EDUCATIONAL IDEALS OF QUAKER LEADERS
[Sidenote: Criticism inevitable; beneficial]
Any institution one may name has its adverse critics. The basis of
their criticism is often ill-defined; it is sometimes fact, sometimes
imagination; it may spring from a knowledge of truth, or possibly from
ignorance.
[Sidenote: Some criticism based on misunderstanding]
[Sidenote: Certain doctrines]
Quakerism has had many critics and the effect of wise criticism may be
seen in some of the changes from the old to the modern Quakerism. Much
of that which was unjust and without foundation of fact, failed to have
any effect whatever. But though the effect on the institution may have
been nil, it occurs in some cases that the criticism still lives in the
popular mind and is accorded a good degree of authenticity. By those
better informed it may not be so considered. It is with one of these
criticisms, concerning the attitude of Quakers toward education, that we
are chiefly concerned in this chapter. Due chiefly to a misinterpretation
of the doctrine of _inner light_ and its application, which was mentioned
in the first chapter, there arose an erroneous conception of the Quakers’
attitude towards education. This conception is not always constant; it
varies now to this side, now to that, but does not cease to persist. In
order that this criticism may be put as clearly as possible before the
reader, use is made here of a quotation from the works of S. H. Cox, at
one time a member of Friends, who expresses with clearness the opinion of
a very considerable group of critics.
[Sidenote: The criticism offered by S. H. Cox]
But there is one feature of the system of Friends which
deserves a recognition here—its inimical regard to classical
and scientific learning. I do not say that all Friends are thus
hostile, or that they are all alike hostile to liberal learning
but I charge this hostility on the system. That such is its
character, appears from the denunciation, the indiscriminate
proscription of Barclay, and that not in a few places in
his book. It appears in the general hostility of Friends to
all colleges and seminaries where the elevated branches are
thoroughly taught. Not one young Friend out of five hundred,
even in this free country, ever obtains a liberal education in
fact or in name; certainly never becomes graduated in the arts
at any chartered institution, and where an instance occurs,
it is always attended with special difficulties. They have no
college of liberal science in the world! Some, I know, of the
suspected worldly sort in Philadelphia have proposed and would
have forwarded so excellent an object, but they were always
awed into despondency by the unlettered, all-knowing light
within. And in this, their obsequiousness was quite consistent,
for if schools, academies, and universities are all in their
nature wrong, and as such forbidden of God, it is certainly
right to desist totally and at once from the prosecution of
their cause! Incidental evils they will always include, but
the system is not chargeable with these, unless in its nature
it approves and fosters them. There will always be, perhaps,
hypocrites at the communion table but christianity does not
make them, and the purest ministry of the gospel will often
become a savor of death unto death, but sinners themselves and
not such a ministry are to blame for the consequence. And so
the best organized system of intellectual education that the
world has seen has often presented the appalling spectacle of
profligate and wicked students perverting its privileges. But
what of that? Shall we burn our colleges? Why not our primary
school houses too? What beneficient institution, what bounty
of the blessed God is not perverted and abused in this naughty
world....[74]
I cannot leave this matter without remarking the power of
education especially with Friends. Their mode of education
is the making and the keeping and the secret of their sect.
They subdue the infant conscience with the direct rays of the
inward light. They identify all divinity and right in the
associations of their children with the light within and its
friendly fruits. Here the spell commences that grows with their
growth and strengthens with their strength. Investigation is
much akin to skepticism and is devoutly precluded—but what
worse skepticism it is to suppose that investigation could raze
the foundation of our faith. They must take everything for
granted or see it in the light. They must wear a ridiculous
cut and color of clothes, such as are orthodox or common to
the clanship and use the plain language and act like Friends,
and then if they feel awkward or foolish, if their garb
appears ridiculous to themselves, if their manner expose
them to jeering and affront, if they are insolently struck
(as I have often) in the street by worthless boys and cursed
as a “Quaker,” if their effeminate holy whine is profanely
mocked, as it often is by saucy passengers, and if a thousand
other inconveniences accrue, especially if they are sometimes
asked for one good reason for such singularity in gratuitous
opposition to mankind, they must just bear it all for
righteousness sake, not be afraid of the cross, but remember
early Friends how much more they endured in the same cause.
