EDUCATION PAYMENT BY RESULTS).

HC Deb 09 May 1890 vol 344 cc616-40

*(9.5.) SIR R. TEMPLE (Worcester, Evesham)

I rise to move the Resolution that stands in my name— That the present system of payment by results is injurious to Education and should therefore be abolished, and that the condition of a school should be tested not by the individual examination of every scholar but by the general inspection of the institution as a whole, the grant being distributed as a capitation allowance on the average attendance, freedom being allowed to the teachers in classifying each scholar according to his aptitude and proficiency. I desire to introduce to the House an abstract principle which is of vital importance to a great body of teachers, 40,000 in number, to tens of thousands of school managers, and to millions of young children of the rising generation. Sir, having the fear of your ruling before my eyes, I shall make no allusion to the New Code, which seems to be giving much satisfaction to this House and to the country. And I shall make no appeal to my right hon Friend the Vice President of the Council (Sir W. Hart Dyke), except to ask him if be approves of the principle and believes it to be embodied in the New Code, to say so and earn the gratitude of the educational world. I and those who act with me are not so vain and over-confident as to expect that such a principle as this can be carried at once. It is a great deal too good to be given effect to all at once. But if it turn out that he has embodied even a part of our principle in the Code we shall accept that as a step in the right direction and as an instalment. We shall be thankful for any part of it that can be realised, although our sense of gratitude will be mixed with the expectation of favours to come in future Codes. My Resolution is divided into two parts—first, the abolition of the present system of payment by results; and, second, the perfect freedom of classification. Payment by results is inevitable; indeed, the State will never pay without knowing what it is paying for. But I object to the present system of payment, which takes for its basis a wrong result, and tests that result in a manner equally wrong. I must explain briefly what that system is. There is a small fixed grant and a Merit Grant, which are given upon general considerations. But more than two-thirds of the existing Government grant are distributed after individual examination of the scholars, in all the subjects of instruction. Upon that examination, as a whole, a scholar is either passed or not passed. The grant is allowed only on those who pass. It operates in this way. If a school having every possible advantage succeeds in passing, say, 95 or 99 per cent. of its scholars it gets a high grant. If a school that is poor and that has every possible disadvantage passes only 75 or 85 per cent. it gets a poor grant. The Merit Grant ought to be given, no doubt, upon general considerations; but, as a matter of fact, Her Majesty's Inspectors are so much occupied with the results of the examinations that, generally speaking, the Merit Grant follows the examination grant. It often acts as a sort of cap upon the examination grant. Now, what are the examinations? This individual examination of every scholar is conducted in every one of the school subjects, which on the average are five or six in number. There are about 5,000,000 scholars in the country, and this, multiplied by five or six, gives no less than from 25,000,000 to 30,000,000 examinations conducted within the year. Sir, the imagination staggers under this load of figures! Such a mass of examinations cannot possibly be properly con- ducted, though the Inspectors undoubtedly do all that can be done by able and skilful men. The staff of Chief Inspectors, Deputy and Assistant Inspectors, serving under my right hon. Friend, all told, only numbers 350 persons. How can they properly conduct 30,000,000 of examinations each year? Now, several evils arise from this system. The examinations are necessarily rapid, mechanical, perfunctory, and superficial. In saying that, J cast no blame on anyone. I only say these are the necessary consequences of the present system. Then there is great uncertainty with regard to the examinations, owing to the different times at which they are held. A school examined when snow is on the ground will be in a much more unfavourable position than a school examined in May. Again, there are constant and large migrations of children from one school to another, so that when the examination comes round half the best scholars of a school may have gone elsewhere, their places being taken by new-comers, like raw recruits, who must yet be presented for examination, the result being very injurious to the grant. The true outcome of the joint labour of teacher and scholars is never tested. The school is judged, not as it is all the year round, but as it may happen to look on the examination day. The House would be surprised if it knew the extent to which this migration goes on in London. Moreover, the examination refers only to instruction of the intellect, and that is only a part, and not the most important part, of education. There is an education beyond that which refers mainly to the development of the moral qualities, the strengthening of the mental fibre, and the formation of character. This part is wholly untouched by the examination. Then this system tends, of course, to cramming the scholars, not with knowledge that can be digested and assimilated, but just enough learning to show on the surface before the Inspector. The whole attention of teachers is concentrated upon the matters which are tested by examination, and the consequence is that the weaker children are neglected. The teacher himself necessarily looks to those who can earn grants. The prosperity of the school and the character of the teacher depend upon the grants. Of course, being human, the poor teacher concentrates his attention upon the grant-winners, leaving the non-grant winners in the lurch almost