Raikes. The growth of free education everywhere in While the were in both Eng universal pub Value of the Instruction in Sunday Schools.' In fact, the value of secular instruction in both British schools and American Sunday schools was not large at its best. a makeshift These institutions were not unimportant in their effect land and upon the extension of education, but their work was helped point America, they necessarily limited to a few hours once a week, and their the way to secular training was always subordinate to the religious. lic instrucAnd finally, when the teachers became voluntary, the tion. instruction was rendered with more zeal than ability, and the secular element in the content gradually disappeared altogether. Both Raikes and all others interested in these institutions recognized their inadequacy as a means of securing universal education, and regarded them merely as auxiliary to a more complete system of instruction. But while a makeshift and by no means a final solution for national education, they performed a notable service for the times, and, like all philanthropic schools, helped point the way to a system of universal instruction at public expense.1 1 Lancaster's School in Southwark.-It has been evident that while most varieties of philanthropic education came into existence in the eighteenth century, some of the schools continued into the nineteenth. This was even more the case with the schools of the 'monitorial' system, which became prominent entirely within the first half of the latter century. This system may be said to have started in 1798 with a school for the children 1 For their influence in starting primary schools in the city of Boston, see p. 69. Joseph Lancaster started monitorial' poor of England in 1798, schools for the of the poor, opened in Southwark, London. The teacher was Joseph Lancaster (1778-1838), an English Quaker only twenty years of age. The youthful philanthropist had come to feel that "the want of system and order is almost uniform in every class of schools within the reach of the poor." To overcome the lack of organization and the resulting illiteracy, he undertook to educate as many of the bare-foot and unkempt children of the district as he could. His school-room was soon crowded with a hundred or more pupils, and, in order to teach them all, he used the older scholars as assistants. He taught the lesson first to these 'monitors,' and they in turn imparted it to the others, who were divided into equal groups. Each monitor cared for a single group. The work was very successful from the first, and Lancaster called further attention to it in 1803 by an account he published under the title of Improvements in Education as it respects the Industrious Classes of the Community. He also lectured on his methods throughout England and established 'monitorial' schools everywhere, and it was generally believed that an effective means had at length been found for educating everyone with little cost. Lancaster, however, proved most reckless, and his venture had by 1808 plunged him deeply in debt. Having rescued him from the debtors' prison, certain philanthropic men of means in that year founded 'The Royal Lancasterian Institution,' to continue the work on a practical basis. But within half a dozen years, Lancaster withdrew from the association and started a school of his own. A few years later he left England for foreign lands, where he again met with failure and poverty, and finally died in the city of New York, a disappointed man. · to perpetuate the liberalistic Lancasterianism upon National Society, un The 'British and Foreign' and the National' Societies. Yet the organization for perpetuating his work, which after the withdrawal of Lancaster became known and the British and Foras 'The British and Foreign Society,' continued to eign Society flourish and perform a splendid service for education. was founded So successful was it that the Church of England began his work. to fear its liberalistic influence upon education. Following the nonconformist attitude of its Quaker founder, the education of the society included religion and reading the Bible, but permitted no catechism or denominational To combat instruction of any sort. To most Anglican churchmen influence of such religious teaching seemed loose and colorless, and in 1811 'The National Society for Promoting the Educa- education, Anglican tion of the Poor in the Principles of the Established churchmen Church' was founded by them. This long-named founded the association was to use the 'monitorial' system, and to have a Doctor Bell as its manager. Andrew Bell (17531832) had been an army chaplain and the superintendent Andrew Bell. of an orphanage in India, and had the idea of monitorial instruction suggested to him by the Hindu education. A year before Lancaster opened his school, Bell had published his treatise known as An Experiment in Education Made at the Male Asylum of Madras; and while the Quaker philanthropist began his system independently, it is not unlikely that he received help later from Bell. Although they formed no part of Bell's original methods in Madras, the catechism and the prayer book were now taught dogmatically in the schools founded by the National Society, and as Bell proved an admirable director, the affairs of the organization prospered marvelously. In consequence, a healthy rivalry with the older association of the Lancasterians rapidly grew up. der the management of Lancaster was that of the National was more elaborate. 1 The Systems of Lancaster and Bell.-'Monitorial' or 'mutual' instruction, however, was not original with either Lancaster or Bell. Besides being used by the Hindus, it has formed part of the Jesuit system of education,2 was practiced by Trotzendorf in his school,3 and was confidently recommended by Comenius in his Didactica Magna. Nevertheless, it was the work of The system of Lancaster and Bell that greatly developed the method broader than and brought it into prominence. The plans of the two men, while analogous, differed somewhat in spirit and Society, and details. Without considering the methods of religious instruction, the system of Lancaster was generally animated by broader motives. While he failed to teach certain subjects, it was simply because his resources were limited; but the National Society purposely curtailed the range of its instruction on the ground that "there is a risk of elevating those who are doomed to the drudgery of daily labour above their station, and rendering them unhappy and discontented with their lot." In the matter of details, both men worked out systematically the idea of instructing through monitors, and both used a desk covered with sand as a means of teaching writing; but in other respects Lancaster elaborated the method more than Bell. By having the speller or other text printed in large type and suspending it from the wall, he made one book serve for a whole class, or even for the entire school. Through the use of slates and dictation he had five hundred boys spell and write the 1 See Graves, History of Education before the Middle Ages, pp. 87f. 4Op. cit., pp. 274f. same word at the same time. He arranged a new method in arithmetic whereby any child who could read might teach the subject with accuracy. Moreover, he instituted company organization, drill, regimental control, precision, and a prompt observance of the word of command. He also developed a system of badges, tickets, offices, and other rewards, and, in order to avoid flogging, a set of punishments by which the offender was made an object of ridicule rather than physical pain. There were likewise a number of unessential differences between the two systems. ial system, complished tion was given and mechani Value of the Monitorial System in England. Neither The monitorBell nor Lancaster deserves much praise as an educa- while it acEach was vain and pedagogically much when tional reformer. ignorant, and saw but one side of education. While both little attensocieties accomplished much good at a time when little to education, attention was given to instruction and less to the prob- was formal lems of education, the monitorial systems overemphasized cal. repetition in the teaching process and treated education purely from the standpoint of routine. The monitorial method was not real instruction, but a formal drill. It had no principles and little of the elasticity that was apparent in the more psychological methods of the reformers on the Continent. The mechanical basis of such a system is exposed by the arithmetical boast of Lancaster. He calculated: "Each boy can spell one hundred words in a morning. If one hundred scholars can do that two hundred mornings yearly, the following will be the total of their efforts at improvement." He then shows that there will be an annual achievement of two million words spelt. Similarly, in arithmetic he seems to hold that it is simply a question of the number of |