[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.14 256 T HE S CHOOL Q UESTIONThe notion that schooling should be free, open to all children, and nonsec-tarian in character was groundbreaking for the time.But nonsectarian didnot mean nonreligious, either in intention or in practice.At its core, nonsecta-rianism relied on Protestant theological assumptions about the perspicuity ofthe great moral truths contained in the Bible.From its beginning, the Societypromoted its schools as instilling common Protestant values, declaring thatone of its primary object[s], without observing the particular forms of any reli-gious society, [will be] to inculcate the sublime truths of religion and moralitycontained in the Holy Scriptures. Daily readings from the King James Biblewere instituted at its first school, which were followed with daily prayer, thereciting of the Lord s Prayer, and the singing of Protestant hymns.For a time,the Society also used a catechism, said to be free from sectarian principles, that relied on passages from Psalms and Proverbs, though the exercises retaineda distinctly Calvinist tone.Society officials thus walked a fine line; while eschew-ing instruction in the particular tenets and beliefs of varying denominations,they proudly declared the Christian character of the Society s schools:Special care must be taken to avoid any instruction of a sectariancharacter; but the teachers shall embrace every opportunity ofinculcating the general truths of Christianity, and the primaryimportance of practical religious and moral duty, as founded on theprecepts of the Holy Scriptures.15Such aspects of the nonsectarian curriculum Bible readings, Calvinist-leaning catechisms, and texts such as the McGuffey Reader seem quite sectar-ian by modern standards (as they did at the time to many Catholics and Jews);however, the Society s nonsectarian program should be viewed within the con-text of the early nineteenth century when the alternative model was a denomina-tional school with a curriculum that revolved around sectarian instruction.Atthis early stage, no one urged an education program bereft of religious training.A liberal curriculum complemented by instruction in commonly shared reli-gious tenets represented a break from the status quo.16 Also at this stage, non-sectarianism was not used as a militant juxtaposition to Catholicism; in the 1810sand 1820s, New York City s Catholic population was relatively small.Rather, theFree School Society s nonsectarian program was designed to attract childrenexcluded from the city s Presbyterian, Episcopalian, Methodist, and DutchReformed charity schools.The Protestant complexion of the Free School Societythus reflected a belief that schools could teach commonly shared religious beliefswithout reverting to sectarianism (i.e., denominationalism).The Protestantismwas inclusive, not exclusive, except to the extent that it excluded those sectarian17differences that separated the various Protestant bodies from each other. T HE RISE OF N ONSECTARIANISM 257For the first seventeen years of its existence, the Free School Society com-peted with the denominational charity schools for a share of the state s publicschool fund, administered locally by the New York Common Council.Due tothe prominence of its board and benefactors Mayor (later, Governor) DeWittClinton, for one the Free School Society increasingly received the lion s shareof tuition and building funds.That favored position was challenged in 1822 byBethel Baptist Church, which established a charity school in its church andsecured a state grant from surplus school funds for construction of a schoolbuilding.The Society viewed the grant as a threat to the nonsectarian modeland its economic well-being; as a result, the Society vigorously urged repeal ofthe grant in memorials to the state legislature.In addition to touting the supe-riority of its nonsectarian program, which was available to children of all faithsand backgrounds, the Society claimed that the funding of sectarian schoolsviolated notions of separation of church and state.Here, for the first time, theSociety articulated several arguments that would serve as the basis for anemerging no-funding principle: the grant impose[d] a direct tax on our citi-zens for the support of religion in violation of rights of conscience; the fund-ing of religious schools would cause competition and rivalry among faiths; theschool fund was purely of a civil character ; and the proposition that such afund should never go into the hands of an ecclesiastical body or religious soci-ety, is presumed to be incontrovertible upon any political principle approved orestablished in this country.that church and state shall not be united. 18 Afterconsidering the Society s memorials and those of several churches, the legisla-tive Committee on Colleges, Academies and Common Schools in 1824 recom-mended that the legislature discontinue funding for religious charity schools,opining whether it is not a violation of a fundamental principle.to allow thefunds of the State, raised by a tax on the citizens, designed for civil purposes, tobe subject to the control of any religious corporation. The legislature, optingfor the easier course, authorized the New York City Common Council to makeall future allotments of the school fund.The following year, the CommonCouncil voted to end the funding of religious charity schools.19With this episode, the funding of religious education became identified asa church-state issue.At this early stage, the board s commitment to constitu-tional principles may be questioned; the Society raised the church-state argu-ment as a secondary line of attack on the Bethel Baptist Church petition.Still,the position of the Society and Council was consistent with the Jeffersonianprinciples of the Republican Party, which controlled state and city politics.Diane Ravitch has also noted that the nascent Workingmen s Party, led by theskeptics Robert Dale Owen, George Evans, and Frances Wright, influencedattitudes toward public schooling during the late 1820s; in particular, they 258 T HE S CHOOL Q UESTIONemphasized that education should be more egalitarian and less religiouslydoctrinaire.20What is additionally significant about this episode is that the notion thatfunding sectarian schools violated constitutional principles arose within the con-text of a request made by a Protestant school.As the Society asserted in one of itsresolutions, the funding of Bethel Baptist Church s school promot[ed].private and sectarian interests. While it is possible that some Society officialswere looking ahead to the establishment of Catholic parochial schools whenthey were crafting their arguments, nothing in the memorials or reports indi-cates such an awareness or apprehension.The first significant wave of IrishCatholic immigration was still a decade off, and it was not until the SecondProvincial Council in 1833 that the American Catholic Church recommendedthe creation of parochial schools [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
