^ r 
 
 \ 
 
 ■?«^<^m'^, *\''> 
 
 ■^ «;, ^ f^-j 
 
 ^ ^, 
 
 
 
 i<.-.^^ 

 
 Examination in Theory v. Normal Schools 
 As the Training for Teachers. 
 
 A LETTER 
 
 TO 
 
 OSCAR BROWNING, M.A., 
 
 FELLOIV OF KING'S COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE. 
 
 BY 
 
 REV. GEORGE RIDDING, D.D., 
 
 HEAD MASTER OF WINCHESTER COLLEGE. 
 
 J. WELLS, BOOKSELLER TO THE COLLEGE. 
 
 PARKER & Co. 
 
 (Iambrft(ge : 
 MACMILLAN & Co, 
 
 I 882,
 
 Dear Mr. Oscar Browning, 
 
 Some circumstances connected with our recent Head 
 Masters' Conference induce me to follow a precedent set by our 
 present Chairman of Committee, and to write from outside the 
 Committee to explain the attitude taken by me in our discussion 
 about the Training of Teachers at Cambridge. As you have 
 been the medium of communication between the Cambridge 
 Syndicate and the Head Masters' Committee, I venture to 
 address my remarks to you. 
 
 Our discussion had to deal with four points : — 
 
 I. The formal resolution : That the Head Masters should 
 be called upon to state, whether they were prepared to co- 
 operate with Cambridge, either by making appointments of 
 Masters contingent upon their obtaining the Cambridge Certifi- 
 cate, or by giving weight in other ways to that Certificate. 
 
 II. The obligations under which we lay, to promise 
 such co-operation. 
 
 III. The value of the Scheme itself. 
 
 IV. The consequences of our declining to co-ojDerate in 
 the proposed methods. 
 
 I. The resolution was unanimously accepted. 
 
 The same questions have been already asked and answered ; 
 but the two years' trial of the Scheme makes it reasonable that 
 they should be asked and answered again. The Scheme does 
 not seem dependent on our co-operation for its usefulness ; but 
 that dependence was not made a principal part of our discussion, 
 and I will speak of it therefore at the end. 
 
 Cambridge has asked the question again, and we all agreed 
 that Cambridge was entitled to an answer. 
 
 II. The most animated part of our discussion was, as is 
 usual in Debating Societies, upon the ^'private business" 
 question of our personal obligations to co-operate. I should 
 not think it necessary to trouble you at length with this 
 personal discussion, but that two important public questions 
 became involved in it. 
 
 First, it was urged that, as the Conference had asked Cam- 
 bridge to start this Scheme, the Head Masters were one and all
 
 bound to adopt it, or tliey would stultify Cambridge in such a 
 way as to make it impossible for Cambridge in the future to have 
 any further dealings with the Conference. This would indeed be 
 serious ; but many of us consider this contention to be 
 unreasonable. No doubt it sounds reasonable, that the 
 proposals of our Conference should bind the Head Masters 
 that take part in it. But on the present question, you 
 will see in the able Eeport drawn up by the Head Master 
 of Clifton, which is no doubt in your hands, — that, from the 
 first, the Scheme was proposed to meet the wants of '^ Schools 
 higher than the Elementary," was expected to be used " chiefly 
 by Schools which have least affinity with the great Public 
 Schools," " Schools that do not attract Masters from University 
 men of the highest distinction"; and the Committee "hesitated 
 to express any decided opinion, whether even eventually 
 Certificates would be sought by Candidates for Masterships at 
 the great Public Schools." — (Report, pages 4, 6, 12.) When 
 Cambridge, upon this, asked the Head Masters to state their 
 intentions individually (vide pages 13, 14),"^ Eton, Uppingham, 
 
 * From the following analysis of the answers received, it appears that (a) twenty- 
 eight Head Masters are disposed to make it known that in the appointment of 
 Assistant Masters they would give weight to the University Certificate ; (d) fifteen 
 would withhold, except in special cases, the full confirmation of a new appointment 
 until the Assistant Master had obtained the Certificate ; and (<?) twenty-eight are 
 willing to encourage newly-appointed Masters to gain the Certificate, and to give 
 them facilities for gaining it. 
 
 Among those who returned favourable answers the following were willing to 
 co-operate. 
 
 (i) In the ways marked {a) {b) and (<:) — Birmingham, City of London, 
 Cranbrook, Eastbourne, Guernsey, Heversham, International College, Isle of Man, 
 Liverpool College, Mill Hill, Oswestry, Rossall, Ruthin, Sedbergh. 
 
 (2) In ways {a) and (c), Bedford, Bishop's Stortford, Blackheath, Cambridge, 
 Clifton, Giggleswick, Lancaster, Marlborough, Newcastle, Oxford, University 
 College (London). 
 
 (3) In ways {a) and {i) — Manchester. 
 
 (4) In way {a ) — Haileybury (with preference for Cambridge proposals), Highgate. 
 
 (5) In way {c) — Epsom, Shrewsbury, Wellington. 
 
