Los análisis de correspondencia sin tendencia en la comprensión del

New Zealand became a Crown Colony in 1840 with the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi and remained so until 1852. Within this period authority for the provision for schooling remained with the different denominations and there was no tradition or suggestion “that the state, central or local, should turn school master” (Campbell, 1941, p. 26). The role of the state, as in England, was to be

limited “to encouraging and assisting the work of the churches” (Campbell, 1941, p. 27). The

cultural and denominational divisions of Christianity, evident in the Missionary period, were a key factor in the colonial period that needed to be handled carefully by the officials. There was a general belief and practice that no Church would stand on “higher ground” than another (Ahdar, 2006, p. 622). Thus Christian pluralism, combined with the English tradition of State non- interference in education, meant that any monetary assistance for educational purposes would be distributed to the plural Christian denominations such that each would be entitled to “its fair share” (Campbell, 1941, p. 26).

The New Zealand Education Ordinance (Grey’s Ordinance) of 1847 was the first national education legislation put into effect in New Zealand (Butchers, 1932). It recognised the religious plurality of the nation by providing financial assistance to the Anglican church, the Catholic church, the

Wesleyan mission and “the Head or Minister of any other Religious Body who shall have engaged

in the education of youth in the Colony of New Zealand” (Education Ordinance, 1847, p. 293). The Education Ordinance was not intended to be universal and, consequently, the educational grants

were restricted to Māori children and the Province of New Ulster (the North Island) (Butchers,

1932).

Grey’s Ordinance gave authority to the religious denominations for schooling for three reasons. The

first was the close relationship between religion, culture, and citizenship that regarded religious education as indispensable for the growth of the British colony. Secondly, there was the widely held tradition and belief that schooling belonged under the authority and provision of the Churches. The final reason was pragmatic where while the state had no established schools or teachers, the Churches did. For these reasons, the ordinance mandated that the churches would receive financial

assistance conditioned upon their providing a curriculum including religious education, industrial training, and English. (Grey, 1848)

The inclusion of religious education in Grey’s Ordinance reflected the belief “that civilisation and

Christianity were complementary processes inextricably bound together… and that both were

necessary to elevate native peoples” (Grant, 2005, p. 261). Grey believed that the colonial context with its pluralism and lack of established institutions meant there was a “peculiar necessity for insisting upon religious instruction forming important part of any plan of education which was

supported by the Government” (Grey, 1848, p. 161). Because Christianity remained closely bound

with morality and civilisation, religious education was necessary to ensure the morality of the colony (Breward, 1967, p. 1). Morality and knowledge were believed to be derived from the Bible, as Breward (1967) explains:

The Bible was the fount of British morality. Childhood absorption of its words and teachings led to adult virtue. Hence the importance of religious observance and instruction in education that was worthy of the name, and the concern of Churchmen that they be assisted from public funds to meet the rising demand for education (Breward, 1967, p. 2).

However, religious authority and provision in practice was limited by the nation’s religious

diversity. The Education Ordinance stipulated that parents who dissented to the religious doctrine of

the school had the right “to be taught … without being instructed in the doctrines of religion”

(Education Ordinance, 1847, p. 292). This signified an early understanding of educational individual autonomy. In addition, schools were required to be “subject to inspection” (Education Ordinance, 1847, p. 292). However, as this inspection was generally by Ministers of the denominations involved, religious authority was ensured (Education Ordinance, 1847).

Within Auckland, Grey’s ordinance led to the prevalence of the “denominational system”

(Butchers, 1932, p. 11). Partly, this was due to the “severe disadvantage” private schools faced without the state aid granted to the Churches (Butchers, 1932, p. 11). Consequently Church

authority extended to some private schools that were “brought within the denominational system

either wholly or, in some cases, more loosely by the granting of Church recognition in return for concessions respecting denominational instruction and inspection sufficient to enable the school to receive State aid” (Butchers, 1932, p. 11).

