HC Deb 21 February 1879 vol 243 cc1607-19
MR. RATHBONE,

in rising to call attention to the appointment of School Inspectors without sufficient preliminary special training for the work they have to perform; and to move— That, in the opinion of this House, arrangements ought to be at once made to provide that in future, before being appointed to an independent post, newly appointed Inspectors should have one year's training under an experienced Inspector, unless they have been previously engaged in the education of children for a sufficient time to make this unnecessary, said: I trust I need only detain the House a very short time, for I have really never met anyone who would deny the importance of the change which I propose, or who would dispute the grounds on which I advocate it; and yet the change is not made. I be- lieve it has been delayed solely on grounds of expense. I hope, therefore, before sitting down, to show how very small an expenditure would be necessary for the purpose, and that this small expenditure would be a real economy, as it would make the very large expenditure now going on in our elementary schools much more efficient than it is. I am sure it will be admitted by all who have given even the most superficial attention to the subject that inspecting a school is a skilled, and highly technical, and complicated process, which it cannot be expected a man would be able to perform properly, except after some training and practice in the work; nor will it be denied by anyone that this work is as important as it is difficult. Upon the Inspector's Report depends the amount of grant to be received by an elementary school; while it is to the Inspectors that we must mainly look to raise steadily the character of our elementary education, by pointing out to managers of schools and schoolmasters in what respect they are inferior to other schools, and how, as shown by the experience of those other schools, these defects can be best remedied. If anyone doubts the amount of skill required to conduct efficiently, and yet fairly, that process of inspection and examination, and to draw up the resulting Report upon which the grant to an elementary school depends, or so to distribute encouragement and blame as to improve the education given in our elementary schools, I would refer him to a small book on School Inspection, written by Mr. Fearon, and published by Macmillan. Mr. Fearon, now in the Charity Commission, was selected by the Education Department as one of the ablest and most experienced Inspectors to make these inquiries, upon the results of which the Elementary Education Acts of 1870 and 1876 were, to a great extent, founded. Anyone reading that book will at once see how wise are the suggestions which Mr. Fearon's experience enables him to make. He will see, also, how technical many of the most important of them are, and that it would take a young Inspector fresh from College some years to find out for himself, at the expense of the corpus vile of our elementary schools, what a little preliminary training would show him in a year. But mere written instructions of that sort will not give the training which a young man would very rapidly derive from seeing in practice the work of an experienced Inspector, and from inspecting a school under his eye for a certain period. The House is not fond of extracts, and therefore I will only read one—and that a very short one—from Mr. Fearon's book, to show what an experienced Inspector says "inspection" and "examination" mean. By 'inspection' is meant the process of seeing a school at work in the course of its ordinary routine; noting how it is constructed, warmed, drained, ventilated, furnished, and supplied with apparatus and other materials; how its journals, registers, and other records are kept; what is the course of education, physical and intellectual, which it supplies to its scholars; whether it is conducted on the most approved methods for economising time and lahour; what is the order and discipline; what the relations of the scholars to their teachers, and to one another; how the teachers give their lessons; and how in other respects they are qualified to perform their duties. By 'examination' is meant the process of testing, by written and oral questioning of the scholars, whether the results of the instruction given in the school are satisfactory. It must be evident to the House how much skill is necessary to do such work as this, and how valuable—nay, how necessary—a certain amount of training and technical knowledge is to enable a man to do it; and the question I ask the House to consider is whether that training and that technical knowledge are to be gained at the cost of efficiency in our system of elementary education? It is evident that a young man, however able, fresh from College, who may, perhaps, have had very little to do with children, and nothing to do with elementary education since he was himself a child, will, if