 (6) Generally favourable, but unwilhng to promise co-operation in any of these 
 ways — Harrow, Rugby, Sutton Valence, Winchester. 
 
 Clifton would admit men for two terms, give small salary, and affiliate them 
 to suitable Masters. 
 
 International College, Newcastle, and Oxford would also be willing to receive 
 Candidates and help their training. 
 
 Bedford would be glad to make the School a centre for Lectures or Examinations. 
 
 Answers unfavourable to the University Schemes were sent in by Bradfield ; 
 Bromsgrove ; Eton [though assenting to {c)]; Liverpool Royal Institution; 
 Merchant Taylor's ; Sherborne (who would, however, approve of Lectures) ; 
 Uppingham (do. ) ; Tonbridge. 
 
 G. C. Bell, Chairman of the Head Masters' Committee,
 
 and Sherborne, with five other important Schools, went so far 
 as to disagree with the Scheme itself; Harrow, Eugby, and 
 Winchester declined to promise co-operation in any of the 
 proposed ways ; Haileybury, Shrewsbury, and Wellington were 
 scarcely more ready to promise definite co-operation. None 
 of these Schools then can be considered guilty of stultifying 
 Cambridge or themselves by not making use of the Scheme. 
 If anyone be guilty of any stultification in the matter, which I do 
 not allege, it can only be those Masters who promised co-operation 
 and who have not given it. It is true that the Head Masters of 
 Birmingham and the City of London School stand at the head 
 of fourteen Schools, as promising to co-operate in all the three 
 ways proposed. It is also true, that the Head Masters of 
 Clifton, Marlborough, and London University College, with 
 eight other Schools of some position, while declining to make 
 their Masterships contingent on the Certificate, promised the 
 two lesser modes of co-operation. I am not surprised if these 
 Head Masters are moved by the appeal of Cambridge; and 
 when the Head Masters of the City of London School and 
 Marlborough impressed upon us our obligations, they no doubt 
 remembered their own former ideas, and forgot Kow difi'erently 
 other Head Masters had expressed themselves. 
 
 Whether the Scheme has been used as much as might have 
 
 been expected, by the Schools in whose interests it was desired, 
 
 or by the Public Schools whose Head Masters originally promised 
 
 their co-operation in it, is not however my question. I only 
 
 desire to remind Cambridge and the Head Masters, that the 
 
 Scheme was originally desired in the interests of Middle Class 
 
 Education, and I feel sure that Cambridge is not likely to feel 
 
 stultified by those Head Masters of Public Schools who have 
 
 acted as they, from the first, professed that they should. 
 
 Secondly, there was stated in this personal discussion a principle, 
 
 which has lately been so constantly made the basis of some 
 
 Educationists' policy, that I think it is high time to protest 
 
 distinctly against its unreality and unreasonableness. The Head 
 
 Master of the City of London School insisted, in a parable, that, 
 
 "The big boys ought not to leave the little boys alone.'' I 
 
 should not presume to make such a parable myself; and we all 
 
 know the delicately veiled elpcovela of that distinguished Head
 
 Master of that important School. But I accept the parable for 
 the sake of argument ; and I say that the big boys did not leave 
 the little boys alone, but did their duty to them, by doing their 
 best to get for them what they wanted. But accepting the 
 parable, I ask on the other hand : Are the big boys to be 
 subjected to the same restrictions as the little ones? or. Is it 
 reasonable that they should have the same amount of help given 
 them ? No Theory of Education will assert this. Strip off the 
 metaphor, and a very serious principle is asserted ; that the great 
 Schools must be subjected in all things to the same regulations 
 as the small, even though they do not need them; because the 
 small Schools do not like to accept what is suited for them, unless 
 it is imposed upon the great Schools also. In the present case 
 it seems a benefit that is rejected on this principle. It has 
 been urged before in regard to the Teachers' Eegistration 
 Bill, and Endowed Schools Bill, No. 2, against some forms 
 of control. And on those occasions, its maintainers shewed 
 some spirit of jealousy, in representing that the proposers 
 of these Bills exempted certain Schools from their operation, as 
 a matter of privilege or favouritism, instead of recognising that 
 previous Acts of the liCgislature had placed those Schools in a 
 special position, in which the action of these Bills ought not to be 
 necessary for them. That other Schools might well have been 
 added to the list of those exempted, is beside the present question. 
 I could name at once Marlborough, Cheltenham, Haileybury, 
 Wellington, Clifton, as Schools whose present professional 
 position gives them equal ground for exemption, though they 
 have not in the same way a constitution from the Legislature. 
 What I want to insist upon is, that if such difference as is 
 alleged in Dr. Abbott's parable does exist between School and 
 School, then it is unreal and unreasonable that all Schools should 
 be dealt with alike. Where the line should be drawn in such 
 cases, it is not for Schoolmasters to settle about themselves, but 
 for public authorities outside of the profession. That there are 
 differences in the constitutions of Schools, in the qualifications 
 of their Masters, and in other respects, is no doubt truly alleged 
 in Dr. Abbott's parable. Why then is one set of Schools to 
 adopt a system which they do not need, because another set of 
 Schools which do need that system, do not like to adopt it
 
 without them ? This question is obviously distinct from the 
 question whether Public School Masters ought to adopt the Scheme 
 for its own sake and because they do need it. That is the next 
 point to be discussed, but is quite a separate one. 
 