unavoidably. I am sure the House will see that this system is very hard upon the poor. For instance, schools in Whitechapel, where the children are ill-fed and ill-cared for, and came from squalid homes, in which they are often obliged to stay for domestic duties, thus making their attendance irregular, are placed in the same category with schools in Pimlico which have every possible advantage, where the children's brains are fed with good nutrition, and where nothing diverts them from attending well. The Whitechapel School may work as hard, or harder, but can never earn as much as the Pimlico School. The effect of the system is that the grants are given to those who can get on without them, and are withheld from those who cannot. The bounty is bestowed largely on those who need it least, and grudgingly on those who need it most. Surely this system is a misapplication, almost a perversion, of the scriptural text— To him that hath shall be given, and from him that hath not shall be taken away even that, which he hath. Lastly, it yokes together children of unequal capacity in the same class. I will explain this latter point more particularly when I come to the second part of my subject. With all these evils, I say that the system fails to test the results properly. Its failure is utter and complete. It is administrative only, and not educational at all. It exists only for the distribution of the Government grants. It involves a fundamental misconception of the purpose and nature of the Government grant. The principle on which the grant was intended to be given was not detur meliori, or detur digniori. It was not to be a prize giving. The grants were intended to help the halt, the maimed, and the poor, and to enable them to level themselves up and elevate themselves in the social scale. They were intended essentially to give help not to those who can help themselves, but to those who really need assistance in order that, they may have a chance in the struggle of our national life. If that is the principle of our grants, then I say that the existing system of payment by results ought to be abolished absolutely —that is to say, there should be no more individual examination. For them there should be substituted a Report from Her Majesty's Inspector, which would furnish a true test of the educational result. I submit that this Report ought to be made as the result not of a visit at a stated time, of which due notice has been given, so that everything is dressed and marshalled in review order, but of several casual visits without notice, so that the teacher may be taken unawares, and the school be seen in its working dress. There would then be a, proper Report; the Inspector would look at the building and the apparatus; he would see whether discipline was maintained, and whether the teacher had the faculty of command; whether with nervous force he made the children follow his voice and eye; he would observe whether the children were smart, clean, and well-mannered, and he would see the teacher instructing and examining them, which is the way to discover what the character of the instruction is. Again, the Inspector could see whether the teacher was acquainted with the social condition of all the children and in touch with the parents, in order to secure their co-operation for regular attendance, and he would note whether any of the children were famished, or came break fast less to school, so that, if this were the case, it might be remedied by some private agency, Ho need not examine the children individually. Why should he, if he sees the instruction given, if he hears the; children being questioned by their teacher? Thus relieved from the present fearful drudgery of examination the Inspector would be able to visit the school more than once in the year, and the Report would be worth a hundred times more than the result of the present examination. The Inspector then would declare whether the school was efficient or not efficient. If it was not it would get no grant; if it was it would get a grant, distributed by a capitation allowance on the average attendance, and there would be the same capitation allowance for all schools that were efficient. Undoubtedly this recommendation favours the poor schools. It is for the poor, indeed, that I am pleading to-night. My scheme would give assistance where it is most needed; it applies the State resources just where they would be most useful. If a school was not efficient it would receive warning. Notice would be served upon the school that unless it rendered itself efficient within a certain time it would lose the grant altogether. That is the right system. A Report of this character would have great importance, and the managers of a school that received such a warning must have an opportunity of showing cause against the Report by means of an appeal from it to another authority. If an Assistant Inspector made the unfavourable Report there should be an appeal to the Chief Inspector; and if the managers were still dissatisfied they should have an appeal to my right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council (Sir W. Hart Dyke), who would send down a special official to verify the Report, The Report will be a very real and serious affair, and that ought to be the case, because it will be based on full and complete information. I am aware that those who differ from me will say that under the system I propose there would be no incentive to the teacher to excel, because his school receives the capitation grant upon efficiency, without variation, according to the degrees of that efficiency. I maintain, on the contrary, that the teacher would have more incentive than he ever has had yet, because his professional prospects will depend upon this Report, which embraces not the instruction only, but everything relating to the institution. The anxiety of teachers with regard to the Inspector's Report is already intense, and this anxiety would be still further intensified when the Report is wider and more searching than heretofore. Nothing