"Many thousands of youth have been deprived of the benefit of education thereby, their morals ruined, and talents irretrievably lost to society, for want of cultivation: while two parties have been idly contending who should bestow it"
About this Quote
Lancaster laments a familiar tragedy: while authorities quarrel over who has the right to educate, children go untaught and society forfeits their gifts. The phrase "want of cultivation" casts education as tending a field; neglect does not leave it neutral, it allows weeds to overrun it. Morals are not ruined by instruction but by its absence, and talents do not merely lie dormant; they are lost beyond recall when formative years slip away.
The line grows sharper set against early 19th-century Britain. A Quaker reformer, Lancaster pioneered the monitorial system, using older pupils to teach younger ones so that large numbers of poor children could learn basic literacy and numeracy at low cost. His nonsectarian approach challenged Anglican control of schooling and clashed with Andrew Bell’s church-backed Madras system. The "two parties" evoke church and dissenters, and more broadly the factions wrangling over whether education should be sectarian, state-run, or philanthropic. While adults fought for jurisdiction and doctrine, urbanization and poverty swelled the ranks of children outside any schoolroom, exposed to the streets rather than to books.
There is a utilitarian edge to the appeal: the community loses productive capacity when it lets youth go uncultivated. But there is also a moral protest against power’s vanity. "Idly contending" indicts debates that prize ownership and orthodoxy over the urgent business of teaching. Lancaster argues for a pragmatic universalism: deliver instruction first, argue theology and governance later, because childhood does not pause for committees.
The observation still cuts. Contemporary battles over curriculum, vouchers, or governance can consume resources and attention while students wait. The cost is not measured only in test scores but in diminished agency, civic health, and innovation. Lancaster’s warning presses for a shift in priority from the prestige of bestowing education to the necessity of ensuring it, before the season for cultivation is gone.
The line grows sharper set against early 19th-century Britain. A Quaker reformer, Lancaster pioneered the monitorial system, using older pupils to teach younger ones so that large numbers of poor children could learn basic literacy and numeracy at low cost. His nonsectarian approach challenged Anglican control of schooling and clashed with Andrew Bell’s church-backed Madras system. The "two parties" evoke church and dissenters, and more broadly the factions wrangling over whether education should be sectarian, state-run, or philanthropic. While adults fought for jurisdiction and doctrine, urbanization and poverty swelled the ranks of children outside any schoolroom, exposed to the streets rather than to books.
There is a utilitarian edge to the appeal: the community loses productive capacity when it lets youth go uncultivated. But there is also a moral protest against power’s vanity. "Idly contending" indicts debates that prize ownership and orthodoxy over the urgent business of teaching. Lancaster argues for a pragmatic universalism: deliver instruction first, argue theology and governance later, because childhood does not pause for committees.
The observation still cuts. Contemporary battles over curriculum, vouchers, or governance can consume resources and attention while students wait. The cost is not measured only in test scores but in diminished agency, civic health, and innovation. Lancaster’s warning presses for a shift in priority from the prestige of bestowing education to the necessity of ensuring it, before the season for cultivation is gone.
Quote Details
| Topic | Learning |
|---|
More Quotes by Joseph
Add to List