 III. The principal question really is ; What is the value of 
 the Scheme which is proposed ? Is it such that all Public School 
 Masters should be called upon to adopt it? This question 
 sub-divides itself into the following : — 
 
 1st. Do Public School Masters fail in teaching ? 
 
 2nd. If so, does their failure arise from want of training ? 
 Which again sub-divides itself into these, (a) Is their failure 
 such as is not accounted for by other circumstances ? {b) Have 
 they had no training? {c) Will their failure be remedied by 
 training ? (d) Cannot it be remedied by anything else ? 
 
 3rd. Is the particular training now offered, the particular 
 training which will remedy their failure, if it exists ? 
 
 I am obliged to go into this somewhat pedantic process of 
 sub-division, because all these different questions are continually 
 jumbled together, as if they were all one, in essays and 
 arguments upon Education, which still seem to occupy them- 
 selves much more in enunciating major premisses, than in 
 proving minor; and are satisfied simply to conclude, that, 
 because no one asserts Public School Education to be perfect, 
 therefore this particular Scheme of training is obligatory on all 
 conscientious, earnest, and non-obstructive Schoolmasters. 
 
 Let me take these questions in the reverse order, and consider 
 first the particular Scheme, as it is now proposed to us. I do 
 not think that either Cambridge or the Head Masters have any 
 reason to condemn the Scheme as a whole, which has been 
 adopted by Cambridge almost exactly upon the lines suggested 
 by the Head Masters. I believe that, in its combination of 
 practical and theoretical parts, that would still be found the 
 only practical method at this time for testing Teachers, supposing 
 any system of Registration upon Examination to be adopted; 
 and I congratulate your Syndicate on having been able to carry 
 it out with valuable effect in both its parts, in connection with 
 the Bishopsgate Street Training College for Women. 
 
 But at our recent Conference, the most sanguine advocates 
 surprised me by abandoning entirely the possibility of the
 
 8 
 
 practical part ; and all that we were asked to consider was the 
 Examination offered in the History and Theory of Education. 
 For this Examination a certain list of books is proposed, which 
 fix the value of the Examination. It would be interesting to 
 have copies of the papers set for the Examination. Specimens 
 of papers set by the College of Preceptors are given in one of 
 the volumes of Essays, and are certainly suggestive, but they are 
 not questions upon which the Cambridge list of books would 
 enlighten the student ; if they are to be answered from books, 
 they require the much fuller list of books containing direct 
 teaching and information, which the College of Preceptors 
 suggests : information about hygiene, about the facts and 
 relations of psychology, about the order of subjects of study, 
 and the like. 
 
 I have read the books on the Cambridge list^ pretty carefully, — 
 but I must frankly say with no little disappointment. The first 
 seven are historical. Now the history of Educators is no doubt 
 interesting, as presented by you, or Mr. Leitch, or Mr. Quick, 
 but in Education, present Theory depends very little upon such 
 history, much less, for example, than in the science of Law. In 
 Education, it is the history of failures, or at best, of imperfect 
 ideas long ago absorbed and developed in the systems now at 
 
 * The following books on the History, Practice, and Theory of Education, are 
 recommended by the Lecturers on these subjects. 
 
 1. Memoirs of German Teachers and Educators, by Hen. Barnard, Hartford, 
 
 U.S.A. (Enghsh publisher, Thomas Laurie, Stationers' Hall Court 
 London.) Price 12/-. 
 
 2. Practical Educationists, by James Leitch (Macmillan). Price 6/-. 
 
 3. Essays on Educational Reformers, by R. H. Quick. (Thos. Laurie, 
 
 Stationers' Hall Court. ) Price 5/-. 
 
 4. Histoire critique des doctrines de I'education en France par Gabriel 
 
 Compayr6. (Hachette, 2 vols.) Price 6 francs. 
 
 5. Leitch's Practical Educationists (Maclehose, Glasgow). Price 6/-. 
 
 6. Introduction to the History of Educational Theories, by Oscar Browning 
 
 (C. Kegan, Paul, & Co.). 
 
 7. Locke's Thoughts concerning Education. Cambridge University Press 
 
 edition. (17, Paternoster Row, London.) Price 3/6. 
 
 8. Bain's. Handbook of Mental Science. 
 
 9. Jevons' Elementary Lessons in Logic. 
 
 10. Bain's Science of Education. 
 
 11. Spencer's Education, Intellectual, Mental, and Physical. 
 
 12. Lectures on Education, by Joseph Payne. 
 
 13. Lectures on Teaching, by J. G. Fitch (Cambridge University Press, 1881), 
 
 Price 6/-. 
 July, 1881.
 
 9 
 
 work. I cannot enter into the indignation expressed at a man 
 presuming to educate, without knowing the history of Eatich, 
 Comenius, Pestalozzi, etc.; nor can I regard an examination upon 
 their lives as a sine qua non in my appointments of Masters. 
 Still less can I see the use of reading half a dozen outlines of the 
 same biographies. And yet with the exception of the complete 
 French history, that really represents the historical list. 
 
