% '■'l^t':.:*'- fXi •:M £k^;^»i?«^ 'M>^ 'm ^ The Training Colleges and the London Sehool Board, REMARKS ON THE ADMISSION EXAMINATION IN RELIGIOUS KNOWLEDGE, BY JOHN MENET, m.a., Vicar of Hockerill, and Hoji. Sec. of the Examining Board; Late Chaplain of the Hocker'ill Trai?ting College. LONDON : NATIONAL SOCIETY'S DEPOSITORY Sanctuary, Westminster, S.W. MDCCCLXXXII. Price 0716 Penjiy. ^ ^'Proposed Me?norial to the Lords of the Committee of Council on Education by the School Board for London. " Sheweth — That the School Board for London, as managers of schools with nearly 200,000 children in average attendance, feel constantly with growing force — first, that a training in college is of the greatest importance for pupil-teachers who propose to sit for certificates, and to adopt the profession of teachers in elementary schools ; and secondly, that it is essential that the pupil-teachers selected for such training should be the best and most capable of their class. *' That the pupil-teachers of the School Board for London labour under special disadvantages when seeking admission to some of the existing training colleges ; and that cases have occurred where such pupil-teachers have been refused admission in favour of other candidates who have passed lower in the Government examination. '• That the Board, having regard to Section 14 of the Elementary Education Act of 1870, have arranged that efficient Bible instruction should be given to their pupil-teachers, but that such Bible instruction should not be distinctive of any particular denomination. " That candidates for admission to training colleges are required to satisfy conditions which the pupil-teachers in board schools cannot always comply with, and, in most cases, to pass an examination in religious knowledge, for which a distinctive training is absolutely necessary. "That, in the opinion of the Board, candidates of superior qualifications should not, on denominational grounds alone, be passed over in favour of candidates of inferior qualifications : but that Article 98 of the New Code should be cancelled, and that no candidate be refused on other than reasonable grounds. "The Board accordingly pray that the Education Department will take such steps as may be necessary to remove the disqualifications affecting pupil-teachers from board schools who seek admission to training colleges." While this Pamphlet was passing through the Press, the following stateme7it appeared in a Report of the Weekly Meeting of the London School Board, held on Ja7inary 26th, as published in " The Times'' of the following day : — "The subject of the Training Colleges then came on for renewed consideration. As long ago as last July the School Management Committee, in reporting upon a complaint which the Metropolitan Teachers' Association made regarding the ' ' special disabilities " under which the School Board Candidates labour in respect to Training Colleges (in having denominational candidates preferred to themselves), proposed that a Memorial should be presented to the Committee of Council on Education, setting forth the grievances, and asking that the disqualifications established by the subsidized Training Colleges should be removed. The matter was discussed in various forms for several hours, and ultimately an amendment, moved by Dr. Angus and seconded by Professor Gladstone, was adopted as an original motion, in place of the proposition of the Committee. This was to the following effect : — The School Board call the attention of the Education Depart- ment to the conditions of admission to the existing Training Colleges, and to the difficulties which impede the admission of Board-school Pupil Teachers to the full educational advantages of training, and urge the Education Department to take such steps as may seem to them necessary in order to secure to Board-school Pupil Teachers equal advantages for training with those who come from denominational schools." THE TRAINING COLLEGES AND THE LONDON SCHOOL BOARD. Some members of the London School Board suppose that Pupil-Teachers engaged in Board Schools have a griev- ance ; and the grievance in their view of the matter is this :— Pupil-Teachers, having finished their engagements, wish to enter a Training College. Now there are 41 Training Colleges in England and Wales, viz. : — 17 for Masters only ; 23 for Mistresses only ; I for both Masters and Mistresses. Of the 17 Colleges for Masters — 13 belong to the Church of England ; I to the Roman Catholics ; 1 „ „ Wesleyans ; 2 „ „ British and Foreign School Society. Of the 23 Colleges for Mistresses — 17 belong to the Church of England ; 2 „ „ Roman Catholics ; I }} )) Wesleyans ; 3 ,, „ British and Foreign School Society ; and the Homerton College for Masters and Mistresses is " Congregational." It appears then that out of the forty-one Training Colleges