BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2190, 14 May 1908, Page 1

BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

EDUCATION BOARD DISCUSSION.

A MOTION DiEUEATHD..,,

The question of Bible teaching in schools came . uj> for ,-1 urther. • consideration at.'the, mooting ol' the (Hawke’s Buy" Ethical ion Board 0 n Monday evening.,,,' Pastor Jties .moyotj, in accordance with notice of motion, “That (Regulation 15 ho amended so as to road:— “The teaching in the schools shall bo for live hours daily for four days every week, and for four and a liaif hours for olio day a week, on the recommendation of a school committee and headmaster, and; on the mo proval of the chief inspector,; except that in the preparatory classes it shall ho for four hours only; hut in every case the afternoon ,instruction must be sonadaic,, from the morning instruction by a., interval of not less than one hour.' ” .(Pastor Rios, in speaking to the motion, said that he was afraid his intention had ibcen somewhat misunderstood. There seemed to bo an idea that he wanted to have the ordinary school hours interfered with for the purpose of Bible touching—that he wanted the (Bible tu,light during school hours. That was never his intention'. Th£ .Board had the statutory power to make the school hours four, but had made them live. - Ho had siStfetSinoe questioned the wisdom of the Board in doing this, but that was quite another thing. Bible teaching could still be carried on for half-an-hour outside of the live, but they might as .well drop it altogether as do this. Wllrat lie asked was that on four days the school hours should bo five, while on the fifth day they .should be-four and a half. Ho had no terferin.g with the legal secular hours." He only wanted one half-hour in every week. Ho did not say that the half-hour should be used (for Bible teaching. This would only ho so if the ministers or committees wished it. If some school committees wished the extra half-hour for dancing they would use it for that purpose, if they liked. Ho only asked .that the committees should have the right to use one half-hour in the week.

The Rev. Mr A. Grant seconded the motion.

Mr Dmrtoli said that he would fight ns long as breath was in him to keep the hours of the school day for secular education. The motion, liowevbr, wanted the school day reduced by one half-hour .in the week in order .that Bible instruction might be given. It was hardly worth hiding behind the fact that it was for this purpose. He was opposed to the motion because the question of this half-hour had to be decided first by the school committee, secondly by-the householders, and thirdly by the chief inspector. He objected to the inspectors or the school committees being brought into the matter at all. The question was that a committee that wanted Bible instruction carried out would see that a committee was elected and' pledged .-to carry out this matter. The result might be that this- committee might not be the best that could be obtained in tho interests of education. He also objected to the teachers being brought into the matter and lie did not think the opinion of the headmasters should bo required. If this were done teachers’ appointments would depend upon whether they supported this question or not. He did not think that the'Board should havo any objection to reducing tho school hours by one-half but he thought the question should be placed ;in tho hands of the people. They alone should decide. He moved as an amendment. “That Regulation 15 ibe amended to read as,follows; That teaching in the schools shall ho five hours daily except that in the preparatory classes it- shall be for four hours daily, with au interval of not less. than, one hour which must separate the morning from the afternoon .instruction ; provided that the schools may ibe reduced from five to four and a half hours on one day in the week when such a proposal is carried at a general meeting of householders iff. the district, due notice of 'which /by public advertisement shall be given by the chairman of the .committee on tho requisition of not less than ten householders.” Mr Tanner seconded the amendment and said that it really conceded everything essential which the mover of the motion desired. The only difference was that it was proposed to leave the decision to the householders instead of to the committees, teachers .and headmasters. This was certainly the most democratic step which the Board, should take. Continuing, Mr Tanner said .that it was a mistake to think that Bible teaching interfered with secular education. The experience of teachers was that it elevated tho children and they were more amendable to discipline. Ho would 1 support the amendr ment because he thought it an nanprovemont pn the motion. It offered the time principle of local option and ho was convinced that parents would not be blind to the interests of their children.

The chairman said lie thought the amendment was ultra vires. The Board in his opinion had no right to make a regulation passing on such a power to ii committee or an irresponsible .body of householders. iMr /Darton said ho would; alter his amendment to make it read the “annual meeting of householders” instead of “a general meeting.” Pastor Hies said this would, put the matter back for twelve months. Ho could not agree to that. The chairman said that the Hoard must take the responsibility of fixing the school hours. They could ■not delegate their powers to committees.