Now much of this which they call a guarded education, is just
the worst kind of sorcery. It is a fascination and religious
tyrannizing over the blighted attributes of mind. It is a
system exactly calculated to prostrate every noble, courageous
and manly sentiment, and to transmute a fine ingenuous boy into
a sorry, sly, and often simulating creature in the form of a
man.[75]
[Sidenote: Contrast Cox’s statements above with those of early Quakers in
regard to education]
It is not necessary to discuss directly the views set forth in the
above quotation, as they are stated clearly enough in the author’s own
language. However, in the following pages, there will be presented the
views on education of as many prominent Friends as space will permit,
that in so doing they may be considered in connection with the remarks
of their critics and a just comparison made. In presenting the views
of Quaker educators reference may be made to salient points in the
criticism, which seem out of keeping with the ideas set forth and without
foundation as matters of fact.
[Sidenote: Only a few of the leaders’ statements to be considered]
There are quite a number of men, in the brief period studied, who stand
out clearly and express themselves definitely in favor of education,
though they do not consider it the first requisite for a minister of
the gospel.[76] From this number it will be feasible to select only a
few for the chief consideration, relegating the remainder to a place of
comparative unimportance and incidental notice. The work of George Fox,
though he was poorly educated, had a remarkable effect on the educational
work of the society. But it is not necessary to review that in the
present chapter as it has been presented in the first.[77]
By far the most familiar of all characters in Quaker history is that of
William Penn. And to his influence must be attributed largely the hearty
interest in education shown, not only in Philadelphia, but also in the
surrounding communities. He was well educated, but it is not desired
to make a case for or against him on the basis of his education; let
us judge by his written or spoken expression and actual procedure in
practice. No attempt is made to prove or disprove his contentions as
to what was right or wrong, necessary or unnecessary in education. The
questions asked in his case and the others that follow is: What did they
approve or disapprove of in education?
[Sidenote: Penn recommends practical virtues]
Not only in works that might be called strictly educational did Penn give
educational advice, valuable alike to youth and to parents, the directors
of youth. His advice to his children on the value of diligence and its
necessity for success, and the propriety of frugality, even in the homes
of the rich, embodies many of the most essential principles in education
at any time. It is especially applicable to the education of the man of
business, emphasizing the importance of the practical duties in life.
Some pointed statements are especially worthy of repetition.
[Sidenote: Diligence]
[Sidenote: Frugality]
Diligence ... is a discreet and understanding application
of onesself to business; ... it loses not, it conquers
difficulties.... Be busy to a purpose; for a busy man and a
man of business are two different things. Lay your matters and
diligence succeeds them, else pains are lost.... Consider well
your end, suit your means to it, and diligently employ them,
and you will arrive where you would be....[78] Frugality is a
virtue too, and not of little use in life, the better way to
be rich, for it hath less toil and temptation.... I would have
you liberal, but not prodigal; and diligent but not drudging; I
would have you frugal but not sordid.[79]
This bit of philosophy is educational in its bearing in very much the
same way as that of Benjamin Franklin.
In the letters to his wife and children, referring to the care for their
education, he is more specifically concerned with actual school education.
[Sidenote: School education recommended; the useful emphasized]
For their learning, be liberal. Spare no cost, for by such
parsimony all is lost that is saved; but let it be useful
knowledge such as is consistent with truth and godliness, not
cherishing a vain conversation or idle mind; but ingenuity
mixed with industry is good for the body and the mind too. I
recommend the useful parts of mathematics, as building houses,
or ships, measuring, surveying, dialing, navigation; but
agriculture especially is my eye. Let my children be husbandmen
and housewives; it is industrious, healthy, honest and of good
example, ...[80]
[Sidenote: Private tutors desired]
His preference, as might be expected from an Englishman of that time, was
for a tutorial system of education. His reasons therefore seem to have
been based chiefly on moral grounds.
Rather have an ingenious person in the house to teach them,
than send them to schools; too many evil impressions being
received there.[81]
The above quotation alone would seem to be adequate proof that Penn did
not oppose education, but urged it for others and in his own family. But
still more convincing and irrefutable evidence is found in the preamble
to this school charter, whence an extract is taken.