thirty belong to the Church of England, and that only five are what would be called undenominational. And therefore these members of the London School Board contend that the Pupil-Teachers engaged under the Board have a grievance. They wish to enter a Training College, but the number of undenominational Colleges (in which it is presumed that there is no Examination in Religious Knowledge before admission) is so small that many naturally seek admission at Church Training Colleges ; and then they find themselves con- fronted with a very serious difficulty. Entrance to these Colleges is barred (they say) by an Examination in Re- ligious Knowledge, which cannot be passed by many of them because they have not been specially instructed in the Book of Common Prayer. In fact, this requirement of a knowledge of the Prayer Book is the insurmountable barrier to all future progress. They may be equipped with all needful secular knowledge, but the fulfilment of this one condition is imperative, and, accordingly, for want of their fulfilling this condition, the doors of the Church Training Colleges are, in many instances, closed against them. Grievances are sometimes real and sometimes imaginary. Never was there a more imaginary grievance than this. It has absolutely no foundation whatever to rest upon. The supposed grievance has been stated by these members of the London School Board in the following words : — "That the Board, having regard to Section 14 of the "Elementary Education Act of 1870, have arranged that " efficient Bible instruction should be given to their Pupil- " Teachers, but that such Bible instruction should not be " distinctive of any particular denomination. "That Candidates for admission to Training Colleges "are required to satisfy conditions which the Pupil- " Teachers cannot always comply with, and in most cases "to pass an examination in Religious Knowledge, for " which a distinctive training is absolutely necessary. That " in the opinion of the Board, Candidates of superior quali- " fications should not, on denominational grounds alone, be " passed over in favour of Candidates of inferior qualifi- " cations, but that Article 98 of the New Code should be " cancelled,* and that no Candidate be refused on other " than reasonable grounds. "The Board accordingly pray that the Education De- " partment will take such steps as may be necessary to " remove the disqualifications affecting Pupil-Teachers from " Board Schools, who seek admission to Training Colleges." There is a previous paragraph in the Memorial which I have not quoted, because it does not point at the religious * " The authorities of each College settle their own terms of admission." — Article 98, Code of 1881. question in express words, though, doubtless, that question was in the minds of the Memorialists when they framed it. It simply states that some Pupil-Teachers, lower on the Government list, have been admitted in preference to those who occupied a higher place on that list. This might have happened for moral or niedical reasons, without any reference to the Religious Knowledge Examination, and may therefore, for the present at least, be passed over. Let us examine the statements of the memorial which I have just quoted. The Memorialists say that " Candidates for admission " into Training Colleges are required to satisfy conditions " which the Pupil-Teachers in Board Schools cannot " always comply with." But they do not say what these conditions are. It appears that some Board Pupil- Teachers can satisfy these conditions, but that all cannot do so. It would be interesting to be told (i) what these conditions are which some Pupil-Teachers fail to satisfy, and also (2) how many Pupil-Teachers fail to satisfy them. We should then know more about the supposed grievance and its magnitude. For my own part, having held the office of Chaplain of a Training College for eleven years, I cannot recall any condition for admission which could have been called unreasonable, or which a Pupil-Teacher in a Board School might not be expected " always " to comply with. However, in the hope that we shall be informed precisely, at some future time, what is meant, I pass on to the next grievance which is thus formulated — "that Candi- " dates for admission to Training Colleges are required " in most cases, to pass an examination in Religious " Knowledge, for which a distinctive training is absolutely " necessary." There can be no doubt as to what is meant here.