Pastor Hies asked the chairman if his ruling was that the Board; and. the Board only could fix the school hours.

Tho chairman replied' in the affirmative. The only question, therefore, was whether or not tho Board should reduce Hie school day by one half-hour in tile week.

Pastor Hies said he was quite willing to accept this as' lie only wanted an amicable arrangement. Mr 'McLernon said’ that lie was opposed 'both to the motion and to the amendment. The question to be decided was whether a certain amount of time fixed by the Board as necessary for the -school day should ho dropped and whether the work o.f the syllabus could be carried out in the shorter time. If this could he done he was prepared' to support the motion, hut he could not support any proposal which was ambiguous as to the school hours. If they could carry on the work in four and a half hours on ono day in the week then let that he the rule right throughout the whole school district. Tie could see no objection to any'system that made for the elevation of the children, hut lie wanted the school hours nrado clear. The chairman ruled that only thefirst part of the motion was in order and said lie would put it as follows: —“That (Regulation 15 be so amended as to read;: “The teaching in the schools shall be lor five hours daily for four days every week and for four hours and a half on one day a week.” iln reply to iMr Darton the chairman said the first part of the amendment was indistinguishable from the motion as now put, and the second part was out of order for the reasons he had stated. Personally lie would onoose any alteration in the regulations. The Board had. after very careful consideration, fixed the school day at five hours. The proposal to reduce the hours in one day to four and a half was avowedly for the purpose of introducing religious instruction. That, he considered,

would' be against the spirit of tlio Act; and therefore he .would vote against the motion. On-being..'put, tho motion was negatived <by S votes. to 4, the voting ijjjtdifg as follow®: —Ayes: .Messrs Tn n--lior and 'MaLornon, Raster Ries and ; t|itr Bov. A. 'Grant. Noes: Messrs 'Darton, Morgan,. Erickson, Whittington and the olpjjnmm.—‘jJ'Jkjlegraph.”

CONSIDERATION BY PRESBYTERY.

GENERAL .ASSEMBLYYd RECOMMENDATION.

At a sitting of the Presbytery in St. Andrew’s Church, Gisborne, yesterday tho question of Scripture reading in schools was considered when a remit from tho Gouora.l Assembly on the subject was received. The committee recommended that ministers enter the public schools outside of formal school hours, but inside ordinary school hours, on tho “Nelson” system. Throughout the schools of the Dominion 110 classes of this kind, had been formed, with an attendance of 10,000 young people, who, however, were only w. fraction of the hundred and twenty thousand children atteud- - ing tho schools of the colony. Tho Bov. William Grant said that tho “Nelson” system - had been a great success in Gisborne. In tho three schools 800 children, being 80 per cont. of the whole, were receiving Bible lessons one day a week in their,several,standards, under a staff of thirteen teachers. The'system had been organised by the Rev. E. W. Cliatterton, of tho Maori Theological College. A .hostile ’committee had been replaced by a friendly one, and at the end of the year tile opposition had become silent. He considered the schools presented an unrivalled opportunity to the clergy. No minister should say he had not time: this was the most important work lie had to do. (Religious instruction could he better imparted in this way than even in the Sabbath school.

Tho Rev. J. A. Ash or pointed out that the iHnwkc’s Bay Education Board had formally disapproved of flic Nelson system; and if they carried out their action consistently, the Gisborne arrangement would, bo stopped. The Napier ministers had been advised to approach the committee for leave to enter the school.

The Rev. Mr Aitken said that the Wanganui. Board had taken the same position as tho Hawke’s Bay Board; this, nevertheless, was not interfering with the Nelson system where already established. Mr Grant doubted if tho (Board dare interfere. If there was any interference several members might lose their office. The Rev. A. Whyte said he would 1 ho sorry to see the teaching discontinued. Three years ago the feeling in Poverty Bay was very different. The Nelson system far more than doubled the present religious instruction of the young, but it fell far short of the intensity and thoroughness' they had. known in .Scotland. He could not rest until all the ministers went into the si Look daily, as had .been done in Havelock for over eight years.