In Canterbury, schooling was under the authority and provision of the English Anglicans, while schooling within Otago was by the Scottish Presbyterians (Butchers, 1932). Otago’s formal position on education was that it was a “church rather than a civic responsibility”, a reflection of the Scottish aspiration to create “parish schools throughout Otago, each under the control of a Presbyterian

congregation” (McKean, 1993, p. 5-6). Subsequently, the Presbyterian Church was prevalent in

Otago, and “no schools belonging to any other denomination were established in Otago during that

period” (Butchers, 1932, p.14).

By way of comparison, the provinces of Wellington and Nelson demonstrated the beginning of a changing relationship between religion and education. Within Wellington, schooling was predominantly characterised by private initiatives with only a few denominational schools (Butchers, 1932). Whereas the Nelson province had the “first system of public schools”, where religious differences were resolved through legislation that forbid sectarian views, and that when the Bible was read it was done so “without note or comment” (Butchers, 1932, p. 13).

Thus, within the colonial period there was the beginning of a shift away from undifferentiated schooling, of significance to this shift was the New Munster (South Island) protest against the 1847 Education Ordinance. New Munster argued that religious education must “not include instruction in

the peculiar or distinguishing doctrines of any denomination of Christianity” (Seymore, 1849,

Resolution 11). The New Munster Legislative Council maintained that schooling was the concern of the state and consequently it was “the duty of every Government to see that its subjects were

provided with the means of education” (Seymore, 1849, Resolution 1). Alfred Domett, of Nelson,

took this argument one-step further in his Minute on Education, when he made the following premises: first, that education should be compulsory; second that the provision of schools for every religious denomination in every geographical location was unfeasible; and, thirdly it was impossible for religious education not to be biased towards one denomination (Domett, 1849). Upon these premises, Domett concluded that education must be secular (Domett, 1849).

The arguments of the New Munster Legislative Council and Domett however were in the minority as the majority firmly held that religious education was necessary and that schooling rightfully was under the authority and provision of the churches. Domett’s arguments for a more liberal vision of schooling were before their time and subsequently were strongly critiqued as this article in The New Zealander attested:

Our New Zealand Education Ordinance has gone quite far enough – (some think that, for an act of professedly Christian legislation it has gone too far) –to consolidate “the Galileo of modern liberalism” in the provision

that children “may upon application to be made in that behalf by their parents or guardians, be taught in the schools without being instructed in the doctrines of religion (The New Zealander, 1849, p. 2).

Reflecting unswerving faith in undifferentiated schooling, the New Zealand Spectator and Cook

Strait Guardian asserted the limitations of the state upon schooling and that:

… The only object the State has in the education of its subjects is to improve their morality, and that can only be effected through the medium of the Christian religion. If therefore parents will not allow their children to be so educated the State can have no inducement to give them mere intellectual instruction, which is a mere personal accomplishment and not requisite for the well being of the State (New Zealand Spectator and Cook Strait Guardian, 1849, p. 2).

Thus, Christian ontology exerted its religious authority and provision over schooling for much of the Crown Colony Period (1840-1852). However, the voices of dissension and the pragmatic infeasibility of undifferentiated schooling in a plural and increasing modern context and these found expression in the provincial period (1853-1876).

5.2.4 The provincial period: From the ideal of undifferentiated schooling to the pragmatics of the New Zealand context

In 1852, the New Zealand Constitution Act established the provincial councils, each of which was given authority over schooling until their abolition in 1876 (McKean, 1993). The provincial period is marked by initial strong aspirations for undifferentiated schooling, followed by an increasing pragmatic realisation that for a religiously plural population with increasing secular educational needs, religious authority and provision of schooling was no longer appropriate or adequate. Thus during the provincial period education was in a transitional phase, from undifferentiated schooling under church control towards an increasingly differentiated schooling under secular control. As

Campbell has observed, educational change in New Zealand was a “double movement from local to

central control and from Church dominance to complete secularism” (Campbell, 1941, p. 25).