[Sidenote: Public education essential for the welfare of a people]
Whereas, the prosperity and welfare of any people depend in
great measure upon the good education of youth, and their early
instruction in the principles of true religion and virtue,
and qualifying them to serve their country and themselves, by
breeding them in writing and reading and learning of languages,
and useful arts and sciences, suitable to their sex, age and
degree; which cannot be effected in any manner or so well
as by erecting public schools for the purposes aforesaid,
therefore....[82]
[Sidenote: His ideals expressed in action]
[Sidenote: Yearly meeting recommend French, High and Low Dutch, Danish,
etc.]
If, as must be admitted, the previous statement points out the lack of
any opposition to the ordinary rudimentary education that is necessary
for the everyday walks of life, the last one certainly does the same
in reference to his attitude towards a higher classical education.
Moreover, this is not a mere skeleton of words never clothed with the
flesh of action. The principles set forth in the charter were actually
incorporated in the work of the schools established in Philadelphia, and
we find them maintaining a classical school for languages and higher
mathematics.[83] The practical elements received the just emphasis which
belonged to them; it was necessary that the boys and girls be made able
to earn a living and be at least ordinarily intelligent citizens. The
example of Philadelphia was followed by other communities; practical
needs were given the first consideration and a higher classical education
offered when it became possible. Not only were these studies, which we
would term higher education, mentioned by Penn and other writers among
Quakers, but they were taken up and recommended by the yearly meeting.
For example, in 1737, the minutes recommend that as opportunity can be
found, children should be privileged to learn “French, High and Low
Dutch, Danish, etc.”[84] This particular recommendation was made by the
meeting because of a felt need.[85] If then in case of a need for a
particular subject, they were willing to recommend that it be taught, can
it be truly said that they opposed all education?
[Sidenote: Barclay’s position defined]
It may be well to examine Barclay, since it is with him and his writings
that Cox takes issue. In his _Apology for Christian Divinity Vindicated_
is to be found a very clear statement of his position on the subject, and
he voices it as the principle of the whole society as well. He seems to
be answering some critic, who has taken him to task for his educational
views:
[Sidenote: In his _Apology_]
He goes on after his usual manner saying, I inveigh against all
human learning that has been made use of any ways in Theology;
but where he finds this asserted I know not, whether the words
he would declare it from, to wit: that man hath rendered the
plain and naked truth obscure and mysterious by his wisdom,
will bear such a consequence is left to the reader’s judgment.
But he thinks he has found out our secret design of being
against learning and schools of learning, which is neither our
affirmation nor our principle, but his own false supposition.
We would, saith he, have all those banished, that we might more
easily prevail with our errors. But methinks the man should
be more wary in venting his own false imaginations, unless he
would bring some ground for them; for his assertion is so far
untrue, that if he had been rightly informed, he might have
known that we have set up schools of learning for teaching of
the languages and other needful arts and sciences,[86] and
that we never denied its usefulness; only we denied it be a
qualification absolutely necessary for a minister, in which
case alone we have opposed its necessity.[87]
[Sidenote: Benezet’s early life and education]
Another character of very great importance in this connection is
Anthony Benezet. Born, 1713, at St. Quentin in France, of “an ancient
and respectable family” he spent his early years in France and then in
Holland, whither his father had fled for refuge.[88] A few months were
spent in Rotterdam and the family then moved to London where the father
entered into the mercantile business and retrieved to some extent his
fallen fortunes. This enabled him to give Anthony sufficient education
to qualify him for that business, for which, however, he seemed to evince
but little taste. Being of a very religious nature, he became a member
of Friends at about fourteen years of age, and in that society found the
field of his whole life’s activity, which was chiefly educational.[89]
Considerable space will be devoted to his work in respect to the
education of Negroes, so that will be entirely omitted in this place.[90]
He was a voluminous writer, producing chiefly tracts and letters, and
a great majority of these have a definite educational bearing. Because
of the great number of them it is impossible really to do them justice,
but an attempt will be made to state a few brief theses for which he
unchangingly stands.