 Of the books on theory and practice, Mr. Fitch's able and 
 sensible lectures seem in all ways worthy of his Chair, and if I 
 say that there is but a small part that touches the difficulties of 
 Public Schoolmasters, that is no more than saying, that those 
 lectures were adapted to the class for whom they were desired, 
 and to the class to whom they were addressed. I hope they will be 
 widely read. I do not like to criticize the only other volume on 
 practice, that by the late Mr. Payne ; but I am not surprised to 
 find him say himself of the elementary principles stated by him, 
 that they are those universally adopted by Arnold, and all other 
 teachers that have communicated sound knowledge. Of the two 
 volumes on Theory, I must say that it amazes me to find Mr. 
 Herbert Spencer's brilliant extravaganza put forward as the 
 sober Cambridge Theory for all Masters to study 5 and if Mr. 
 Herbert Spencer is only supplemented by Mr. Bain, whose 
 book, thoughtful and substantial as it is, both fails to rise to any 
 high and generous spirit, and in its theories contradicts the 
 existing Cambridge system, — I am driven to ask whether 
 Cambridge really adopts this list of authors as representing its 
 Theory of Education? Whether, 1st, Cambridge desires all 
 Teachers to adopt the materialist philosophy of mind and morals, 
 pure and simple ? and whether, 2nd, Cambridge is prepared to 
 revolutionize her own system of studies ? Nothing less than this 
 ought to be the case, if these two books are put forward as the 
 sole representatives of the Theory of Education, acquaintance 
 with which is to be made a sine qua non in appointments to 
 Masterships at Public Schools. As one side of the questions at 
 issue in the Educational world. Educators should read these inter- 
 esting books; but the Scheme which I am discussing, proposes to set 
 before Masters the Theory of Education. The Theory of Educa- 
 tion is to be the panacea for Schoolmasters' failures. I ask then, 
 is this the Theory of Education? Whether Theory is what
 
 10 
 
 Public Schoolmasters want, is the next question which I will 
 discuss; but it is separate from this. This particular Cambridge 
 Theory and Cambridge list of authors cannot be expected to 
 carry any such universal assent, as is needed "to depose King 
 Chaos, and enthrone King Kosmos." 
 
 Is it in fact however, want of Theory at all, that has intro- 
 duced the present chaos into Education ? for chaos in some points 
 does no doubt exist; not however chaos, so far as I know, in the 
 ideas of individual Public Schoolmasters, but in the conflicting 
 systems introduced by theories, which there is as yet no one 
 theory to organize into uniformity, if that is desirable. It is a 
 mistake to say that the old Classical Grammar System was one 
 of chaos. It may have been inadequate, it may have been 
 mistaken ; but under it, Schools and Universities were formerly 
 at one, and there was no question or confusion about the very 
 intelligible and very consistent theory of that system, which in 
 fact represented in a very complete way most of the Elementary 
 maxims now presented to us by the Essayists. I am one of those 
 who think it was inadequate, and in that sense mistaken. I am 
 resigned to a state of chaos as a necessary transitional stage 
 towards future agreement on a broader basis. But this chaos 
 does not come from traditional routine but from Theories. Each 
 School has its Theory. Its Theory is represented by its system, 
 so far at least as that system is not controlled and made incon- 
 sistent by some other conflicting Theory, such as the Theories of 
 Oxford and Cambridge Tutors insisting upon schoolboys being 
 taught in one way, or the contradictory Theories of the Civil 
 Service Commissioners requiring them to be educated in another, 
 or the Theories of the Army Authorities deploring that they are 
 not instructed in a third. At least I do not doubt that the 
 Universities, Civil Service Commissioners, and the Army Author- 
 ities, act upon Theories, though their Theories differ from one 
 another. I am certain that most of the Head Masters of Public 
 Schools have very clear Theories, of which they have no doubt, 
 though they differ among themselves. It is not that Teachers do 
 not reflect, are not in earnest, do not consider facts, but that they 
 do. A system of routine is uniform enough ; it is Theory and 
 enlightenment, coupled with systems of Competitive Examinations, 
 which have produced our present chaos. Of course, if an Essayist
 
 11 
 
 means that chaos would be ended, if all Masters would adopt his 
 particular Theory, that may be true. Btit why should they ? 
 What the Essayist unconsciously pines for, is the construction 
 of a Theory of Education suited to the present attainments and 
 needs of our country and time. Till this exists, it is a delusion 
 to point out as the panacea for Educational chaos, lectures on 
 the Theory of Education, when no such Theory is accepted. By 
 all means let Universities and Schools endeavour bravely and 
 broadly to organize Education upon first principles. The energy 
 devoted to little peddling alterations in mechanism, leaving no 
 part of any system the same from one year to another, might well 
 be turned to such a broad reconstruction ; but ten years of Head 
 Masters' Conferences and twenty-five years acquaintance with 
 University procedure, give me no expectation of this taking place 
 at present. Still less do I see any hopes for it in the hopeless 
 and impracticable confusion that seems to result from every 
 Parliamentary Commission upon Education. 
 
