§ MR. W. H. SMITHasked the Vice President of the Council, If he will state the grounds on which it is proposed under the new Code to abolish the Grant in respect of the attendance of infants under four years of age; whether it is intended to enforce; and, if so, how, the conditions as to cubic space (Clause 17, sub-section C), and as to the provision of assistant and pupil teachers (Clause 32, sub-section C), with regard to infants in schools under the age of four; and, whether as the standards of examination under the new Code are all raised by one grade, so that standard 1 of 1871 is the standard 2 of 1870, and so in succession, and as under Clause 29 no scholar may be presented a second time for examination under the same standard, it is intended to require children who have passed, e.g. standard 1 of 1870, to be presented for examination under standard 2 of 1871, which represents standard 3 of former years?
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, in reply, that the ground on which it was proposed to abolish the grants in respect of 1034 the attendance of children under four years of age was that the Department considered the public money ought to be given for instruction, and not for care-taking. They had found in a great many cases very small children were sent to school to be taken care of while their mothers went to work. The conditions in the Act referred to in the second part of the Question of the hon. Member would be enforced in the following manner:—The condition as to the quantity of cubic space to be allowed to each pupil would apply to children of all ages; for instance, a school certified to hold 100 scholars receiving instruction would not receive the added grant if it had, in addition to this number, 40 infants under four years of age, because such infants, though they would not get instruction, would, require air. With regard to the assistant and pupil teachers, they would only be calculated in proportion to the number of children over four years of age, who might be in the schools, for the reason that it would only be such children who would receive instruction. The last Question of the hon. Gentleman enabled him to remove a complete misapprehension. It was supposed that, as the Department had abolished the old standard 1, and put in the place of it standard 2 of the old Code, those who were examined under standard 1 of last year would now be obliged to submit to examination under standard 2 of the new Code. This was not so. The pupils would be examined this year under standard 1, which corresponded with standard 2 of the former Code. As standard 1 of last year was practically no longer required, the Department had, under the new arrangement, framed a scheme up to a seventh standard, but the children examined under standards 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 of last year would be examined under the same standards, nominally, of the new Code, though really the standards would be higher.