he comes to the work of inspection without sufficient previous training, be almost sure to fail in justly dealing with the masters of elementary schools. If he comes to his work with a very high standard, and is very conscientious, he may exact more than is possible; or, in his anxiety not to be unjust, he may be too lax. In either ease he will injure the schools under his charge by creating a sense of injustice or a disposition to carelessness. This is no theoretical danger. Elementary schoolmasters do feel that they are subject to great injustice by their labour being judged of by those who have had no sufficient training or experience to enable them to judge justly; and the irritation and discouragement produced by this feeling have a most serious effect upon education. The want of such training has a further bad effect on the system in the great want of uniformity in the decisions of different Inspectors. A just and strict Inspector is exposed to much abuse and difficulty in his work from his decisions being compared with the laxity of neighbouring Inspectors; whereas, if young Inspectors were trained by eight or ten of the best Inspectors in the most important districts of the country, and these Inspectors were to meet periodically and compare notes, there would be a much more even standard of inspection than now exists, and much less discontent. But the work of an Inspector is not merely to ascertain whether those conditions have been fulfilled which are required by the Department for the payment of grants. Our main hope of a steady improvement in our system of elementary education is through the Inspectors. They can compare the teaching and system of one school with that of another, and, by a judicious apportionment of blame and encouragement, can gradually raise the general standard of education to the level of the better schools. They can show the schoolmasters where their teaching is defective; they can convince them by what has been done elsewhere that the defects can be removed, and they can point out how to remove them. This Department of their work is not only very important, but requires highly-skilled and technical knowledge, and training can alone enable them to do it really well. I have said in the Resolution that this training is necessary, unless the new Inspectors have been previously engaged in the education of children for a sufficient time to make it unnecessary, because it seems to me that the Department may find it wise to apportion a certain number of these higher appointments to elementary schoolmasters who have distinguished themselves by their success in improving the system of elementary education. The number of such appointments might be limited, so as still to secure for this work the best materials which our Universities offer. But a certain number of such appointments, if given to first-class schoolmasters, would give great encouragement, and the country would get some very good Inspectors. Even for these men some special training would be very desirable, but less necessary than it would be for a young man frosh from College, with no experience in the art of elementary education. My practical proposal, then, is simply this:—The number of Inspectors appointed annually is, I learn from the Department, about eight. I propose that the Lord President of the Council should select from the numerous candidates on his list for this work eight of those whom he thinks most suitable, and that, without waiting for vacancies to arise, he should place them under eight of the most experienced and able Inspectors in the service of the Department. For one year such commencing Inspectors—if I may so call them—should work with the experienced Inspectors, see how they inspect schools, and inspect them under the experienced Inspectors' eyes. While thus waiting to be appointed to an independent sphere of action, they should receive a salary of say, £250 a-year. A staff of such commencing Inspectors, constantly kept up, would only cost £2,000 a-year additional, and this would give increased efficiency to an expenditure on the part of the Central Government alone of the sum of £114,000 for inspection, and £2,100,000 for the total expenditure chargeable upon the Treasury for elementary education, besides the still further large expenditure derived from voluntary sources. I would ask the House and the Government, is it not a monstrous absurdity that, whereas in England we consider a much longer apprenticeship than the term I have named necessary to make a man a good cobbler, a good joiner, a good merchant, or lawyer, we should expect men to do satisfactorily, without any previous technical training, such highly-skilled and technical work as the inspection of our elementary schools? I, therefore, do urge upon the House to accept the Motion that I have now made, and thus strengthen the hands of the Government to do what I cannot doubt for a moment they are anxious to do.