[Sidenote: Education a function of government, but often neglected as
such; hence individual effort necessary]
_First_, education is a religious and social duty.[91] It is exceedingly
interesting to notice that he looks upon education as in the first
place a governmental function, _if the governments of this world were
influenced by true wisdom, they would make the proper education of youth
their first and special care_;[92] but since governments have neglected
to do this, it occurs to him that it is a service for which Quakers are
remarkably well fitted. It is a service for which the wage is very small
and which secures no return of special social favors for the laborer. But
they, being a quiet people, not wishing to gain great wealth or to shine
in social positions, can find their sphere of activity in the education
of the youthful members of society.
[Sidenote: Children represent “capital”; they must be educated]
_Second_, a special care in the education of the poor is urged.[93]
This should become the duty and secure the interest of the well-to-do
public spirited man, for if the upper class does not safeguard it,
they cannot be educated. The poor child represents so much unimproved
property, the owner being unable to improve it, which, if taken over by
philanthropists, may become of some consequence to himself and perform
great services for society at large. Such a movement would, besides being
a great aid to the poor and uneducated, be also a worthy occupation for
those who at present have nothing but time and money to spend. It would
help them to realize that there is something real in the world, something
greater than wealth and broader than religious denominations. The heart
of Benezet knew no bounds; in his philanthropy he included all classes.
_Third_, a definite stand is made for higher standards for teachers.
I do not know how it is amongst you, but here any person
of tolerable morals, who can read and write, is esteemed
sufficiently qualified for a schoolmaster; when indeed, the
best and wisest men are but sufficient for so weighty a
charge.[94]
He endeavors to show that the work of a teacher is pleasant and should
interest a better class of masters than it has in the past. The
experiences of Benezet in the school work were of most pleasant nature.
Not only by his own statement, but judged also by the accounts given
in his memoirs by Robert Vaux, it seems that he was unusually kind and
sympathetic as a master, which won him the greatest respect of his
pupils.[95] The tasks of schoolteaching are only unpleasant when being
performed merely for the sake of the wage obtained. Those who attempt to
teach large numbers for the sake of a large income find it disagreeable;
they form the class of teachers against whom he would discriminate.[96]
Add to these three principles, his great contribution toward the freedom
and education of the Negroes, his long life of service, and we have all
for which he lived. It is stated that he had no private life; at any rate
it sinks into oblivion in comparison with his interest and active work in
public philanthropies.[97]
[Sidenote: John Woolman, his position in regard to education]
[Sidenote: The responsibility of tutors and parents]
The educational influence of John Woolman in regard to Negro and Indian
education will be mentioned in another chapter,[98] but concerning
education generally he was equally outspoken, and being a member of
some consequence he was able to make his influence felt. Like Benezet,
he regarded education as a social duty, both to each individual and
to the community of individuals. This duty could not be performed by
immoral tutors and schoolmasters, for the pupil could be made to rise no
higher than the master; so the result would be an immoral society.[99]
The responsibility, in the last analysis, for the right conduct of
schools falls upon the parents. If they are indifferent, nothing can be
accomplished for the schools, for the whole community is no better or
more insistent in its demands than the individuals constituting it. For
this reason he urges individual philanthropy to come to the aid of the
schools, which are badly neglected; those who possess wealth can do no
better, for, as he says:
Meditating on the situation of schools in our provinces, my
mind hath, at times, been affected with sorrow, and under these
exercises it hath appeared to me, what if those that have large
estates were faithful stewards, and laid no rent or interest
nor other demand, higher than is consistent with universal
love; and those in lower circumstances would under a moderate
employ, shun unnecessary expense, even to the smallest article;
and all unite humbly in seeking the Lord, he would graciously
instruct and strengthen us, to relieve the youth from various
snares, in which many of them are entangled.[100]
[Sidenote: Tuke, Whitehead, Crouch as advocates of education]
If to this list of advocates of education, it is necessary to add others,
mention should be made of Henry Tuke, George Whitehead, and William
Crouch. In defending certain differences between the Quaker doctrine