can be more vain than to say that the teachers will have no incentive. Under our plan they will be spurred on to greater efforts. It might be said, perhaps, that if a school finds that it can get a good grant without coming up to more than average efficiency it will have no motive for improvement. If, however, the Inspector has allowed a poor struggling school to be classed as efficient and to receive the grant, in order that it may have the means of improving itself, and yet the school does not improve, the Inspector will make an unfavourable Report, and will give it to understand that if it does not improve within a certain time the grant will be withdrawn. I admit that this throws the onus on the Inspectors. That is as it should be. I have great confidence in the Inspectors. I know their worth, and I think the proper plan is to put the responsibility upon them. The existing plan keeps in a bad state schools that are poor by virtually withholding from them the grant which they need for rendering themselves efficient. It is not too much to say that the present system establishes inefficiency. Our plan would alter that altogether. It would give those schools that are poor such a good grant as would enable them to improve, and, by means of Her Majesty's Inspectors, we should take care they did improve, and that they made good use of the bounty of the State. I have only to deal with one point more in this part of my subject. I propose to abolish the system of individual examination as regards the elementary subjects and the class subjects. The elementary subjects are the three R's; the class subjects are those which are taught to a whole class at once, such as geography and simple English literature; hence its name, "class subject." There is a third set of subjects, called specific, which relate to certain sections of science, certain departments of foreign literature, and certain branches of art. These arc subjects undertaken only by a few selected from the school classes, and with respect to them I propose to keep up the system of individual examination. Upon these the examiners may work their will to their hearts' content. I now come, Sir, to the second part of my subject, which is absolute freedom of classification. The present rigid system of classification is a direct consequence of the system of individual examination. If we have the present system of payment by results, we must have a corresponding system of classification. If we have a system of individual examination, the tendency must be that the children will go on yearly from standard to standard. It does not necessarily follow that the children are classed according to age. But the tendency runs strongly in that direction. Now, nothing can be more fallacious than to put children, seven or eight years old from Whitechapel in the same category with children of the same age from Pimlico. Children having been put at seven years of age to Standard I. must, whether fit to do so or not, go on to the Second Standard the following year, because the grant cannot be obtained two years running in the same standard. In fact, he had better stay in the First for a while. Perhaps a child gets from the First to the Second Standard with difficulty, and with still greater difficulty in to the Third; and the difficulty increases with every standard to which he passes. Thus he lags behind, or is over-pressed throughout his career. But if there were not individual examination the teacher would keep the child in the same standard as long as it was good for him. I admit that if a scholar shows marked ability it is possible for him to advance from the First Standard to the Third at once, skipping over the Second; but in practice it rarely, or never, happens. Supposing a teacher has promoted a scholar over one standard and that he fails to pass in the next or higher standard, the grant is lost. Then the teacher will be blamed for having incurred the responsibility of putting the scholar forward, and the consequence is that no teacher will undertake to do it. Furthermore, as the six Standards are arranged according to the years between the ages of six and seven, the skipping over one standard is apt to disarrange the career for the remaining years. The consequence of the present system is that children are pushed on year after year without any regard to their fitness or capacity, and that while some children are backward and over pressed, others are forward, and yet have to be kept back-in company with their fellows, as the teachers say "simply to mark time." What is the result upon the classes? There is evidence of the result in the Library of this House. In any particular class about 25 per cent. of the children are too good for it, another 25 per cent. are not good enough, the remaining 50 per cent. being on the level of the class. That is not as it should be. That, too, is what I meant when, in the earlier part of my speech I, said that the system yokes unequal scholars together. The teacher in such a class has to adopt three methods of teaching in each class. He must have one plan for those who are not up to the mark, another for those who are above the mark, and a third for those who are equal to the average. The House will see that this greatly prejudices the system of instruction. Further, it is manifest that a particular scholar may be better in one subject and worse in another. Suppose he is very clever at figures, rather clumsy in handwriting, and with no taste for reading. Under a proper system of classification he would rise to a high standard in arithmetic, and be placed in a much inferior standard in handwriting and reading. Under the present system he must be kept back in his arithmetic because his writing is bad and his reading defective; or if he be put into a superior class owing to his proficiency in arithmetic, he must struggle on as he best can in the other two subjects. And the same remark applies equally to the class subjects which I have already described. What can possibly be the use in any rational system