 Can your Syndicate and our Committee construct a Theory? 
 
 But it may be allowed that Head Masters have Theories, and 
 yet it may be said, that young Masters are appointed before they 
 have any, and that it is to such want of training in 'Theory, that 
 their failures are due. I do not think that this is the case. I do 
 not find them unready in discussing Theories upon any point that 
 arises in their School work. Nor do I think that it is true to 
 say, that any man who has passed through a Public School and 
 the University has had no training. If I may adopt for 
 this Science of Education, — which is surely one of the 
 highest Natural Sciences and deals with one of the highest 
 products of Nature, — the maxims which each book upon 
 the Cambridge list states, in one form or another, as the 
 true maxims for scientific study; I will say, that such a man 
 has "studied in the School of Nature, not of Books''; has "gone 
 to actual facts, not accepted the generalisations of Teachers"; has 
 "learnt Things, not Words"; has "envisaged for himself by 
 experience the Eealities of Phenomena, and not merely been 
 told the Theories of Men"; he may possibly have also read books 
 on Logic and Moral, Mental, and Social Philosophy ; but his 
 real training will have been, not the major premisses learnt from 
 those books, but the minor premisses derived from his actual
 
 n 
 
 experience. " This is a case of sucH and such conduct. This 
 must be dealt with in such and such a way." " Such and such 
 treatment affected me well, taught me, influenced me, made me 
 remember, shewed me how to learn." "This affected me ill, 
 made me weary, sulky, hostile, and so I remember it affected 
 other boys too." He may perhaps make a formal Induction 
 from this. More probably, his inference will be of the nature of 
 Example; but his conduct will not therefore be that of a quack, 
 repeating always the same act without having any intelligent 
 reason for doing so; but the scientific act of a man, whose 
 intelligent observation and discrimination of cases have formed 
 the power of immediately recognising a new case like previously 
 observed ones, and also the practical instinct of immediately 
 acting in a way that previous experience has shewn him to be 
 suitable. "Generalisations," say modern Science books, "are 
 nothing but embodiments of experience for the inexperienced." 
 "The real knowledge of one fact is worth a myriad of book 
 rules." These and many like them are the maxims of Science. 
 Let us adopt them then in this great Natural Science, and do 
 not let us require Education in Education to be " didactic and 
 synthetical," any more than Education in other Sciences, or think 
 Examination in a Theory of Education to be a training for 
 Teachers superior, or equal, to practical acquaintance with its 
 facts. Lawyers and Doctors have really no apprenticeship so 
 complete as that of a Teacher who has passed through a Public 
 School and a University. For such a man, a certificate of his 
 passing an Examination is of no value compared to the testimony 
 of his Masters, Tutors, and companions, that he is likely to 
 make a good Schoolmaster. They all know what that means, 
 and no Examination can test it. Such a man will not be 
 destitute of Theory, even when he begins. Able Assistant 
 Masters have generally enough at least of Theory. In some 
 form or another, they have discussed all the elementary maxims, 
 which are so solemnly presented in so many different forms by 
 the Essayists, but which are really reducible to one or two very 
 common and well known precepts. I will go so far as to say 
 that my experience agrees with that (quoted by an Essayist with 
 disapprobation) of Dr. Benson. I have had many colleagues 
 at Oxford and at School, but among them, the few who
 
 13 
 
 would have been likely to write lengthy disquisitions in a 
 paper upon the Theory of Education, have been, from their 
 very idea of Theory, led to utter such lengthy disquisitions 
 to themselves and their pupils at moments for action, that all 
 action was suspended, to the admiration more than the edification 
 of their pupils. 
 
 However this be, an Assistant Master's acquaintance with Theory 
 can only affect his own treatment of his individual pupils. The 
 general system of his School supplies for him the Theory of general 
 Education, to which all the Masters must conform, unless they wish 
 to introduce chaos by their Theories. Theory is not in fact wanted 
 by Assistant Masters at their commencement of teaching. What 
 they want, if anything, is practical advice to serve them as a mental 
 looking-glass, to shew them whether they really are carrying out 
 their ideas or not. In this, as well as in Theory, Head Masters 
 may, and probably often do, fail ; but such shortcomings on the 
 part of Head Masters in these points will not be remedied by 
 examining Assistant Masters in Theory. I do not doubt 
 that men who have not been at the University or at great 
 Schools, may derive from general lessons in elementary 
 maxims, a very real help to compensate for th^ir want of 
 experience. Eor the present, I imagine that Teachers for Girls' 
 High Schools will be likely to derive great benefit from the 
 masculine experience of such men as are likely to be appointed 
 Lecturers at Cambridge. For Teachers of Middle-class Boys' 
 Schools, I am quite ready to believe that the same is true. But, 
 after all, even to them, such Lectures will only be a substitute 
 for experience. They will not in any degree be equal to it. 
 While for Masters who have passed through Public Schools and 
 the Universities, I doubt if they would have much effect, except 
 perhaps in the case of weak men, who might be led to change 
 one form of routine for another, with possibly the addition of 
 not thinking it routine, but something very superior. The evils 
 expected to be remedied will not be remedied. Differences will 
 remain between good and bad Teachers, clever and dull ones ; 
 differences in vitality, vivacity, sympathy, resource; differences 
 in temper and patience ; differences of knowledge. Genius will 
 experimentalize still, and trust nothing but its own experience, 
 and meanwhile will not do as much harm by its experiments as
 
