604. Origin of Mutual Instruction.—Two Englishmen, Bell and Lancaster, have claimed the honor of having invented mutual instruction. The fact is, neither of them invented it; they simply gave it currency. It is in France, if not in India, that we must look for the real origin of mutual instruction. We have seen that Madame de Maintenon, Rollin, La Salle, and Pestalozzi, practised it, and to a certain extent gave it currency. In the eighteenth century Herbault had employed it in the hospital of La Pitié (1747), the Chevalier Paulet at Vincennes (1774), and, finally, the Abbé Gaultier,[258] also a Frenchman, had introduced the use of it into London, in 1792, some years before Bell brought it from India.
605. Bell (1753-1832) and Lancaster (1778-1838).—Bell and Lancaster are none the less the first authorized propagators of the mutual method, or, as the English say, of the monitorial system. Bell had used it at Madras, in imitation of the Hindoo teachers, and in 1798 he introduced it into England. But at the same period, a young English teacher, Lancaster, applied the same methods with success, and, so far as it appears, through a suggestion absolutely personal and original. Lancaster was a Quaker, and Bell a Churchman, so that public opinion in England was divided between the two rivals. The truth is that they had applied at the same time a system which was known before their day, and which must naturally have been suggested to all teachers who have too large a number of children to instruct, as a result of the inadequacy of their resources and the lack of a teaching force sufficiently large.
606. Success of Mutual Instruction in France.—Mutual instruction, which was maintained in certain schools of Paris till 1867, for a long time enjoyed an extraordinary credit in France. Under the Restoration, its success was so great that it became the fashion, and even a craze. Patronized by the most eminent men of that day, by Royer-Collard, by Laisné, by the Duke Decazes, by the Duke Pasquier, mutual instruction became the flag of the liberal party in the matter of instruction. Political passions became involved in it. The new system came into competition with the traditional instruction of the Brethren of the Christian Schools, and was fought and denounced as immoral by all the partisans of routine. “Mutual instruction was charged with destroying the foundation of social order by delegating to children a power which ought to belong only to men.... Men held for or against simultaneous instruction, its rival, as if it were a question of an article of the Charter.”[259]
607. Moral Advantages.—The friends of mutual instruction, in order to justify their enthusiasm, made the most of moral reasons. What can be more touching, they said, than to see children communicating to one another the little that they know? What an excellent lesson of charity and of mutual aid! The Gospel has said, Love one another. Was it not giving to the divine precept a happy translation to add, Instruct one another! An attempt was made, moreover, to introduce mutuality into discipline and into the repression of school faults. The school, on certain solemn occasions, was converted into a court for trying criminals. “All this was done very seriously, and it was also very seriously felt that these practices, passing from a class of children to a class of adults, would contribute to introduce into society the habits of a true and useful fraternity.”
608. Economical Advantages.—To tell the truth, mutual instruction was above all else “a useful expedient,” according to Rollin’s expression. At a period when teachers were scarce, when the budget of public instruction did not exist, it was natural that an economic system which dispensed with teachers, and which reduced to almost nothing the cost of instruction, should be hailed with enthusiasm. Let us add that there was also an economy in books, since “there was need of only one book, which pupils never used, and which would thus last for several years.”
Jomard calculated that there were 3,000,000 children to instruct, and that, according to the ordinary system, this would require the expenditure of more than 45,000,000 francs.[260]
Now, according to the calculations of the Comte de Laborde,[261] 1000 pupils being able to be educated by one single teacher, by the system of mutual instruction, more easily than 30 could have been by the old system, a sum of 10,000 francs granted annually by the State would suffice to educate in twelve years the entire generation of poor children.[262]
609. Organization of Schools on the Mutual Plan.—Bell defined mutual instruction as “the method by means of which a whole school may instruct itself, under the supervision of one single master.”
Here is the picture of a mutual school, as described by Gréard:—