MR. BRISTOWE,

in seconding the Motion, said, he thought the House was indebted to his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool for bringing forward that question, which was one of considerable importance to the country at large. Masters and mistresses and managers of schools looked anxiously to the visits of the Inspectors, for upon their report it depended whether the grant would be earned by the school; and, moreover, they naturally looked to the Inspectors for guidance and suggestions in order to make their schools more efficient. Those advantages could only be gained through having Inspectors who had experience in tuition or in examination. If they wished to make their schools efficient, the Education Department must take care that their Inspectors were thoroughly up to their work. It did not at all follow that because an Examiner was well-informed and highly-cultivated himself that he should have the power of testing others in subjects with which he himself was familiar; that was generally to be learnt by experience. By placing young Inspectors for a year under training in the way recommended by his hon. Friend (Mr. Rathbone), they would be better prepared to enter upon their duties. The propositions of his hon. Friend would tend to produce uniformity of examination, which was a matter of great importance, and he believed that it would meet with the approval of the Inspectors themselves.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, arrangements ought to be at once made to provide that in future, before being appointed to an independent post, newly appointed School Inspectors should have one year's training under an experienced Inspector, unless they have been previously engaged in the education of children for a sufficient time to make this unnecessary,"—(Mr. Rathbone,) —instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

MR. MAC IVER

agreed in spirit, at all events, with the hon. Member for Liverpool, but thought that the particular scheme proposed involved needless expenditure. He felt compelled to rise on the present occasion on account of having received a communication bearing on the question from a source entirely independent of his hon. Friend —a communication which pointed out the evils which his hon. Friend wished to remedy. The letter showed that however good an Inspector might be as an examiner, and however fit for the post he might be in other respects, he might be deficient in the common sense which could only be learned by experience—such experience as the lion. Member for Liverpool suggested. His informant, Colonel King, writing about the Oxton Schools, said— The manner of the Inspector was such as to frighten the children, and not give them a fair chance. Then Colonel King went on to say— I do not wish to injure the Inspector; but I think it would he well if he understood that when examining a school he has something else to do than cut down the grant. He (Mr. Mac Iver) had no desire to trespass longer on the attention of the House; but he could not conclude without saying that it seemed to him that the proposition of the hon. Member was well worthy of the consideration of the House and the Government.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he thought his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool had made out a strong case. He (Mr. W. E. Forster) hoped the Education Department had become convinced that the time had arrived when they should make use of the older Inspectors in giving some training to those who were about to be appointed in future. Many of the old Inspectors had professional arid special training for the work which it was impossible to expect in the eight gentlemen it was proposed annually to appoint. Inspection was no easy matter. It could not be learnt at College, because it required some kind of experimental teaching, as well as storing the brain with the subjects taught in the schools. This apprenticeship, if he might so term it, was required for several reasons. First, the art of inspecting ought to be taught by those who had themselves practised it. It would be a great advantage if a newly-appointed Inspector could work for a few months with a man who had been accustomed to inspect, and have the opportunity of learning the art of inspection without frightening the children; and practise, at the same time, perfect justice and fairness to the masters and the mistresses. Again, teaching, as well as inspecting, was becoming of Government importance. There was now an army of teachers all over the country who exercised good influence in their respective localities. The country expected a great deal from them, and Parliament must not ignore their feelings, or expect that they had none in the matter. All must, he thought, sympathize to some extent with a schoolmaster or schoolmistress who for many years had taught children with great success, and who found them inspected by a young man just from College. He did not think an Inspector ought to be thus brought into contact with experienced masters and mistresses without some previous training in inspection. In too many instances hard-working and struggling masters and mistresses looked forward with alarm and anxiety to the visit of the Inspector. These people felt deeply any kind of injustice from young Inspectors, though the latter might not mean to do any. The manner of inspecting required to be taught as well as the art of teaching. The necessity of a uniform system of inspection was universally recognized. At present money was given for results. Those results depended on examination. One Inspector might make the examination very different from what it would be under another, and thus a different standard for payment by results would be established in different schools. That would be no economy; but might lead to an enormous waste of money. It was, therefore, most desirable that there should be uniformity in their system of inspection. The plan put forward by the hon. Gentleman appeared to be very simple, and had a great deal to recommend it. If eight Inspectors were appointed every year, he saw no reason why they should not submit to a year's training, with small remuneration.