Essentially each provincial system provides historic testament to the differing positions on religion and schooling that would prove to be recurring themes in the changing historical relationship between religion and schooling in New Zealand. The first theme is a conservative perception where it is believed that schooling should be compulsory within a collective religious authority and framework of education. The conservative perception is illustrated by the Province of Canterbury

where initial legislation deemed education as being doctrinal, and therefore the direct responsibility of the church. Next, there is the denominational perception where schooling is provided by different religious denominations. This perception is found in the province of Auckland where state aid was provided to a range of denominations, with no one denomination having dominance. The

third theme is a dichotomous perception where schooling is divided into two parts – secular

compulsory schooling and religious voluntary schooling. This is clearly demonstrated in Nelson where there was an early legal division between religious voluntary education and compulsory secular education. This arrangement meant that secular education was the responsibility of the Nelson Provincial Council while religious education was the domain of the church (but on school property), voluntary and outside of official school hours. The final theme is the secularist perception where schooling is posited as being independent from religion. The province of Wellington where provincial legislation deemed schooling to be secular, best illustrates this theme. The following section will explore these arrangements in more detail.

5.2.4.1 The Provinces

The Canterbury Province represents one of the strongest examples of undifferentiated schooling during the provincial period. Canterbury’s rationale for the close relationship between religion and schooling is elucidated through the undertaking and publication of the reports of the Canterbury Education Commission in 1863. The Canterbury Education Commission asserted that education and religion had “a most intimate, and almost necessary connection” and that it “would be unwise to shrink from recognizing … the natural relation between religion and education” (Canterbury (N.Z.: Province) Education Commission, 1863, pp. 50-51). Religion had both a social and political

purpose that was bound within Christianity’s close relationship to culture and as such was an

essential part of schooling:

It would be impossible in any system of teaching which professed to fit men for the social and civil duties of everyday life, to ignore the existence of Christianity, as pervading the laws, literature, and institutions of the civilised world (Canterbury (N.Z.: Province) Education Commission, 1863, p. 67).

The Commission concluded unanimously that “religious instruction ought to form not merely a

contingent or accessory, but an essential and fundamental element of any system of education

supported by a Christian country” (Canterbury (N.Z.: Province) Education Commission, 1863, p.

Religion’s authority over schooling in Canterbury is further illustrated by examining the structure and nature of educational authority, that was overseen by the Bishop of Christchurch who appointed the majority of school teachers (Canterbury (N.Z.: Province) Education Commission, 1863, p. 47). The position of the schoolmaster was considered a “Church Office, [with] the Teacher holding it under license from the Bishop” (Canterbury (N.Z.: Province) Education Commission, 1863, p. 66). Religious rituals structured the school day where it was prescribed that “every school shall be open

daily with prayer and reading of the Bible” (Canterbury (N.Z.: Province) Education Commission,

1863, p. 69). Not surprisingly, religious knowledge became a central part of schooling – statistics recorded that 95.8 per cent of children received religious instruction, 94.7 per cent reading, 78.2 per cent writing, 68 per cent arithmetic, 44.5 per cent geography and 38.2 per cent grammar (Canterbury (N.Z.: Province) Education Commission, 1863, p. 43). However, over time, the Anglican Church’s dominance was increasingly challenged by religious pluralism, and by 1864, the council extended financial assistance to all denominational schools, thus ending Anglican domination of education.

Similar to Canterbury the province of Otago initially asserted strong links between religion and schooling. Empowered by the Constitution Act of 1852, the Otago Provincial Council assumed responsibility for education and gave the Presbyterian Church control over schools and teachers in order to realise the Scottish vision of a comprehensive Presbyterian schooling system (McKean, 1993). Under Presbyterian authority teaching was to “be based upon ‘the principles of religious knowledge’”, with teachers required to obtain certificates attesting to their “religious and moral

character” signed by a minister (McKean, 1993, p. 10). The early desire for a homogenous

Presbyterian education is highlighted in a clause that allowed teachers to be dismissed for teaching

“religious opinions at variance with the doctrine of Holy Scripture” (McKean, 1993, p. 10).