zanotowane.pl doc.pisz.pl pdf.pisz.pl trzylatki.xlx.pl
.14 256 T HE S CHOOL Q UESTIONThe notion that schooling should be free, open to all children, and nonsec-tarian in character was groundbreaking for the time.But nonsectarian didnot mean nonreligious, either in intention or in practice.At its core, nonsecta-rianism relied on Protestant theological assumptions about the perspicuity ofthe great moral truths contained in the Bible.From its beginning, the Societypromoted its schools as instilling common Protestant values, declaring thatone of its primary object[s], without observing the particular forms of any reli-gious society, [will be] to inculcate the sublime truths of religion and moralitycontained in the Holy Scriptures. Daily readings from the King James Biblewere instituted at its first school, which were followed with daily prayer, thereciting of the Lord s Prayer, and the singing of Protestant hymns.For a time,the Society also used a catechism, said to be free from sectarian principles, that relied on passages from Psalms and Proverbs, though the exercises retaineda distinctly Calvinist tone.Society officials thus walked a fine line; while eschew-ing instruction in the particular tenets and beliefs of varying denominations,they proudly declared the Christian character of the Society s schools:Special care must be taken to avoid any instruction of a sectariancharacter; but the teachers shall embrace every opportunity ofinculcating the general truths of Christianity, and the primaryimportance of practical religious and moral duty, as founded on theprecepts of the Holy Scriptures.15Such aspects of the nonsectarian curriculum Bible readings, Calvinist-leaning catechisms, and texts such as the McGuffey Reader seem quite sectar-ian by modern standards (as they did at the time to many Catholics and Jews);however, the Society s nonsectarian program should be viewed within the con-text of the early nineteenth century when the alternative model was a denomina-tional school with a curriculum that revolved around sectarian instruction.Atthis early stage, no one urged an education program bereft of religious training.A liberal curriculum complemented by instruction in commonly shared reli-gious tenets represented a break from the status quo.16 Also at this stage, non-sectarianism was not used as a militant juxtaposition to Catholicism; in the 1810sand 1820s, New York City s Catholic population was relatively small.Rather, theFree School Society s nonsectarian program was designed to attract childrenexcluded from the city s Presbyterian, Episcopalian, Methodist, and DutchReformed charity schools.The Protestant complexion of the Free School Societythus reflected a belief that schools could teach commonly shared religious beliefswithout reverting to sectarianism (i.e., denominationalism).The Protestantismwas inclusive, not exclusive, except to the extent that it excluded those sectarian17differences that separated the various Protestant bodies from each other. T HE RISE OF N ONSECTARIANISM 257For the first seventeen years of its existence, the Free School Society com-peted with the denominational charity schools for a share of the state s publicschool fund, administered locally by the New York Common Council.Due tothe prominence of its board and benefactors Mayor (later, Governor) DeWittClinton, for one the Free School Society increasingly received the lion s shareof tuition and building funds.That favored position was challenged in 1822 byBethel Baptist Church, which established a charity school in its church andsecured a state grant from surplus school funds for construction of a schoolbuilding.The Society viewed the grant as a threat to the nonsectarian modeland its economic well-being; as a result, the Society vigorously urged repeal ofthe grant in memorials to the state legislature.In addition to touting the supe-riority of its nonsectarian program, which was available to children of all faithsand backgrounds, the Society claimed that the funding of sectarian schoolsviolated notions of separation of church and state.Here, for the first time, theSociety articulated several arguments that would serve as the basis for anemerging no-funding principle: the grant impose[d] a direct tax on our citi-zens for the support of religion in violation of rights of conscience; the fund-ing of religious schools would cause competition and rivalry among faiths; theschool fund was purely of a civil character ; and the proposition that such afund should never go into the hands of an ecclesiastical body or religious soci-ety, is presumed to be incontrovertible upon any political principle approved orestablished in this country.that church and state shall not be united. 18 Afterconsidering the Society s memorials and those of several churches, the legisla-tive Committee on Colleges, Academies and Common Schools in 1824 recom-mended that the legislature discontinue funding for religious charity schools,opining whether it is not a violation of a fundamental principle.to allow thefunds of the State, raised by a tax on the citizens, designed for civil purposes, tobe subject to the control of any religious corporation. The legislature, optingfor the easier course, authorized the New York City Common Council to makeall future allotments of the school fund.The following year, the CommonCouncil voted to end the funding of religious charity schools.19With this episode, the funding of religious education became identified asa church-state issue.At this early stage, the board s commitment to constitu-tional principles may be questioned; the Society raised the church-state argu-ment as a secondary line of attack on the Bethel Baptist Church petition.Still,the position of the Society and Council was consistent with the Jeffersonianprinciples of the Republican Party, which controlled state and city politics.Diane Ravitch has also noted that the nascent Workingmen s Party, led by theskeptics Robert Dale Owen, George Evans, and Frances Wright, influencedattitudes toward public schooling during the late 1820s; in particular, they 258 T HE S CHOOL Q UESTIONemphasized that education should be more egalitarian and less religiouslydoctrinaire.20What is additionally significant about this episode is that the notion thatfunding sectarian schools violated constitutional principles arose within the con-text of a request made by a Protestant school.As the Society asserted in one of itsresolutions, the funding of Bethel Baptist Church s school promot[ed].private and sectarian interests. While it is possible that some Society officialswere looking ahead to the establishment of Catholic parochial schools whenthey were crafting their arguments, nothing in the memorials or reports indi-cates such an awareness or apprehension.The first significant wave of IrishCatholic immigration was still a decade off, and it was not until the SecondProvincial Council in 1833 that the American Catholic Church recommendedthe creation of parochial schools [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]