MR. WHEELHOHSE

said, there could not be two opinions on the necessity of improving their mode of inspection, which he would endorse by an incident which had come under his knowledge in a district in Yorkshire with which he was acquainted. A newly appointed Inspector went to the school, and all who were interested in the school went to see him conduct the examination. Taking up a little child about six years old, he said — "Well, my little woman, what do you call a baby cow?" The child innocently answered —"A mutty calf, sir." The Inspector said— "Mutton, my child! who taught you that? Go down." He (Mr. Wheelhouse) ventured to say, there was not a child of six years old or less in the whole of Yorkshire who would not call a female calf by the local name by which it was known. It would have been infinitely better if that Inspector, who was a Southerner, had had some training before he was sent into the North of England, about which he knew nothing.

MR. MUNDELLA

complained that under the system of close inspection which at present prevailed the most competent persons were not allowed to become Inspectors of schools. The fact was that there was no promotion from the ranks. Why should they spend £2,000 a-year in giving gentlemen a year's training, when at the present moment there were above 100 assistant Inspectors, who were duly qualified for the office of Inspectors, not alone by education and standing, but by long experience as teachers in elementary schools themselves? Several of the Scotch Inspectors had been raised from the rank of schoolmaster. The London School Board had appointed five Inspectors who were formerly schoolmasters, and Sir Charles Reed had informed him that nothing could be better or more satisfactory than the way in which these men did their work. Such foolish questions as the one he had heard of— "What is the nature of the despotism by which India is governed?"—showed that some of the young Inspectors were untrained for their work. The noble Lord had now under him more than 100 Inspectors' assistants, some of whom had been among the ablest schoolmasters in the country, had taken high honours at the Universities, and practically did all the work of the Inspectors, except writing the reports. He intended during the present Session to bring the subject of school inspection before the House.

MR. A. MILLS

agreed that it would be desirable there should be some mode of training the Inspectors; but it ought not to be assumed that the present Inspectors did not do their work in a satisfactory manner. Much had been said about frightening the children; but all of them, when examined at the Universities and elsewhere, thought examination a very alarming thing and the Examiners very alarming persons. As a member of the Board, he entirely agreed with the hon. Gentleman who had last spoken as to the satisfactory manner in which the Inspectors of the London School Board who had been raised from the ranks did their work, and he would wish to see more of that class promoted. The object of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Rathbone) was to improve the machinery of inspection, and in that sense his proposal was very well worthy of attention.

MR. RAMSAY

said, that everyone acquainted with the working of a school must agree with the hon. Member for Liverpool that experience in the education of children would be an advantage to an Inspector. It would be desirable, before adopting any change in the present system, that the noble Lord should consider whether some months of training, not under an Inspector, but under an eminently qualified teacher, would not be necessary for the proper performance of the duties of Inspectors. Unless something of that kind were done, they would continue to have going forth from the Department Inspectors who, however high their attainments might be in classical and scientific knowledge, were ill-fitted for the work of inspecting common schools, and thereby determining the amount of the grants that ought to be made to them. He hoped the noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton) would consider the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella), that the profession of Inspector should be open to teachers generally. In that way a stimulus would be given to them to work hard and qualify themselves highly.

SIR JOSEPH BAILEY

said, as to promotion to the rank of Inspector there was no bar but one—the early age at which Inspectors were chosen. It was very clear that if an Inspector was to be selected at an early age, it practically prevented elementary teachers of experience from obtaining the post. He would therefore suggest to the Department that, where a teacher of great ability and experience stood for the position of Inspector, he might be allowed to enter upon his work at a later period of his life than 30 years.