In Auckland, education was denominational with religious instruction being a central feature. Like Canterbury, state interference was limited with the churches recognised as being “the proper bodies to undertake the organization of education facilities” (Butchers, 1932, p. 21). This limited “the

state’s“interference” chiefly to the provision of grants in aid” (Butchers, 1932, p. 21).

Contrary to the other provinces, Nelson and Wellington were an anomaly to undifferentiated schooling. Central to this anomaly was the emphasis placed upon the religious rights of the individual and secular authority and knowledge. The Wellington statute provided “that ‘no religious instruction shall be given in any school maintained wholly or in part under this Act, and no

ministers of religion shall be allowed to teach in or otherwise directly interfere in the conduct or

management of any such school’” (Butchers, 1932, p. 22). In Nelson due to the requirement that

every settler had to financially support the schooling system, religious education was to be “free from all controversial character and imparted at such hours that parents objecting [might] be able to

withdraw their children from the school at the time when it was given” (Simon, 1994, p. 41). The

provinces of Nelson and Wellington indicated that the role of state and church within schooling had changed:

The question in these Provinces, and ultimately in the others and throughout the Colony …became, not ‘in what manner and to what extent the State ought to interfere’ but to what extent and in what manner, if at all, the

Church should be allowed to interfere, ‘in the education of the young’ (Butchers, 1932, p. 22)

5.2.4.2 The native schools system

Outside of the provincial arrangements of schooling, but under the authority of the state, was the

Native Schools System. Māori schooling initially was included within the 1847 Education

Ordinance because a key concern of the colonial state at that time was “to assimilate the Māori to European ways of thinking and behaving” on the foundations of “nineteenth century discourse of race and civilisation” (Simon, Smith, & Cram, 2001, p. 250). Christianity and education were seen as essential for this conversion. In 1867, Māori education provided through the Native Schools Act was transferred to the Native Affairs Department. Although officially the denominational system was repealed at this time, aid continued to be provided to denominational schools and while religious instruction was not explicitly mentioned, it was taken for granted that this would be the case. Attendance to the Native Schools was not compulsory and students could choose whether to attend the Native Schools or the state schools.

What is important to note is that within this period it was Western conceptions of schooling and a strong Christian ontology that defined education for Māori in a project of assimilation, dismissing

and relegating the Māori worldview. The main official policy was “to convert them into Brown

Britons” (Belich, 2001, p. ix). Thus, the Native Schools Act continued the assimilative policy

implicit in the missions (Simon et al. 2001). Māori were to be assimilated into European ways of knowing, believing, and practices. Religion, in policy and practice, was limited to Christianity with

5.2.4.3 Catholic Schooling

Catholic schooling developed separately from the predominately protestant and increasingly secular Provincial Councils. This was due to the strong differences in belief and educational philosophy

between Catholicism and Protestant denominations. The Catholic Church condemned the “religious

integration of Catholics and Protestants” (Akenson, 1990, p. 168) and held that the state “had no fundamental rights in education” (Akenson, 1990, p. 148). Accordingly, the Irish Bishops in New Zealand asserted that Catholic children, by religious necessity, were to be taught only the Catholic worldview within the authority and provision of the Catholic Church.

The Syllabus of Errors issued by Pope Pius IX in 1864 testified to the developing separate system of Catholic schooling by affirming Catholic authority over schooling and dispelling movements

towards “mixed” (meaning Catholics and Protestants) or secular arrangements of schooling. Of

particular interest was that the Syllabus condemned the belief that “human reason, without any

reference whatsoever to God, is the sole arbiter of truth and falsehood, and of good and evil” (Pope Pius IX, 1864/2008, #3). The Syllabus also condemned the participation of Catholics in a “system

of educating youth unconnected with Catholic faith and the power of the Church” (Pope Pius IX,

1864/2008, #48). Moreover, state authority that overrode “ecclesiastical authority, control and

interference” was judged as being inappropriate interference in schooling (Pope Pius IX,

1864/2008, #47).