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).