and that of other denominations, the former discusses this one, _in not
considering human learning essential to a minister of the gospel_.[101]
The reasons adduced are chiefly biblical; the knowledge of human
literature is not recommended by the New Testament as being necessary
for a minister, and this is considered conclusive proof. Moreover, it
is pointed out that Paul, though a well educated man, disclaimed the
value of his education for that service, and wished always to appear
to the people as an unlettered man of God.[102] But Tuke goes on to
explain that though it is not essential for a minister, learning is not
unesteemed nor its usefulness slighted.[103] Members are desired to
direct their attention to education, for a right use of it may promote
religion and benefit civil society.[104] That the use of Latin and
Greek is not decried may be seen in the work of Penn and Whitehead, who
were both scholars, and whose works are full of classical references and
illustrations. In one instance their chief argument against swearing is
produced from certain references to the works of Socrates and Xenocrates,
pointing out that the Greeks were aware of a higher righteousness
excelling that of the legal Jews.[105] The same point of view with
reference to a knowledge of the classics is taken by William Crouch, as
is understood at once by this statement:
They acknowledge the understanding of languages, especially of
Hebrew, Greek and Latin, formerly was and still is very useful,
yet they take them not therefore to be necessary to make a
minister nor so profitable as that one unacquainted with them
must be styled an idiot, illiterate and of no authority.[106]
[Sidenote: The Latin School of Philadelphia exemplifies contention of
those quoted above]
[Sidenote: Education an asset; but apt to be perverted]
Moreover, from various sources one is assured that a classical education
was not abhorred by the Quakers of Philadelphia. The work offered in
the classical school was for any one who had the ability to do it and
its attainment was encouraged by Friends. The higher education was for
girls as well as for boys, as we may judge from reading the journal
kept by Sally Wister (or Wistar), a Quaker girl of the days of the
Revolution.[107] She attended the school kept by Anthony Benezet,[108]
which was one of the highest class, moral and literary, and patronized
by the best classes of the citizens. Extracts from her _Journal_
indicate that her education had not been limited to the mere rudiments,
but that she enjoyed also an elementary knowledge, at least, of Latin
and French.[109] This sort of education was clearly not uncommon among
Friends and it was not the object of opposition on their part. It must,
however, be kept in mind that the Quakers never confused education
necessarily with true Christianity.[110] Religion in this life and the
salvation of one’s soul in the next was a problem which concerned the
poor as well as the rich, the untutored as well as the learned. How could
the demands be greater for one than the other; the same tests had to be
met and passed by all, the educated one received no favors though more
might be expected of him.[111] Education was looked upon as an asset
which might be turned to great use for Christianity, but the lack of it
was never a bar to Christianity.[112] On the other hand, education might
easily become, according to the Quakers’ views, a definite hindrance to
Christianity.[113]
[Sidenote: Scheme of education suggested by Thomas Budd]
It would be quite improper in connection with this subject to fail
to mention the scheme, Utopian in that day, which was conceived in
the mind of Thomas Budd, for the development of a system of education
for Pennsylvania and New Jersey. At the very outset it seems more
comprehensive than anything suggested by any other leader, and in fact
it embodied so much that it was quite beyond the limit of expectation
for either of the colonies. Thomas Budd, though not at first a member of
Friends, became convinced of the justice of their principles and joined
the society before the year 1678.[114] He was a man of affairs and became
greatly interested in the colonization of Pennsylvania and New Jersey,
whither he soon came as a colonist himself. At that time it was equally
true, as at the present, that if a scheme or undertaking was to be put
through, it must be made as attractive as possible to the prospector. The
attempt to do this called forth a considerable exercise of individual
initiative, and one result was the educational plan outlined by Thomas
Budd and published in Philadelphia in 1685. The details of the scheme
as outlined are deemed of sufficient interest and importance to warrant
their reproduction here.
[Sidenote: Children to be in public school seven years or more]
1. Now it might be well if a law were made by the Governors and
General Assemblies of Pennsylvania and New Jersey, that all
persons inhabiting the said provinces, do put their children
seven years to the Public School, or longer, if the parent
please.