 14 
 
 is supposed. Certificates will not change this. Let men read 
 their histories of Educators, and let them talk earnestly with one 
 another about points of Theory and Practice ; but whatever 
 need there be for Theory in our present general system of 
 Education, or in individual School systems, or in individual 
 Head Masters, do not let us lay the flattering unction to our 
 souls, that an Examination of aspirant Teachers in the History 
 and Theory of Education will furnish the panacea for all the 
 pains of our " bad quarters of hours,^^ or give the training 
 needed to regenerate the Educator of the Future. 
 
 Do I then say, that Public School Education is not imperfect? 
 Who am I that I should say so ? Have we not an epigram from 
 Mr. Gladstone ? 
 
 '•Boys learn but little here below, 
 And learn that little ill." 
 
 Why need we any further witness? And have not men, more 
 slaves to epigram than Mr. Gladstone, said that "Public 
 Schoolboys learn nothing but Latin and Greeks and don't learn 
 that." And if Head Masters propose to add any new subject, 
 is not the newspaper epigram always ready, "They had better 
 learn first to teach what they profess." And if we listen to the 
 more particular criticisms offered, does not one complain that we 
 do not teach multumj and another that we do not teach multa ? 
 Does not one complain that we do not educate upon Theory, and 
 another that our boys do not succeed in Competitive Examin- 
 ations ? Does not one complain that boys know nothing when 
 they leave School, and another that we are sacrificing power to 
 knowledge? Does not one complain that boys are not made 
 " healthy animals," that pupils are not made to take exercise, 
 and another that games have attention paid them, and still more 
 that boys are compelled to play them? Does not one urge 
 Natural Science as the only subject worthy of attention ? another 
 Classics? another, English ? while others say, that Education is 
 to be the harmony of all the faculties ? Does not the Army say 
 that it is monstrous that conversational French should not be 
 acquired by the dullest schoolboy, and the Universities say that 
 French is not a subject for School Education ? Does not — ? 
 but I could go on quoting such criticisms to infinity. 
 
 The only consolation is, that iEsop once wrote a fable on The 
 Man, the Boy, and the Ass.
 
 15 
 
 Ought I to reply to these questions ? If so, what is to be 
 my reply ? Am I to follow one scientific advocate of the 
 German training, and have recourse to a priori argument? am 
 I to say, " Is it probable that so many learned Head Masters do 
 not know their business?" Or should I follow Mr. Herbert Spencer, 
 in appealing to Final Causes ? should I argue; "Nature has made 
 parents unequal, in order that their children should not do 
 equally well, and so cause a block in the world" ? Or shall I use 
 the piteous appeal put by newspapers into Head Masters' 
 mouths ; '' Do trust us ; we are very sorry we cannot please you, 
 but we really do our best?" Or shall I merely recite: 
 
 ' ' My brethren, sad it is to see 
 
 (Particularly so to me ) 
 
 So many people disagree?" 
 
 You would be surprised, I hope, if I followed the views of 
 some newspaper correspondents, and said that parents were to 
 blame for all the shortcomings of Schools, and that parents were 
 bound to make their boys learn, and to keep their boys out of 
 mischief at School. Should you be less surprised if I said, that 
 English boys are what the English public wishes them to be, and 
 that that public wishes boys to grow up men, but does not want 
 them to grow learned ; that if only few become learned, it is only 
 the few who can look forward beyond the moment even to such 
 motives as future distinctions, and that the mass do not find in 
 their immediate motives, encouragements to learning; they do 
 not, that is, find that their learning makes them more acceptable 
 to other young men, or to other young men's mothers and sisters? 
 Perhaps I ought to leave it to others to traverse the indict- 
 ments, to point out that their contradictions may indicate that 
 Schools combine as far as is possible the various functions 
 required of them ; and to challenge objectors to produce from 
 any system of normal training an Utopian School of five hundred 
 boys, developing independent wills and individual characters, 
 combined with uniform studious docility, and an universally high 
 level of culture and literary attainments. 
 
