The Sun.
London, England, 1839-05-27 00:00:00

THE MINISTERIAL PLAN OF

EDUCATION.

TO THE REV. BENJAMIN H. KENNEDY,
SHREWSBURY SCHOOLS.
REVEREND SIR,-The columns of the London
Papers Papers contains a letter extracted from the Salo.
plan Journal, as addressed by you to the inhabi-
tants of Shrewsbury, calling their attention to a pe-
tition respecting National Education, which is now
in course of signature in that town.
The object of your letter appears to be to sup-
port the grave charge which )ou make against the
Dian announced in the minutes of the " Committee
of Council appointed to superintend the appli-
cation of any sums voted by Parliament for
the purpose of promoting Public Education.''
You characterize this plan in the following terms :
The Established Church educates too large a
number of the children of the poor ; this will not
do for her enemies. She is marked for destruction ;
her clergy must be superseded—her influence de-
stroyed. And a summary way has been devised
to this end."
A chare of this nature from a Clergyman, hold-
ing an honourable and responsible situation, at the
the head of one of the principal schools of this
country, and thus entitled to attention on questions
relating to public education, appears to require
some notice. I have, therefore, permission from
the Committee of Council to address the following
explanations to you, in the hope that they may re-
move even from your own mind the groundless
suspicions which you entertain, and prevent their
dissemination.

First, let me remove an impression, to the ex-
position of which a large portion of your letter is
devoted. You labour to establish a connection be-
tween the proceedings of the Committee of Privy
Council, and those of a Society established a few
year ago, under the name of the Central Society of
Education. It is not necessary for me to express
any opinion respecting the character of that Society,
but I can distinctly state to you that no connection
exists between its acting members, and the pro-
ceedings of the Committee of Privy Council. I
may, however, inform you that the Society pro-
fesses to admit into its annual publications different
and even conflicting views on the subject of educa-
tion, and that its members have never held them-
selves answerable for opinions on controverted
points admitted into their volumes. The cir-
cumstance that a paper published in the
Second Volume of that Society contains
suggestions of a plan resembling, to a partiel ex-
tent, that proposed by the Government, is in no
respect remarkable ; as the King of the Nether-
lands, at the close of the continental war, adopted
similar expedients for the improvement of primary
education in Belgium, which, being attended with
great success, have become a part of the history of
that country, doubtless known to the author of the
paper you have quoted. When I assure you that
the author of that paper had no connexion what-
soever with the suggestion or preparation of
the plan adopted by the Committee of the Privy
Council, you will perceive that you were in error in
attempting to make the Committee in any respect
responsible for the sentiments and opinions coo-
tained in that paper, but which you quote to a
much greater extent where it is not in accordance
with the minutes and views of the Committee, than
where it is. It is quite unnecessary, therefore, that
I should notice any of your remarks on the extracts
you have made, as you were altogether in error
in representing them as the opinions of the Com-
mittee, and in proceeding to sum up your com-
ments on the minutes of the Committee, with
your remarks on these extracts.
It is more important that I should state, as
briefly as possible, the objects proposed to be ac•
camplished by the plan, the general principles of
which are stated in the minutes of - the Committee
of Privy Council.
The proceedings of the Committee are grounded
on their conviction that the methods of instruction
generally adopted in schools for the working-
classes in this country are so inefficient, that an
increase in the number of such schools would be by
no means an unequivocal good. The Committee
were induced to believe that an editcatiom more
suited to the wants of the poorer classes, and more
capable of preparing them for the discharge of their
domestic, social, and religious duties, will pro-
cure a larger amount of public sympathy
and co-operation for " the extension of the
blessings of sound and religious education,''
than could be obtained by the tlistribution of grants,
having for their object only an increase of the num-
ber of schools conducted on the existing systems.
['he Committee, therefore, determine "to expend
in grants for building schools, not more, in any one
year, than 10,0001. ;" they propose granting a suoi
" not exceeding 2,500/. to the National Society,
and the British and Foreign School Society, for
the establishment of the normal schools ;" and the
rest of the proposed annual grant of 30,0001. they
intend to expend in founding aid supporting a
normal school, in gratuities to deserving teachers,
and in providing for the inspection of schools, aided
by public grants.
Though the Parliamentary vote sought is small,
the Committees have from the evidence laid before
them of the want of sufficiently qualified teachers,
or
classesthe orffionfac
may
beenof
rtled
me
teacher
h e
school,r to
i n believe,
schools,, t
which f
oat
r candidates
establishment
he poorer
ore
acquire the knowledge necessary for the exercise of
their future profession, and may be practised in the
most approved methods of religieus and moral
training and instruction," will promote the extension
of the benefits of a useful education among the
poorer classes, more rapidly than if a much more con-
siderable sum were expended on the extension of the
education given in the existing schools.
The minutes of the Committee are chiefly oc-
cupied with an account of the plan of this normal
school ; and hence an erroneous impression appears
to have been ddruseo that the plan proposed by the
Committee for the management of the normal
school is intended to be enforced in primary
schools throughout the country, or at least in all
schools aided by public grants. Because provision
is made in the normal school for the education
of children in what is called a model school, it is
erroneously presumed that every school, aided by
the grants -of the Committee, or supplied with
teachers from the normal school, must not only in-
troduce the methods by which secular instruction
is conveyed, and provide for such instruction to a
similar extent, but that they are to adopt the same
arrangements for giving religious instruction, and
especially to secure in- the same manner, at the
request of parents not belonging to the Establish-
ment, the separate religious instruction of their chil-
dren by licensed ministers of their own persuasion,
at periods devoted to such peculiar doctrinal instruc-
tion as may be required. This erroneous impres-
sion has apparently induced you to state that " the
clergy are to be superseded," whereas the arrange-
ments of the model school, in these respects, are
to be regarded as resulting from those difficulties, to
which allusion is made in the petition from the
University of Oxford in the following terms :
The petitioners " do not conceal from themselves
the difficulties opposed by existing religious
diffe-
rences, to the extension of public education ; and
deeply as they lament that any of their
fellow.
subjects should dissent from the
discipline of the National Church, they cordially
subscribe d
subscribe to the
ex
the youth of this
tressed doctrine or
by her most
gracious Majesty, both ' t
kingdom should be religiously brought up, and that
the rights of conscience should be respected.'
This passage in the petition from the University of
Oxford, induces me to believe, that the petitioners
concur with the Committee, in regarding the existing
means for the education of the poorer classes of this
quality and extent. The petitioners can hardly
fail at the same time to perceive the growth of the
i
as lamentably defective, both in their
c)ootipluitlaryr,
conviction, that the interference of the
Executive Government is necessary to the removal
of these sills
that whatever barrier may
be erected against the interference of the
State, the
.accumulating weight
and pressure
of public opinion will, ere long,
break it clown ;
awl that when that period shall arrive, the public
innos cannot be applied to a Plan-
of national cdue