[Sidenote: To receive instruction in the arts and sciences and to learn a
trade]
2. That schools be provided in all towns and cities, and
persons of known honesty, skill and understanding be yearly
chosen by the Governor and General Assembly, to teach and
instruct boys and girls in all the most useful arts and
sciences that they in their youthful capacities may be
capable to understand, as the learning to read and write true
English and Latin, and other useful speeches and languages,
and fair writing, arithmetic and bookkeeping; the boys to be
taught and instructed in some mystery or trade, as the making
of mathematical instruments, joinery, turnery, the making of
clocks and watches, weaving, shoemaking or any other useful
trade or mystery that the school is capable of teaching; and
the girls to be taught and instructed in spinning of flax and
wool, and knitting of gloves and stockings, sewing, and making
of all sorts of useful needlework, and the making of straw
work, as hats, baskets, etc., or other useful art or mystery
that the school is capable of teaching.
[Sidenote: Eight hours per day allotted to studies and chosen trade]
3. That the scholars be kept in the morning two hours at
reading, writing, bookkeeping, etc., and other two hours
at work in that art, mystery or trade that he or she most
delighteth in, and then let them have two hours to dine, and
for recreation and in the afternoon two hours at reading,
writing, etc., and the other two hours at work at their several
employments.
[Sidenote: Regular school work five and one-half days per week; moral
instruction on Saturday]
4. The seventh day of the week the scholars may come to school
only in the forenoon, and at a certain hour in the afternoon
let a meeting be kept by the schoolmasters and their scholars,
where good instruction and admonition is given by the masters
to the scholars and thanks returned to the Lord for his mercies
and blessings that are daily received from him, then let a
strict examination be made by the masters, of the conversation
of the scholars in the week past, and let reproof, admonition
and correction be given to the offenders, according to the
quantity and quality of their faults.
[Sidenote: Similar arrangement for girls educated separately]
5. Let the like meetings be kept by the school mistresses, and
the girls apart from the boys. By strictly observing this good
order our children will be hindered from running into that
excess of riot and wickedness that youth is incident to, and
they will be a comfort to their tender parents.
[Sidenote: Land endowment for schools]
6. Let one thousand acres of land be given and laid out in a
good place, to every public school that shall be set up, and
the rent or income of it to go towards the defraying of the
charge of the school.
[Sidenote: Indians and the poor to be educated free of cost]
7. And to the end that the children of the poor people, and
the children of Indians may have the like good learning with
the children of the rich people, let them be maintained free
of charge to their parents, out of the profits of the school,
arising by the work of the scholars, by which the poor and the
Indians as well as the rich, will have their children taught,
and the remainder of the profits, if any be to be disposed of
in the building of the schoolhouses and improvements on the
thousand acres of land, which belongs to the school.[115]
[Sidenote: The industrial and commercial values to be derived are pointed
out]
The author does not claim to be entirely original in his scheme, having
been influenced, he says, by a similar thing described by Andrew
Yarenton in a book, _England’s Improvements by Sea and Land_.[116]
His chief interest seems to be in the benefit to be derived for the
commercial life of the colonies, and for that reason there is accordingly
a great stress on the industrial education. By this introduction of the
industrial schools, spinning for example, in the larger cities and the
preparation of children at an early age for participation in that great
occupation, the production of linen cloth could be made equal not only
to the domestic demands but also a considerable margin for the foreign
trade.[117] It is pointed out that the colonial consumer pays twice as
much for his purchase as its cost of production in France or Germany, and
that he pays this extra cost into the coffers of the English merchants.
This profit should accrue to the home merchants.
[Sidenote: Scheme to be encouraged by the government]
[Sidenote: Essential points urged in the scheme]
[Sidenote: The lack of governmental support; supplied through meetings of
Quakers]
The educational and also the industrial scheme is to receive the backing
of the colonial government. It is recommended that laws be passed for
the encouragement of linen manufacturers and that farmers “that keep a
plow” should sow an acre of flax and two of hemp, with which to supply
the manufacturers.[118] Educational support by the government was not
secured, as is amply evidenced by the unsurpassed development of private
and parochial schools of all denominations. The churches were the
sponsors for education. It is worthy of note, however, that the elements
emphasized by Budd, (1) education in the arts and sciences for all those
capable of it, (2) industrial education for a trade for every one, (3)
moral and religious training, and (4) equal educational opportunities for
poor and rich or otherwise unfavored classes, are the same as those urged
officially by the Quakers.[119]
Far from receiving governmental support, it was necessary that the
schools be supported by individual or small group enterprise. The society
recognized this, and it is stated in the organization of the church that
the duty of the monthly meeting is to provide _for the subsistence_ of
the poor and _for their education_.[120] Furthermore it is recommended
that all special bequests of Friends be kept as a distinct fund for the
purpose originally intended by the donor, and that if expended for any
other purpose, it must be again made up by the quarterly meeting.[121]
One of the most frequent uses designated, judging from the records, seems
to have been the educational.[122]
[Sidenote: Have Quaker schools kept pace with the public?]