of instruction of such regulations as these? Yet this is the state of things that inevitably prevails, and the authorities say there is no remedy under the present system of a grant on a pass by each individual scholar in an examination in the three subjects. The whole affair comes to be regarded ina mercenary light—so many shillings for this, so many for that, and so forth—all which is unworthy of the causa of education. According to the existing rules that course cannot be altered, but if payment upon individual examination is abolished, that defective system of classification will be abolished with it, and the two evils will vanish simultaneously. Every scholar will be placed according to his aptitude in the class where he can get the teaching suitable for him, and there will be uniformity according to the rightness and fitness of things. Generally the rcholars will be rightly classed, and not wrongly, as at present. They will be much of a muchness in each class, and there will be one method only in that class (instead of three plans) suited to all alike. The instruction then will be greatly facilitated. I beg the House to remember that our teachers are worthy of confidence, and may be depended upon to classify their scholars rightly. We have trained and certificated them to be what they are. We may be proud of what we have made them to be. I believe that no country in the world is better served than England is by her schoolmasters and schoolmistresses. If it be said that the motive or incentive for pushing the teachers, with all this freedom, will lack a scholars on—I reply that the parents will see to that ! Every parent knows that unless his son or daughter can be pressed on, he or she will have to stay at school till the age of 12 or 13; whereas, if the child is well advanced and passes a superior standard, he or she can get away at 10 or 11 and at once become a wage-earner. Besides other and better motives the prospects of wage-earning makes the parent anxious about his child's progress. By intrusting greater freedom of classification of the children to a body of ladies and gentlemen who are thoroughly worthy of the national confidence, there is no danger of want of pressure being put upon the children. The parents put pressure upon the teacher, and that pressure we may be quite sure will be communicated from the teacher to the scholar. Then, lastly, it is desirable that this abolition of individual examination and this freedom of classification should be absolutely unconditional and unreserved. There should be a full and frank admission of the principle, and that admission should not be whittled away by various conditions, caveats, and reservations in the Code. I am not alluding to the New Code, but such limitations have happened, and may happen again. I ought to know the official mind, and I am sure that it is slow to part with control. When it has had for a series of years vast interests under its shackles, it is very unwilling that these fetters should be struck off. A despotism of this sort dies hard! Unless we have the thing as clear as noonday, so that all who run may read—master, scholar, and parent—then this House will not have done all that is desirable. Therefore, I am anxious to obtain the sanction of the House to an abstract principle which is clear and definite and which may be considered as not the abolition of payment by results, but as an improved system of payment by real results. Whether he sees his way to fully carry out the principle or not, I am sure my right hon. Friend will not dispute its justice. I hope he will carry it out unreservedly. He will thereby earn the gratitude of the educational world, and the blessing of tens of thousands of families all over the country. The recognition of this principle by the House to-night will gladden the hearts of multitudes; will bring peace to their minds, lighten their labours, sweeten their existence. Still more, it will help the schools of England to realise the ideal of what they ought to be—that is to say, the homes of national virtue, the abodes of practical culture, and the centres of honest effort. I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the present system by results is injurious to Education and should therefore be abolished, and that the condition of a school should be tested not by the individual examination of every scholar, but by the general inspection of the institution as a whole, the grant being distributed as a capitation allowance on the average attendance, freedom being allowed to the teachers in classifying each scholar according to his aptitude and proficiency,"— (Sir Richard Temple,) instead thereof;

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

*MR. SYDNEY BUXTON (Tower Hamlets, Poplar)

I am very glad I have the honour of seconding the Motion, if only to show that there is no Party feeling upon this question. I cannot refrain from regretting, however, that it should have been necessary to bring it forward at this particular time, because to aeertain extent it interferes with the discussion of the Code, which we understand from the right hon. Gentleman will come on before Whitsuntide. But the right hon. Gentleman will, I feel sure, understand this, that those who take part in this Debate do so in no sense antagonistic to this Code. On the contrary, we congratulate him and thank him for the new departure he has taken. The term "payment by results" is usually applied to the system under which the individual examination of each child is taken as the basis, of the payment of the grant; but it has come to include also the system of payment by the piece. Now, Sir, I am not ashamed to confess that, as a Member of the Royal Commission on. Education, my views on this subject were very much modified by the overwhelming and almost unanimous nature of the evidence placed before us, not only by teachers and managers, but by all interested in elementary education. But in condemning the system of "payment by results" I am not prepared necessarily to condemn its