^' As " most " of the Colleges belong to the Church of England, it means (as I have stated before) that Candidates for admission must (" in most cases "), as a condition of ad- mission, pass the Religious Knowledge Examination ; that they cannot do this without satisfying the Examiners in the Prayer Book, and that being unable to do this "without distinctive training" many eligible candidates are rejected. * It is believed that the complaint of the Memorial applies quite as forcibly to the Roman Catholic and Vvesleyan Colleges, as to the Church of England Colleges. But the case of the latter only is considered here, because it is only of the Church Colleges that the Examining Board can speak with authority. Now for the facts. We may claim the Memorialists as on our side in reference to the requirement of an exami- nation in Religious Knowledge. They would not, ap- parently, object to the rejection of a candidate for admis- sion because he did not know the facts of Bible History. They have themselves shown their sense of the value of Religious Teaching by directing "that efficient Bible in- " struction should be given to their Pupil-Teachers." The only condition laid down in reference to this instruction is that it " should not be distinctive of any " particular denomination." Let me assure the Memorialists most distinctly that they may set their minds at rest as to this supposed rejection of candidates because they had not received " the distinctive " teaching " supposed to be " absolutely necessary." If the Board candidates have failed in the Religious Knowledge Examination it is because they have either not received, or having received, have not profited by the " efficient Bible " instruction " for which the Board has " arranged." A little more exact knowledge of the case would have pre- vented the Memorialists from falling into a very consider- able error. Let me invite their attention to the following statement : — In this Examination three Papers are set ; one on the Old Testament ; one on the New Testament ; and one on the Prayer Book. To each of these papers lOO marks are assigned as a maximum, making 300 in all. A Candidate obtaining two-thirds of these marks (200) is placed in the first class. A Candidate obtaining 150 marks, but less than 200, is placed in the second class. A Candidate obtaining 100 marks, but less than 150, is placed in the third class. Candidates fail if they obtain less than 100 marks, i.e, less than one-third of the possible total. Now what is the effect of this arrangement } It is this — that any Candidate, without touching the Prayer Book paper at all, can easily secure a second class, for he ought to be able, if he has received " efficient Bible instruction," to obtain three-quarters of the marks assigned to the two papers on the Bible. He can still more easily obtain a third class, for he surely ought to be able to secure half of the maximum marks assigned to the papers on the Old and New Testament. As to the questions, I challenge any one to point out one which has been set since the first Examination held under the authority of the Examining Board in 1875 which required anything more than "efficient Bible instruction " without " distinctive teaching." (See Appendix for a specimen of the questions,) The one " special disadvantage " then under which Board School Candidates, seeking admission into Church Training Colleges, can be said to be placed is this : — that a First Class in the Religious Knowledge entrance Examination is not practically within reach of a Candidate who knows nothing of the Prayer Book, while the Second and Third Classes are within easy reach of all Candidates, even if they do not touch the Prayer Book paper. But it will be said that these First Classes caused the rejection of some who were higher in the Government List, and that thus the Board School Candidates were placed at a disadvantage. The answer to that is this : — that the whole number of First Classes is so small that any such exclusion must have been on a very limited scale. Out of 1235 Candidates at the Masters' Colleges last July only 109 were placed in the First Class ; and out of 1666 Candidates at the Mistresses' Colleges only 126 were placed in the First Class. But, again, I ask attention to facts, and the facts are those of the last July Examination. The Examiners bestowed great pains upon the consideration of this question, and Tables of Results which they drew up have been published by the National Society, with a Statement as to the work of each School Board Candidate.* Now what do these figures tell us .-* Colleges for Masters: 241 Candidates came from Board Schools, and of these 112 failed. The rest were thus classed : — Class I, 13 ; Class II, 23 ; Class III, 93. But what is the history of the failure of the 112 .? That only two failed from ignorance of the Prayer Book ; while (per contra) ten of the successful Candidates owed their pass to a knowledge of the Prayer Book. * National Society's Depository, price One Penny. 