 But after all, what have these criticisms to do with the 
 training of Assistant Masters of Public Schools in the Theory 
 of Education ? Nothing, except that they shew that there 
 is no accepted Theory of Education in which to instruct 
 them. Happily therefore, as I have said before, the Theory
 
 16 
 
 of Education is not what they need, if they need anything. 
 If in any cases they fail to carry out their part in the School 
 system, to teach what is assigned to them to teach, or to 
 manage the individual boys committed to them, that will be due 
 to some personal defect in practice, of which they will generally 
 be unconscious. As I have said above, the machinery needed to 
 correct this, will be some form of practical training. Head 
 Masters' supervision ought to supply this ; but if Head Masters 
 shrink with possibly too much delicacy from exercising such 
 supervision adequately, still the substitute for that must be 
 something of a practical kind. It is this practical training which 
 has been our crux through all our ten years' discussions about 
 training Teachers. Our first idea was to find Normal Schools in 
 the Schools already existing in Oxford and Cambridge ; but the 
 circumstances of those Schools obliged us to give up that idea. 
 We then proposed that aspirant Masters should, before com- 
 mencing work, go as Student Masters to some great School ; but 
 this plan also came to nothing. The last plan was that such 
 men's actual work at their own Schools should be placed under 
 University inspection, according to the existing Scheme; but 
 little as this comes to, even this appears to be abandoned by the 
 most active supporters of the Scheme. We seem to have brought 
 this question at last to its ultimate issue. There is no other 
 method of giving practical training but the establishment of 
 Normal Schools. 
 
 What then would be the value of such Normal Schools ? 
 You will have gathered from what I have already said, that for 
 able young men who have passed through Public Schools and the 
 University, I do not think that they are necessary in general. 
 At the same time they would have two uses. Many men might 
 avail themselves of such definite instruction, who do not care to 
 attend Lectures or to be examined in Theory. This would depend 
 upon the reputation of the Normal Master. Such Schools would 
 besides have a real use as places to which exceptional men might 
 be relegated, who failed on trial to justify the testimonials upon 
 which they were selected. Such exceptional Masters might in 
 that way have their defects corrected more efficiently than in the 
 presence of their own class by their own Head Master. But if 
 they would be only useful in exceptional cases for Public School-
 
 17 
 
 masters, yet the representations upon which the Head Masters 
 ask for some system of training Teachers, make it apparent that 
 for Middle-class Schools the value of such Normal Schools would 
 be very great. They would in fact supply just what is needed 
 for them. I will remind you, (though it is obvious that I expose 
 myself to epigrams for saying so,) that it is really for this class 
 of Schools that the Educational Eeformers have been urging 
 improvement, it is there that the country most needs it. Uni- 
 versity and Public School Commissions gratify a few restless 
 personalities, but they are beside the mark ; besides that they 
 have been repeated over and over again already. Whether that 
 highest grade of Education, if I may call it so, be perfect or not, 
 it is not in that that England is inferior to France or Germany, but 
 in the education of the commercial classes. They are the people 
 for whom least has been done by the country. They are the people 
 who have the least notion what Education should be, or how to 
 judge who can educate. It may even be said, that it is a question 
 whether there are men at present educated in a way to carry out 
 efficiently, what would be the best system of Education for them. 
 
 Middle-class Schools and, with them. Normal Schools for 
 Middle-class Teachers, appear to me to be the chie'f educational 
 need of the country at present. 
 
 What would be the difficulty of establishing Normal Schools 
 apart from the cost ? For the highest Schools the difficulty may 
 be great. Who is to be the Master ? Who is to select him ? 
 Who can be the boys ? I will not draw out these difficulties into 
 their detail, but my impression is, that the diflerence of degree in 
 which these difficulties attach to Middle-class Normal Schools 
 would amount to a difference of kind, and that the one difficulty 
 in starting these would be that of cost. London, Leeds, Man- 
 chester, Birmingham, Liverpool, could readily find a place for such 
 Normal Schools in their Educational systems; for the cost, I 
 cannot but think that such Middle-class Education may well 
 claim its turn of assistance from the country. 
 
 My general conclusion then is, that the point to which men 
 interested in the improvement of National Education should 
 give their attention at this time, even in preference to the 
 construction of a Theory of Education, is the establishment of 
 Middle-class Normal Schools.
 
 18 
 
 I hope the Normal Schools may not wait for the construction 
 of a Theory ; though I am of opinion myself, that the present 
 is a very favorable moment for constructing a Theory of National 
 Education for boys not destined for the Universities. No system 
 in their case has to be abolished, because none exists. A 
 modern form of Education would be readily accepted for them, 
 if it was felt that it was not as an inferior kind of Education 
 that it was constructed, but as that really in itself the best. 
 For these boys, who form the large mass of English boys, I 
 believe that it would be no difficult matter, either to construct 
 an adequate course of Education upon true principles, or to 
 establish Normal Schools. It is in the interests of these boys that 
 the Bills for registering Teachers and the Endowed Schools Bill, 
 No. 2, have professedly been proposed. The compulsory powers, 
 which alone could give meaning to such Bills, are professedly inten- 
 ded by the promoters of those Bills to be used by the Schools that 
 teach these boys. If Normal Schools were established for 
 Masters to teach in such Schools, there need be but little difficulty 
 in exercising those compulsory powers. For a few years, 
 and at the extreme fringes of that department of Education, 
 individual cases of difficulty might arise. But the difficulties 
 that have hampered the recent attempts to amend this depart- 
 ment, have arisen from the mistake of extending the range of 
 operations beyond the sphere for which they were needed, in 
 ways that were not necessary for their objects. If the Legislature 
 has given certain Schools constitutions devised specially for the 
 purpose of constructing their system of teaching, and guaranteeing 
 the execution of it, it is mere restlessness to proceed immediately 
 afterwards to supersede authorities established by itself; and if 
 a Eegistration Bill includes with one sweep all men who have 
 University degrees, what purpose is served by including under 
 its operations Schools that have none but University men as 
 Masters? It is common sense not to attempt too much. Let 
 common sense have the courage to recognize that there are 
 differences between Schools and Schools, and let there be no 
 dread of unfairness in drawing a line between Schools, whose 
 object it is to prepare for Universities, and those whose object it 
 is not. And then let these latter Schools have the benefits 
 provided for them, which those Educators who know them better
 
