LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.
ENTRANCE SCHOLARSHIPS.
[TO THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR.")
Sin,—Mr. Crosskey asks, "Why is the old free grammar- school system to be overthrown'?" "by what right" do we sub- stitute " middle-class " schools for these old grammar-schools? The question, like many others, divides itself into two :-1. Is it right ? 2. Is it expedient ?
1. Whether it is " right " to alter founders' wills—for that is what the question comes to—has been largely discussed. Others may dispute whether it is abstract justice or not to do so, I merely wish to point out that it has been done in the case of many of our "free grammar-schools," with the consent of everybody, or at all events, without any expression of dissent loud enough to be recorded. A "free grammar-school" was generally one in which the scholars were to be taught "grammar" for nothing, and nothing but "grammar." Now, in most of these schools it is needless to say the curriculum has been extended; besides "grammar," boys are taught mathematics, science, and other non-grammatical subjects, if we may so call them, which the pious founder never contemplated. Moreover, money which the same pious founder left for the teaching of " grammar " has been diverted from such use to pay masters for the teaching of non-grammatical subjects.* Thus the wills of founders have been altered.
But if any one still takes his stand upon the original will, and says it ought not BO to have been altered, it seems fair to reply that if it is not " right" for poor parents to be obliged to pay for the teaching of "grammar," neither is it " right " that they should be excused payment at the expense of the Trust for mathematics, science, and other "modern "subjects, which, according to my ex- perience, are just the very subjects that poor parents, such as the clerks, artisans, shopmen, tradesmen, to whom Mr. Crosskey refers, wish their boys to learn, rather than the " grammar " which they can have for nothing. So that if one sticks to the will pure and simple, it is, to use a vulgar expression, about as broad as it is long ; thus, clerks, artisans, shopmen, Scc., wish their sons to have less time spent on free "grammar," and more time on what are called "commercial" subjects, thus giving up a certain amount of education for which they need not pay, for an equal amount of other education for which no payment is provided by the will, and for which, therefore, they have to pay.
To put it in another way, suppose £20 be the fee to paying scholars for the despised "grammar," and £20 the fee for all the other non-grammatical subjects, making £40 in all (not too much for a grammar-school of the first grade), the clerk, artisan, &c., who places his son on the "classical side" of a free grammar school would have to pay at least £20 for his non-grammatical education, and if he places him, as nearly every one of such parents would if they could, on the "modern side," he would by rights have to pay nearly the whole fee of £40. It remains therefore for the clerk, artisan, &c., or his advocate, if he wishes to make use of the free grammar-school according to the terms of the will,—(a), to send his son to learn "grammar" only, and pay nothing ; (b), to send his son on the "classical side," intended to fit boys for the university, and pay £20 for non-grammatical subjects ; (c), to send his son on the modern side. The main objections to each, of these courses would seem be, as regards (a), no parent would consider such an education sufficient, least of all the class of whom we have been speaking ; (b), very few clerks artisans who could pay £20 a year for a boy's education care to pay that, or less than that, for the mainly " grammatical " education which the boy would get ; (c), in those grammar-schools where there is good "modern side," the fee would be generally too high. Surely the mere statement of these alternatives is enough to show the most ob- stinate champion of the rights of dead men and poor parents that if he insists on the founder's will pure and simple, he may often find himself just as badly off as he thinks himself to be under the new system ; and this may go a long way to persuade him that it is " right " to alter founders' wills. Supposing this granted, it may be done :—
* Y.2e also the Case of Tonbridge School, where the original constitution was altered (I think by Lord Eldon), by no means entirely in accordance with the spirit of the will either.
1. By making non-grammatical subjects gratuitous also (as,. .indeed, they have been at some schools), and so relieving the poor parents.
2. By abolishing gratuitous education altogether, and applying part of the Trust to the establishment of public elementary achools and schools of the second grade, where poor parents may payabout the same fee as in alternative (b), and get an education much more to their liking for their sons. Those of them who do wish their sons to be educated for the Universities may endeavour to gain for them a free entrance, by competition, into one of the first- grade schools ; and as this wish is not generally entertained unless a boy shows considerable ability, it is probable that it will generally be realised.
The second of these two courses is the one which has generally been adopted. Mr. Crosskey, however, argues that it is not expedient, and would apparently suggest a measure something like (1), by which the numbers of free admissions would be, as far- m possible, unlimited, provided a boy could pass the entrance examination.
Some objections to this and to (1) also would seem to be,— free scholars would multiply, gradually monopolising the school, and in the case of small endowments, impoverishing it at the- same time to such an extent that masters' salaries would detrearge to a point at which it would be impossible to get first-tate men, and the standard of education, which had been raised to the firat grade by the effort of years, would fall back again to a lower grade. Or, to prevent this, the numbers of the school Ntrould have to be greatly reduced, and also the number of masters, thus causing considerable waste of working power ; and in cases- where schools have been enlarged and improved by the persona/ ability and sacrifice of the staff, a further loss of money, space, and effort. Such might have been the fate of Rugby and Man- chester among great schools, or of Tonbridge among lesser on-es.
There are, of course, other objections, but it SOMA to' roe that these two are fatal. Mr. Crosskey's chief objection to the new system is that it will intensify class - feeling in the worst possible way,—i.e., I suppose it will set the poor against the rich. Surely it has been shown that good education cannot be kept up without a well-paid staff of educators ; in other words, that the highest of all kinds of skilled labour must be pur- chased at its price. You give the poor man the kind of educa- tion that he can afford to purchase, and the rich man also. Why should this set the poor against the rich, any more than by giving each the kind of food he can afford to purchase ? Is it because- the Government does it? Must Government, then, favour tha. poor by giving them gratis a better education than they can afford to pay for, or a kind of education which they were never- intended not to pay for? Moreover, according to my experience of some few years as a master in two first-grade town and country- grammar-schools, it is this last kind of education which the poor- particularly desire for their sons, which they cannot often get out Of the old free grammar-sehool, and which the Commissioners have now. placed within their reach. One word more, Sir, and I have finished this portentously long epistle. I myself belong by birth to the class which has been benefited most by the free grammar-schools, and which has suffered most by their abolition, namely, the class of poor gentlemen, and it is therefore easy for anybody to accuse me of trying to kick away the ladder which helped me to climb. I plead guilty to the charge, but say in my defence that I would not try to kick the ladder away, if I did not think we could make. a better one ourselves, and grow better by doing so. The esta- blishment of Haileybury and of the College to which I now have the honour to belong shows how clergymen and officers have tried to meet their difficulty by united action, and the meana which have succeeded and will succeed in their case are equally in the- power of other poor parents, without distinction of classes.—I am,. Sir, &c., United Services College, Westward Ho. F. W. liaSsaar.
Previous page