8 Colleges for Mistresses. — There were 293 Candidates from Board Schools, and of these 57 failed ; the rest were thus classed: Class I, 16; Class II, 82; Class III, 138. What is the history of the failure of the 57 ? That only- eight failed in consequence of their ignorance of the Prayer Book ; or, to put it in other words, their marks for Holy Scripture were so low that they needed some marks on the third paper to get them up to the 100 out of 300 marks required for passing. And so it comes to this, that taking the total of Board School Candidates at the Masters' and Mistresses' Colleges, 534 presented themselves, of whom 169 failed. With ten exceptions these failures would have occurred even if there had been no Prayer Book paper at all. On the other hand, ten Candidates saved themselves from the consequences of their failure in the Bible by gaining some marks on the Prayer Book paper. Thus, if there had been no Prayer Book paper at all precisely the same number of Board Pupil-Teachers would have passed. Surely I am justified in saying that the Memorialists have discovered a very imaginary grievance indeed. But why, some one may say, have a Prayer Book paper at all } Why not make the first class as attainable as the second and third classes by all Candidates alike in an examination on the Old and New Testament only .-* The answer, I think, is that it would be a grievous dis- couragement to the study of the Prayer Book by the Pupil-Teachers, as well as a decided and most disastrous declaration of indifference to that study on the part of the Training Colleges and the Examining Board, if the Prayer Book paper were omitted in the Admission Examination. When the Examining Board has made it not only possible, but easy, to pass the examination without touching the Prayer Book paper, it can scarcely be blamed if it reserves the honour of a first class for those who know something of the Prayer Book. Less than this, the Board could not do without declaring that it attached no importance to a knowledge of the Prayer Book on the part of the Candi- dates seeking admission, and was content that they should be in ignorance of it at the end of their apprenticeship. It will be observed that we are not dealing with secular- ists. We are not arguing with those who object to any- Religious Knowledge Examination at all, and claim that the Training Colleges, being largely helped by the State, should be thrown open to all Candidates, according to the results of the Secular Examination. We are not dealing with the very large questions which would arise if the whispers which are heard here and there of a demand for a " Conscience Clause " for the Training Colleges should become louder, and if what is called the denominational character of the Church Colleges should be really im- perilled. It is to be hoped that if ever that battle has to be fought, the defence will be as earnest, as skilful, and as persevering as the attack, and then there is not much doubt on which side the victory will declare itself lO APPENDIX. EXAMINATION QUESTIONS, JULY, 1881. ONE QUESTION ONLY MAY BE ANSWERED IN EACH SECTION. HOLY SCEIPTURE. Narrative Portions of the Old Testament. SECTION I. 1. What promises were given by God to Abraham, and on what occasions? How did he shew his faith with regard to any of them ? 2. Give an account of one of the chief occasions on which the children of Israel murmured in the wilderness. 3. Describe one of the principal events connected with the conquest and occupation of the land of Canaan by the Israelites. SECTION II. 1. Trace in the Books of Samuel and Kings the events referred to in the following passages of Psalm LXXVIII : — "He forsook the tabernacle in Silo: even the tent that He had pitched among men." " He refused the tabernacle of Joseph: and chose not the tribe of Ephraim ; but chose the tribe of Judah : even the hill of Sion which He loved." 2. Give a short narrative of the rebellion of Absalom, with some account of Ahithophel and Hushai. 3. Write a short history of the invasion of Judah by Sennacherib in the reign of King Hezekiah, II SECTION III. The Four Gospels. 1. Give a short account of the miracle of the tribute-money. By what authority and for what purpose was this tribute collected ? Explain the force of Christ's words respecting it. 2. Mention the events in our Lord's life up to the age of twelve years (inclusive) which are related by St. Luke alone. 3. Give the context and explain the following : — (a) "An Israelite indeed "; (d) '"■ Before Abraham was, I am "; (t-) " Whatsoever ye shall ask in My name." SECTION IV. The Acts of the Apostles. 1. Relate some of the principal events in the history of St. Peter, as far as it is contained in the Book of the Acts. 2. By what successive steps did the Gospel become more widely spread, from the day of Pentecost to the time when St. Paul departed on his first missionary journey ? 3. Relate the principal events in St. Paul's journey as a prisoner to Rome. H. Collings & Co., Steam Printing Works, Bishop Stortford. ^- 'M- 'm