original introduction thirty years ago. At that time the system of national education was so gross and so bad that it was necessary for the State?, in extending its grants, to take care that it had some guarantee of good results for its money. At the? same time, I blame those who succeeded Mr. Lowe as Vice President of the Council, for not having been able to distinguish between the use and the abuse of such a system, and for not having sooner appreciated the evils which followed its vast extension. It is highly probable, indeed, that the very name itself—"payment by results"—has had something to do with the long period during which the system has existed. Everyone desires payment by results; but, unfortunately, under the present system, we get results we do not want, and pay for results we do not get. My hon. Friend has dwelt at length on the evils which have followed from the existing system. It lends to overpressure and under pressure. It leads to cram instead of to thoroughness; and education that is not thorough does not last. I think we all feel that one of the great evils of our system is that children leave school at too early an age and soon forget all the instruction they have received. The whole system of education has become mechanical, uniform, and inelastic. One of its chief blots, moreover, is that, under it, the grant practically depends on one day's work instead of on the work of the whole year. The earning power of that day depends, moreover, on two variable quantities, the temper of the Inspector, and the temper of the clerk of the weather. The examination is necessarily somewhat perfunctory; and causes a vast variation in the amount of grant for exactly the same amount and goodness of work. The system is demoralising to the teachers and to the parents, as well as to the Department itself. The question is, How are we to replace this system? What other system can we put in its place, that will still give to the State a guarantee that its money was being properly expended? If we could start afresh I do not hesitate to say that the ideal system of national education would be that we should have strong representative Local Authorities, who should have the fullest possible power over the elementary schools in the districts, and should be responsible for the sufficiency and efficiency of those schools. The State, instead of dealing with individual schools, should distribute the grant not according to the needs or the results of the individual schools, but according to the needs and circumstances of each particular district. It should pay its grant direct to those Local Bodies, and make them fully responsible for the mode in which the money was expended. But that time was not yet. And, meanwhile, it is idle to compare what is going on abroad, or in our colonies, with our system at home, because, as my hon. Friend knows—for he is one of the chief props and ornaments of the voluntaryists—we have a dual system of School Board and voluntary education. The position is this. Three out of every five of our elementary schools are under practically irresponsible managers. This state of things was due, on the one hand, to the gross neglect of the State in the past; on the other, to the self-sacrifice and zealous endeavours of those who, when the State neglected its duty, took a part of that duty upon themselves. The result was that, when the State did at last realise its responsibility, it found the ground very much covered; and, ever since, in consequence of this dual system, the nation has been hampered on all questions of national edu- cation, because, unfortunately both in and out of the House, they have to be looked at not only, or perhaps chiefly, from an educational, but from a political, an economical, and a sectarian point of view. The result of this state of things is that the Department pays every year something like £2,000,000 to these irresponsible managers, and that for every £1 these managers provide the State provides £3.Further, if we are going to have abolition of fees, upon which the House, I think, is pretty generally agreed, the proportion that these managers will provide will then be but as 1 to 4½ contributed by the State. This is a very serious point in the consideration of how far we can relax the present system. The Resolution moved by my hon. Friend seems to me to involve two principles with which I cordially agree. In the first place, it proposes to abolish altogether any system under which a grant paid to any school shall have as its basis the individual examination of every child in the school. Secondly, it proposes that the grant shall be, as far as possible, a fixed grant, to be paid, not in small pieces, but in one sum as a general fixed grant, dependent on the general efficiency of the school. With this principle I cordially concur. But I do not know that I quite go so far as my hon. Friend when he says that, in the practical carrying out of his proposition, this fixed grant should depend on the ascertained pecuniary needs of the school, and not on examination results. If that means that the educational results in the school are not to be taken into account in assessing the grant, I am afraid I can hardly agree with him; but if it means that educational results are not to be the only results that are to be taken into account in assessing the grant, then Ieordially agree with him. I confess I could not quite go with my hon. Friend as to the system of inspection he proposes to substitute. He said that, under the ideal system, it would not be necessary for the Inspector to examine the children at all; but that he would be able to see how the children were taught, and ascertain the general efficiency of the school, by a series of visits. As regards the series of visits, I am entirely with my hon. Friend; but, I confess, that, in my opinion, under any system by which the State gives grants to these schools, certainly so long as Voluntary and Board schools exist side by side, we must have a thorough inspection and examination, not only of