Private and Public Education.
What is the import of these two words ‘private education’? Private is that which hath respect in all circumstances to some particular case; public in all circumstances regardeth every one alike. Education is the bringing up of one, not to live alone, but amongst others, because company is our natural medium; whereby he shall be best able to perform all those functions in life which his position shall require, whether public or private, in the interest of his country in which he was born, and to which he owes his whole service. All these functions are in reality public, and concern everyone, even when they seem most private, because individual ends must be adjusted to wider social ends; and yet people give the preference to private education where all the circumstances are peculiar to one learner; as if he who was brought up alone were always to live alone, or as if one should say, ‘I will have you to deal with all, but never to see all; your end shall be public, but your means shall be private.’ How can education be private? It is an abuse of the name as well as of the thing. This isolation, for a pretended advantage in education, of those who must afterwards pass on together, is very mischievous, as it allows every parent to follow out his own whims, relying on the privacy of his own house to be free from criticism, on the subserviency of the teacher whom he may choose to suit his own purposes, and on the submission of his child who is bound to obey him on pain of meeting his displeasure. In public schools such swerving from what is generally approved is impossible. The master is always in the public eye, what he teaches is known to all; the child is not alone, and he learns only what has been submitted to the judgment of the community. Whatever inconveniences may be inseparable from schools, still greater arise in private education. It puffs up the recluse with pride; it is an enemy to sympathy between those who have unequal opportunities; it fosters self-conceit in the absence of comparison with others; it encourages contempt in the superior, and envy in the inferior. This kind of education which soweth the seed of dissension by discovering differences, where the fruits of a common upbringing should be seen in the firm knitting of social bonds, should be discouraged owing to its effect in instilling the poison of spite. Certainly the thing doth naturally tend this way, though its influence may be often interrupted in time by the pressure of public opinion. But if the child turn out better then I have forecast, and show himself courteous, it will be due to his natural goodness, or to his experience outside, not to the kind of education which brings no such courtesy, though the child may see it in his parents, and read of it in his books. Sometimes it maketh him too sheepishly bashful when he comes to the light, owing to his being unaccustomed to company. More commonly, however, he is too childishly bold through noting nothing except what he breeds in his own mind in his solitary training, where he thinks only of himself, and has none to control him, not even his master, whatever show there may be of obedience to authority in this private cloistering. Surely it is reasonable for one in his childhood to become acquainted with other children, seeing he has to live with them as men in his manhood. Is it good for the ordinary man to be brought up on a well-regulated public system, and not good for the man of higher position? By ‘private’ I do not mean what is done at home for public uses—in that case almost everything might be called private—but what is kept at home by preference, in order to serve the better the interest of a particular individual. It would seem to be generally a question not of the matter or the method of education, but of the select privacy of the place where it is given. I must beg leave to say that the results are in favour of public training, which from the midst of mediocrity brings up scholars of such excellence that they take a worthy place in all ranks, even next to the highest, whereas private education with all its advantages of wealth, doth rarely show anything in learning and judgment above bare mediocrity. There is no comparison between the two kinds, if prejudice be set aside. If the privately-taught pupil chance to come to speak, it mostly falleth out dreamingly, because seclusion in education is a punishment to the tongue; and in teaching a language to exclude companions to speak to, is like seeking to quench thirst, yet closing the mouth so that no moisture can get in. If such a pupil come to write, it is lean, and nothing but skin, betraying the great pains the master hath had to take, in default of any helping circumstances through the pupil’s intercourse with companions. The boy can but repeat what he hears, and he hears only one person who, though he knew everything, cannot say much, for he hath no sufficient audience to provoke him to utterance. If the master made an effort to deliver himself of anything weighty, methinks an unobserved listener would hear a strange discourse, and would find the boy asleep; or, if he had a companion, playing with his hands or feet under the table, with one eye on his talking master and the other on his playmate.
But why is private education so much in vogue? There may be some excuse for those of very high position, especially for the prince himself, who standing alone, cannot well mix with his subjects, and must do what he can to surpass them without this advantage. Yet if even the greatest could have his education so arranged that he might have the company of a good choice number, wherein to see all the differences of capacity and learn to judge of all, as he hath afterwards to deal with all, would it be any sacrilege? But why do the gentry in this respect rather ape their superiors in rank, than follow the class below, who are really liker to them, and who form the chief supporters of the State? To have the child learn better manners and have more virtuous surroundings! As bad at home as outside; evil manners are brought into school, not bred there. To avoid the distraction of large numbers? The child shall notice the more, and so prove the wiser, the multitude of examples offering the means of sound judgment. Nay, in a number, though he find some undesirable, whom he should avoid, he shall find many apt and industrious, whom to follow. In school, moreover, he shall perceive that vice is punished, and virtue praised, as needs must where all is done in the public view. Is it to keep the child in health by making him bide at home, for fear of infection outside? Death is within doors also, and dainties at home have destroyed more children than dangers outside. Is it from affection, because ye cannot bear to let the child out of your presence? That is too foolish. Emulation is a great inspirer of virtue. If your child do well at home alone, how much better would he do with company? It quickens the spirits, and enlivens the whole nature, to have to compete with others—to have perhaps one companion ahead of him to follow and learn from, another below him to teach and vaunt over, and a third of his own standing with whom to strive for praise of forwardness.
To sum up this question, I do take public education to be better than private, as being more upon the stage, where faults are more readily seen and so are sooner amended, and as being the best means of acquiring both virtue and learning, which flourish according to their first planting. What virtue is private? Wisdom, to foresee what is good for a desert? Courage, to defend where there is no assailant? Temperance, to be modest where there is none to challenge? Justice, to do right when there is none to demand it?