THE EXPENDITURE ON ELEMENTARY EDUCATION.—OBSERVATIONS. (Hansard, 10 July 1877)

§ MR. CHAMBERLAIN

rose to call attention to the results of the increased expenditure on elementary education, and to the great difference still existing between the average attendance of children and the numbers who ought to be at school. Before doing so, he heartily endorsed what had fallen from the hon. Member for Maidstone (Sir John Lubbock), thinking it was desirable to give some discretion to local authorities in order to prevent our system of education from becoming too stereotyped, from turning out all the children with minds cast too much in one mould. He also cordially supported the suggestion of the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Leveson Gower), although his own experience did not make him so sanguine as that hon. Gentleman appeared to be. As to the subject to which he himself 1073 wished to call attention, he thought the facts detailed in the Report of the Education Department as to the progress of education were, on the whole, such as must generally fill with satisfaction the mind of every friend of education in the country. In little less than seven years they had increased the accommodation for elementary teaching by 1,500,000 places, and the attendance had increased in about the same proportion. There were still some blots in the picture, but he hoped that in course of time they would be removed. It was to be regretted that the outcome of the instruction given to the immense number of children now on the registry of our schools was as yet so small. Only about 2,000,000 out of 4,500,000 who ought to be at school were in average attendance, and that again was reduced to about 1,000,000 of children presented for examination, of whom only about two-thirds passed completely in any of the standards, while comparatively few were able to pass the sixth standard of education, even at the age of 13. The new system, however, was as yet only in its infancy, and had scarcely had a sufficient trial. At all events, we were on the right track, and better results were to be hoped for in the future. The present expenditure for education was very large, a larger sum having been asked for this year than had ever been asked for by any Minister of Education before, while there was no reason to believe that the amount had yet reached its maximum. Was that a matter for regret or for dissatisfaction? It was proved in the case of the school boards that the nation had taken in hand this work of national instruction and had counted the cost, and was ready to pay whatever was necessary for the purpose. Those who criticized this expenditure had to ask themselves, not what was the present amount, or to what amount it was likely to reach, but whether the work could properly be done for less. On the education of our people our position as a great commercial nation having to compete with other and more instructed countries depended. Since 1871 the expenditure on education had increased from nearly £2,000,000 to £4,200,000, or 114 per cent. The average cost of education for England and Wales was something like 3s. 4d. per head of the population, of which 2s. 1074 came out of rates and taxes; while in some of the Swiss Cantons the average was 6s. per head. Those spent most econominally and wisely who spent most. It was really a commercial investment, to put it on no higher ground, as it brought very large returns in the reduced cost of pauperism and crime, and the increased welfare and prosperity of the country. In the New England States only 7 per cent of the persons above 10 years of age were unable to read and write, and that uninstructed 7 per cent actually furnished 80 per cent of the whole convicted criminals in those States. In this country, while the school accommodation had increased 70 per cent since 1871, the average attendance had increased only 62 per cent. It took several years before the new schools could be got into good working order, and therefore they could not arrive at their fair normal average expenditure until they had been in operation for several years. The average cost of education had increased in the case of the voluntary as well as in that of the board schools, and on the average it had been greater in the latter than in the former case. That difference was due to two causes, one temporary and the other permanent. The temporary cause was the necessity at the outset of providing stationary and educational implements, while the permanent cause was the increased teaching staff. The wisdom of the increased expenditure was shown by the results. Returns showed that in 1871 the number of children who passed the examination in the board schools was 11 per cent below the average number of those who passed in the Church schools; whereas now the number of children who passed in the board schools was 4½ per cent above the number of those who passed in the Church schools. He had no doubt that in the future the results would be still more remarkable. He thought when the board schools had fairly outstripped all competitors, it would become a question worthy the consideration of the House whether we could with propriety continue to make enormous grants of public money for institutions which to a certain extent were managed by irresponsible persons, and which he believed were comparatively inefficient for the purposes for which that money was granted. He knew not a way in which 1075 that expenditure could be diminished, but he did know a way in which the results might be very greatly increased. The empty places in the board schools might be filled within three months if it were not for our adherence to a system which almost every other nation that took an interest in the subject of education had abandoned. He was well aware that objections might be taken to the general establishment of free schools. He would not answer those objections now; but he hoped that in a future Session a discussion would take place on the whole matter. If, however, those objections could be got over—objections as to the supposed interference of the system with the independence of the parent and his personal responsibility— he believed the result would be an enormous increase of the educational work that was now being done without an additional penny of cost, the cost being merely distributed in a different way. The experiment had already been so far made in this country. In Birmingham the school board had gone as far as the Education Department would permit, reducing the fee from 3d. to 1d. per head per week; and the amount received in pennies, as compared with that formerly received with three penny pieces, was more than trebled, the average attendance having correspondingly increased. Even the small fee of a penny had been proved to be a barrier to the regular and universal attendance of the children at school. In our Colony of Victoria the average attendance of children at school increased from 135,000 to 206,000 in two years after the abolition of fees. In the United States of America every elementary school was free at the present time. The Report of the Board of Education showed that all the States were unanimous in saying that the abolition of fees was followed in every case by an immediate increase in the average attendance. In our Colony of Canada, where all the schools were free, compulsion had been found to be absolutely unnecessary. He trusted that the House would at no distant day see the desirability of giving effect to a system which had produced such good results in every instance where it had been tried.