The reader may have perused the foregoing pages with more or less
interest; a curiosity may have been aroused concerning the present-day
attitude of Friends, educationally. Have they experienced any
considerable change? The institutional evidences of their continued
interest are familiar enough to the educationist. But what is the
attitude within the schools: Is instruction stiff and more formal there
than in the public schools, and what can be said of the progress among
the teachers? To answer all of these questions and similar ones is not
the purpose of this present work. And in the following excerpt, taken
from an expression drawn up by a body of teachers, it is not hoped to
find conclusive proof of this or that, but perhaps it may be taken as a
fairly reliable indication of the present professional attitude.
[Sidenote: The pupil as an individual to be emphasized]
[Sidenote: Well-equipped teachers needed; and their academic freedom
essential]
The teachers’ subjects are _not Mathematics, nor Latin,
nor Scripture, nor Quakerism_—they are boys and girls. The
information imparted is, in a sense, a minor matter: the growth
of the mind that assimilates it is all-important—growth in
keenness, efficiency and power....
To the Society at large we would put forward this view that the
principles urged above are deserving of careful consideration
in making any forward move. The quality of the teaching given
in our schools is in a measure in the hands of Friends; they
have raised admirable buildings in many places—these are a
small matter compared with the character of the staff. The
freedom of the teacher, which is an indispensable condition of
excellence is a gift they can grant or withhold. And that we
who are responsible for the term of school life may have the
best chance and the best reward, we would press upon Friends
the need of laying foundations and awakening interest in the
days of childhood, and of turning to best account the powers of
those who go forth from our schools.[123]
SUMMARY
[Sidenote: Summary of Cox’s position]
This chapter treats of the attitude of Friends towards education. At
the beginning there is presented a criticism of S. H. Cox, which is a
concrete example of the type of criticism referred to in these pages.
Following this there are presented the educational views of several
Friends,—Penn, Barclay, Benezet, Woolman, Whitehead, Crouch, Tuke, and
Thomas Budd, in order that the reader may judge of the truth or error
presented in the criticism. The chief points made in Cox’s criticism are:
(1) hostility of the Quaker system to classical education, (2) general
hostility of the Friends to colleges and seminaries of learning, and (3)
that the “light within” was sufficient without any education.
[Sidenote: Summary of points maintained by certain Quaker leaders]
From the material next presented it is shown that: (1) Penn recommended
both practical and higher education, (2) useful arts and sciences are
recommended to be taught in public schools, (3) the classics were
introduced as a part of the curriculum in the Penn Charter School, and
also in other schools established by the society, (4) Barclay explains
that the society holds a classical education not absolutely necessary
for a minister, though it is useful, (5) the learning of languages is
recommended by the London Yearly Meeting, (6) education is advocated
by Benezet as a religious and social duty; the education of the poor
and unfortunate classes and races is urged; a higher education for
schoolmasters is recommended, (7) Woolman urges the education of
Negroes and Indians as a social duty; the responsibility is placed on
the individual, (8) Crouch states that Hebrew, Greek, and Latin are
recognized as useful and are not opposed when taught for that purpose,
(9) Budd, one of the early Quakers in Pennsylvania, introduced a very
comprehensive and Utopian scheme for (_a_) industrial education and
(_b_) higher education, proposing to organize it under the control of
the General Assembly, and (10) indications are that progress, within the
teaching body in Friends’ institutions, is quite comparable with that
of other institutions, though there is no attempt to produce conclusive
evidence either to that effect or the contrary.