 19 
 
 than I do, say that they ueed. I believe that such common 
 sense and courage might, with very little difficulty, achieve what 
 the country most needs in Education. 
 
 I believe further, that it is by such an upward process, 
 constructing a modern National Education, for Middle Classes, 
 that analogous improvements may most naturally and easily be 
 introduced into the systems of the Universities, and of the 
 Schools connected with them. 
 
 IV. In conclusion, do I say that Cambridge has wasted 
 her energies in what she has done for the training of Teachers ? 
 Nothing of the kind. Supposing the Head Masters repeat that 
 they cannot insist upon Cambridge Certificates, should your 
 Syndicate's action come to an end ? I cannot think so. Looking 
 only at the negative results, it is a service to have canvassed the 
 possible alternative Schemes for training Teachers, which at first 
 seemed so easy and simple and practical, and to have brought 
 the most sanguine to abandon the idea of any previous practical 
 training being possible, without the establishment of Normal 
 Schools. It is a more positive service to have turned any 
 English Schoolmaster's mind to weigh the importance of 
 Theory and Principles. It is certainly a positive serVice to have 
 occasioned Mr. Fitch's able Lectures on Practical Teaching. 
 If it has proved impossible for Middle-class Teachers to attend 
 personally Lectures at Cambridge, still those Lectures will reach 
 all in their published form, and so extend their benefits even in 
 a wider and more permanent manner. The attention paid to 
 them cannot fail to be greatly enhanced by their having been 
 University Lectures. May it not be hoped that even more 
 attention may be obtained by the same University position, for 
 Lectures addressed more directly to the special difficulties 
 attached to Middle-class, Public School, and University Edu- 
 cation of older pupils? and that the Professor's Chair may 
 supply a well-considered sketch of Theories of Education for those 
 distinct departments? I believe that the Chair was established not 
 merely in deference to Head Masters' wishes, but from a sense of 
 the fitness of the thing itself; as an additional part of the 
 practical action which Cambridge has been so nobly forward in 
 taking, to develop the national uses of a University. I hope 
 that Cambridge may continue that Chair, and your Syndicate.
 
 20 
 
 I hope that the lectures given from that Chair may be opened 
 as widely as possible, and may draw to them such Undergraduates 
 as have not previously suffered sufficient experience of many 
 varied Teachers. They might learn to learn as Students, as well 
 as learn to teach afterwards. And I hope the lectures may be 
 "free^^ — as on a subject which the University desires to popular- 
 ize, — as lectures not given as a boon to a special class, but as 
 the University's contribution to the nation. Well worth fees as 
 Mr. Fitch's lectures are. Undergraduates cannot tell beforehand, 
 what lectures will be worth, that they should commit themselves 
 to an unknown course, and a known fee. The book is cheaper 
 and more permanent. To draw Undergraduates to hear and 
 discuss such lectures, is the most useful way of introducing 
 Theory to the coming generation. And if fees do not come when 
 they are asked, — then full rooms are better than empty. Keep 
 the Chair, but don't stultify it, or yourselves, — or us. 
 
 Keep your Syndicate too. Acting all together, the distin- 
 guished men that form it may carry their suggestions to School 
 Masters beyond the lines of Mr. Herbert Spencer, and construct 
 some Theory based on experience, that may embody the highest 
 sentiments, but not stultify them. Possibly the able Masters 
 of the few existing large Middle Class Schools, or the much-to- 
 be-respected College of Preceptors, have constructed or are 
 constructing a Theory of Middle-class Education. The existence 
 of such a Syndicate as yours appears to me to give, in conjunction 
 with such a body as our Committee of Head Masters, the best 
 possible opportunity for consultative construction of a future 
 Theory for the higher Education of the country. 
 
 Believe me. 
 
 Yours faithfully, 
 
 GEORGE EIDDING. 
 
 Winchester College, 
 
 Fehniary, 1882.
 
 - »ii>aii - /<iF»r^,^i....^«..x ■ It'
 
 n^ # 
 
 M04 
 
 m 
 
 
 rm'-' ,^,-^''- 
 
 
 N^. 
 
 ^ll *^ ■ '•'■ 
 
 ^^ .^ -5S 
 
 
 ^0% "^^ 
 
 ■-^^^*'-';:-ci:lM'''^ 
 
 r^-. 
 
 .ft'sSI 
 
 
 %Mif-