LORD GEORGE HAMILTON

said, that any proposal emanating from the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Rathbone) with a view to improving the pre- sent system of elementary education would be well worthy of the attention of the House and the consideration of the Government, for there was no man in the House who had shown greater zeal in the cause of education, both in his capacity of Member of Parliament and in the town which he represented. Wherever there was a system of education such as that now in force in England, for which Parliament annually voted large sums of money to be paid as results of examination and inspection, it was necessary that that examination and inspection should be conducted with method and uniformity. In the case of examination vivâ voce instead of by printed papers, it was all the more necessary that uniformity should be secured. He thought the Motion on the Paper would be likely to mislead the House as to one particular of the existing system, because it stated that "newly-appointed Inspectors should have one year's training under an experienced Inspector" before they were appointed to independent posts. It might be inferred from that language that a young man was taken straight from the University and at once, without any preliminary training or term of probation, set to the task of examining and inspecting schools. That was not the case. At present all newly-appointed Inspectors had to serve a certain term of probation with the senior Inspector of the district to which they were appointed. The minimum period of their probation was a fortnight, and in many cases more. At the end of that period they were not at once appointed to independent posts, but were sent to some district where there was a chief Inspector, of whose advice and experience they would have the benefit. The principle for which the hon. Gentleman contended had, therefore, been acted upon already to a certain extent by the Department. But it was proposed that all the Inspectors should have one year's training, and that the Department should at once appoint eight new Inspectors, each with a salary of £250 a-year. If that proposal were agreed to, the result would be that a sum of £2,000 a-year would have to be added to the present education expenditure, and the House was aware how rapidly that expenditure had increased during the last 10 years, till it now amounted to considerably over £2,000,000. The Estimates for the coming year would, he feared, show a still further considerable increase, which was partly due, no doubt, to the increase in the attendance and in the efficiency of the children. The increase in the attendance had rendered an augmentation of the staff necessary, and the Education Department had been obliged to apply to the Treasury for a number of fresh Inspectors. It was, however, probable that the Treasury, seeing all the claims which it had upon it, would object to any further increase which was not absolutely necessary; nor had the hon. Member for Liverpool, in his opinion, brought forward such a case as would justify the House in accepting the Resolution which he had placed upon the Notice Paper. The hon. Gentleman seemed to think that the work of the Inspectors was imperfectly done at the present time; but a fairer way of putting the matter, he thought, would be that, although the work was very well done, it had not been as well done as it might be, and he was sure that, taking into account the character and ability, generally speaking, of the Inspectors, the hon. Gentleman would not wish to convey to the House the impression that they did not perform their duty. As to an Inspector being unacquainted with the dialect of a particular locality, he believed that the more experienced Inspectors, when they had occasion to go into a district where it was doubtful whether they would be understood by the children, allowed the masters to put the necessary questions, so that they might be intelligible to them. That being so, he did not think the mere fact of an Inspector betraying ignorance of the peculiar phraseology of a district furnished sufficient ground for asking the Treasury to increase the grant for the inspection of schools. It was quite an open question, however, and one which he would undertake to bring under the notice of the Department, whether the period of probation might not be extended. He had no doubt it might be possible to make some regulation for the future which would secure that in those cases in which a newly-appointed Inspector happened to have had no previous experience of elementary education or the examination of children, he should serve a longer period of probation than that which was now required. He was, how- ever, afraid that he could not assent to the Motion of the hon. Gentleman, because its adoption would have the effect of adding to Estimates which were already excessively high, without any absolute necessity for the increased expenditure. He might also remark that there were a certain number of Inspectors who had been teachers. It should not, however, be forgotten that Inspectors were sometimes called upon to investigate very difficult and delicate matters, and it was essential that they should be able to meet on equal terms with managers of schools. They also required tact, self-possession, and patience to enable them to discharge their duties satisfactorily, but he did not think the Lord President would be indisposed to appoint teachers of whose qualifications he was satisfied; but it ought not to be established as a rule that teachers should have a priority of claim. He might, in conclusion, observe that to have a teaching and inspecting department composed of the same individuals would be to form a close corporation which might hereafter be found to work by no means satisfactorily.

MR. RATHBONE

said, that after the explanation of the noble Lord he would not put the House to the trouble of dividing.

Question put, and agreed to.