§ VISCOUNT SANDON,

referring to the proposal of the hon. Baronet the Member for Maidstone (Sir John Lubbock), 1076 said, the hon. Baronet had a devoted attachment to scientific subjects, and naturally thought it was of great importance that science should be taught in schools. But there was a considerable difference of opinion in the House on that subject. In the course which the Education Department had taken on that subject they were supported by the approval of a large number of the Inspectors. They found that history, geography, and grammar were subjects that were popular in the country. He cordially agreed with the hon. Member for the Elgin Burghs, (Mr. Grant Duff), that children should have a knowledge of geography and of the history of the land to which they belonged. As to grammar, many of the Inspectors regarded it as about the best exercise for children's minds. He quite agreed that useful changes might hereafter be made in the Code, but he believed that frequent changes in the regular curriculum of the instruction of the children were very much to be deprecated. With regard to the point referred to by the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Leveson Gower), the hon. Member was fully aware that the Education Department attached great importance to domestic economy, because they believed that if they could teach the future wives of our artizans the art of simple and good cookery they would be doing a great deal towards making their homes comfortable and happy. The fact, however, had been rather overlooked that all the Training Colleges could at the present time appoint teachers of cookery if they chose, and indeed he was rather surprised that more of such teachers were not appointed. The appointment of these teachers of cookery in the Training Colleges was the most hopeful and practicable method of promoting the teaching of that very necessary branch of domestic economy, because the cost of bringing 800 young women up to London for the purpose of their being instructed in it would be very great, he having been assured upon good authority that the expense of three months' training in London would amount to £35 per head. He was glad to say that the school boards were taking up the subject warmly, and he would specially mention that the Board of Sheffield fitted up a separate room in their schools with an artizan's grate, so that cookery should be taught with the simple ap- 1077 pliances available in an artizan's home. The movement was a tentative one, but the country approved it, and he could assure the hon. Member that the Education Department was not losing sight of it. The next point referred to was that relating to the pensions of teachers, which had been noticed by the noble Lord the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Lord Francis Hervey), it having already been brought before him by the hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. Bates). This was a subject which had been looked at with great care; but it must be remembered that the Committee of the House of Commons which sat a few years ago to consider this matter had reported to the Committee of Education to the following effect:— Some of the witnesses have informed your Committee that many teachers have regarded these Minutes as a promise of pensions to all teachers who fulfilled the conditions therein laid down. Your Committee are, however, of opinion that these Minutes of 1846 were not intended to hold out any such promise, but that their true construction is that which is put on them by the Minutes of the 6th of August, 1851, and the Circular Letter of October, 1851—namely, that the Committee of Council on Education took power, but did not pledge themselves to grant pensions. Suggestions have been made to your Committee for superannuation schemes, not only in the interests of teachers, but on grounds of public policy, which they think worthy of further consideration; though they are not prepared, on the evidence which they have been able to take, to express any opinion upon them. The Government, however, looked at the matter from an equitable point of view, and had had great satisfaction in providing for pensions to a considerable number of teachers who had entered the profession before they were formally abolished; and he believed this step had given much pleasure to the House and the country. Great complaint had been made that the Government required as a condition precedent to the granting of a pension that the teacher must have been employed in a school until the moment when he applied for a pension, and must have been serving continuously as a teacher. He wished to know how, if the applicant had ceased to be a teacher, and had not served continuously in that employment, the Department could ascertain what his merits were? The old Minutes laid down very clearly that pensions were only to be given in certain cases where favourable re- 1078 ports were given by the Inspector and by the trustees and managers of the schools as to the character and conduct of the applicants, and as to the manner in which they managed their schools, and it would be impossible for the Department to obtain that information if the applicants had ceased to be teachers. The complaint was also made that all the sum granted by Parliament was not now allotted by the Department; but the whole £6,000 a-year which Parliament granted for that purpose was not allotted at the present moment, partly because it was kept back for the relief of very needy cases which were certain to be brought under their notice hereafter, and partly because there had not been more applicants. He might mention that the Department had only refused relief to nine applicants other than those who were unable to prove that they had served continuously. The subject, however, would receive the attention of the Department, as, he need hardly assure the Committee, they wished to do their best to relieve the very sad cases which were brought under their notice; but, unfortunately, they were obliged to draw the line somewhere, and he could not say that he saw his way at present to alter the course the Department had, after much consideration, adopted. The hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Rath-bone) had raised a question with regard to the Inspectors; and if he would permit the matter to rest for the present he would lay the hon. Member's views before the President of the Council, who was chiefly concerned with those officials, and if the Department could see their way to meeting those views he was satisfied they would be most ready to do so, feeling, as they did, the necessity for securing the services in that capacity of a high class of men. The variation of the standards, he admitted, ought to be narrowly looked into, and that also was a point that had not been overlooked by the Department. The hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) had touched upon a very large question, that of free education; but probably he would agree with him that it was impossible to enter upon so wide a subject at the present moment. He was glad, however, that the hon. Member had come forward to defend the expenditure upon education; the money devoted to the purpose was not 1079 misspent, and would produce ample results hereafter. He also coincided in the view of the hon. Member that we could not be fully satisfied with the advantage that was taken of our school machinery; but he had a great confidence, from accounts which reached him from various parts of the country, that much better results would follow from the working of the Act of last Session, which would undoubtedly tend to increase the school attendance; but for all these changes and improvements time was needed. In conclusion, he could assure hon. Members that their suggestions would receive his best attention.