the moral tone of the school and the intelligence of the teachers, but also of the efficiency of the education which is given, especially as regards the three R's. But this does not in the least imply that a particular portion of the grant is to depend on a particular examination, or that the Inspectors are to examine individually all the children in the school in order to bass the grant in any shape or form on a system of percentages—a system which we agree in condemning. But I do not see that we can entirely get rid of inspection and examination. It seems to me that the right principle —and there I agree with my hon. Friend —would be to get rid, as far as possible, of the whole system of percentages, and to give the largest possible fixed grant. In my opinion, it is better to have one large fixed grant rather than, as proposed in the Code of this and of last year, in the one case three and in the other two fixed grants. This grant should depend upon the general efficiency of the school, the suitability of the building, the sufficiency and efficiency of the teaching staff, and the suitability and character of the instruction given. Outside this grant, there must doubtless be certain special grants in addition. It is generally agreed that the specific subjects should be taught, and paid for separately. I am bound to say I think it might be expedient and necessary to give besides additional grants to schools teaching efficiently drawing and cookery, and giving manual instruction. I draw a very clear distinction between such subjects as these, and the three R's, together with the ordinary-class subjects which should be placed entirely under the fixed grant. I would go further, and would cordially support the recommendation in the Minority Report of the Royal Commission, in desiring that, in addition, further special grants should be given to improve the efficiency of schools where the managers went to the expense of organising teachers, utilising drawing instructors, or science demonstrators; and, again, where they made special arrangements for the instruction of pupil teachers at centres otherwise. I think in all these matters there might be special grants outside and above the large fixed grant; they would have none of the evils of the old system by leading to cram, and over-pressure in special subjects, while they would do a great deal to encourage schools to improve and bring themselves up to the highest point of efficiency. One other point I would suggest in relation to the fixed grant, that it should be variable in one sense—if the bull may be allowed—so as to give encouragement to the schools at which the poorer class of children attend, and be an inducement to schools in a better position to reduce their fees, namely, by an addition to the fixed grant where the fees were below the average, and by a reduction form the fixed grant where the fees were high. I cordially agree with my hon. Friend that along with this fixed grant the fullest possible liberty should be given to teachers in the classification of children, the choice of subjects, and the methods of teaching. As Mr. Alderson, late one of our Inspectors, has well said, in the attempt to classify children we take what may be called an "average abstract child," and try to classify all other children on the procrustean basis of that particular abstract child. The whole system of classification has turned, as my hon. Friend says, on the matter of age, whereas the matter of age in elementary schools is, perhaps, the last factor that should be taken into account when we desire to classify children for instruction according to their abilities and attainments. I agree with my hon. Friend that we have reached, and, indeed, I think we have long past, the time when we may place the fullest possible trust in the loyalty honour, and discretion of our teachers. They are very different now as a class to what they were when the Duke of Newcastle's Commission reported. The whole nation has been educated to a higher standard, and our teachers are much better educated, better trained, and far better fitted to carry on school work than they were thirty or forty years ago. I agree with my hon. Friend, and speak from considerable personal experience, when I say that there is no class of men or women in the kingdom more entitled to our thanks and praise for the way in which they have conducted their work. Very arduous and difficult their work is, and the influence and exertions of our teachers, often to their own personal detriment, have done much to mitigate and diminish the evils of our present-cast-iron system of payments by results. To them is due, in very great measure, the improvement in the condition of our schools. Just one other point in connection with the fixed grant, and it is one upon which I lay very great stress indeed, namely, that it is essential, if we are going to pay this fixed grant for the "efficiency" of a school that the minimum requirement of efficiency should be increased, and that we should have a more liberal idea as to what should constitute a suitable school for the elementary education of our children. I regret that in the New Code—I am not going to discuss it now, but I cannot refrain from expressing a passing regret—the minimum requirements for our elementary schools have not been largely raised. "We ought to have a higher ideal of structural suitability, and I do not think the minimum scale of accommodation on the basis of eight square feet, laid down by the Department, is anything like sufficient. We ought to have a much more liberal idea of what the staffing in our schools should be. The present minimum, and, indeed, the minimum laid down in the New Code, is ludicrously inadequate. Generally, too, we ought to have a higher ideal of what should constitute the minimum curriculum in our schools. Here, again, the New Code is most disappointingly inadequate. In short, if we are going to improve our system by substituting a fixed grant for payment by results, we must take a broader view of what should