is further intensified if there is also present under or improper nutrition of the child.
Thus along with our schemes for the physical education of the child we must endeavour to improve the methods of our teachers, to make them understand that experiences acquired through the arousing of the direct interest of the child are acquired at the least physiological cost, and to make them realise under what conditions this direct interest can be aroused and maintained. No one indeed wishes to make everything in the school pleasant to the child, or to reduce self-effort to a minimum. But effort and interest are not opposed terms. The effort which is evoked in the realisation of an interest or end of felt value is the only kind of effort which possesses any educational value. The effort which is called forth in the finding and establishing of a system of means towards an end which the child fails to see, and which, as a consequence, rouses no direct interest in its attainment, is an effort which should for ever be banished from the schoolroom. Such, e.g., is the effort evoked in the mere cramming of empty lists of words or dates or facts. Little mental good results from such a process, and the physiological cost is often great. |
|