constitute suitability of building, staff, and curriculum than we have been content with in the past. One matter further, to which my hon. Friend has alluded. It will be essential, if we are to to introduce the one grant-system, that the Inspectors should visit the schools far oftener than they do at present. The system is perfectly absurd under which an Inspector judges the school upon one visit. By the introduction of the fixed grant, while the individual power of the Inspector would be diminished, his responsibility would be largely increased. He will be less of a machine, and more of a rational and responsible being. His responsibility would be increased, because upon the Report of the Inspector the Department must rely to keep the efficiency of a school up to the standard, and they must be strong enough to absolutely withdraw the grant if the school is at all non-efficient. A great deal, both under the New Code as well as under the proposals now made, will depend on how the Department put their powers into force. But I believe we may trust the Department, under the pressure of public opinion, to carry out such a system: we may trust, as my right hon. Friend has said, that they will keep the schools u p to a state of efficiency, and that they will have strength of mind enough to refuse the grant if that state of efficiency is not maintained. I believe public opinion will support them in that respect and that the pressure of the parents will do much also to bring about the consummation we desire. One point more, and it is the last. I must touch on the question of attendance. This fixed grant must depend on the average attendance, and I think our teachers have a great and material grievance in the manner in which compulsory attendance is carried out, or rather not carried out. in many parts of the kingdom. It is very disheartening to them when children do not properly attend school, and still more so when their efforts to secure attendance are not properly supported by the Local Authority. While I am quite sure that no one desires to carry out the system of compulsory attendance harshly, I believe that the parents, as a class, and the country at large, do desire that, when a school is provided, the children should be found in their places there. But, unfortunately, not only in too many cases are the School Board Authorities, or the School Attendance Committees, too lax in enforcing attendance, but also, and especially in London, as my hon. Friend knows very well, Magistrates are too fond of considering the interests of the parents rather than the interests of the children. They forget that, after all, the "child is father to the man," and let off many parents who ought to be convicted for gross neglect their children's welfare, because it seems hard upon the parents to inflict a tine. The abolition of the fees will, doubtless, do much to improve attendance. Regularity of attendance will be greatly-assisted by the system we propose, under which teachers will have more freedom, greater power and inducement to introduce a more reasonable and more elastic methods of instruction and to make school more attractive. I believe the House does desire to take a new departure, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Department is entirely of that opinion. Our only desire is to carry-on past progress with greater rapidity, and by improving the condition and the position of teachers in the schools to benefit the children, and, through the children, to benefit the nation at large.

*(10.20.) THE VICE PRESIDENT or THE COUNCIL (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE,) Kent, Dartford

I very much fear that, in spite of the grave importance of the matter now under the cognisance of the House, my contribution to the Debate must be but small, and it will be obvious to the House why my observations are restricted. It is only some few weeks since I placed upon the Table a document dealing upon an entirely new basis with our elementary educational system, and although it is perfectly true, and I gladly accept your ruling, Sir, that this Motion is perfectly in order, because this new Code which it has been my duty to place before Parliament is not, strictly speaking, a legislative enactment, yet my position is, practically speaking, analogous to that of a Member who, within a short tine of the occasion when he will have to move the Second Reading of a Bill, finds himself suddenly face to face with a Debate dealing not only with the principle, but absolutely the details, of his measure. I can assure the House, and I assure my hon. Friend, that I mention this not from any feeling in the nature of personal complaint—indeed, in political matters nowadays there is no greater mistake than to complain of anything—I make these remarks not in a spirit of complaint, but simply as a reason, and I hope the House will accept it as an adequate reason, why I am practically precluded from taking that part in an educational discussion I should desire, and which the nature of the subject would seem to require. Having said so much, I at once come to the point of what Her Majesty's Government are prepared to do in regard to this Motion. I say at once that, having laid on the Table of the House a Code, which, in a concrete form, embraces almost entirely the principle of the Motion now before us, I am prepared gladly to accept and endorse this Motion, but I must urge one or two points by way of qualification. First, I should like to mention a point dealt with by my hon. Friend who seconded the Motion in an excellent speech. He referred to the form of the Motion, and I will read the terms, because, although we may accept the broad principle, I am anxious to take a fair view of the situation, and that we should not commit ourselves to any dangerous consequence which may be involved. My hon. Friend (Sir R. Temple) suggests "That the present system of payment by results is injurious to education, and should, therefore be abolished. "Now, I think that in the House generally, and among those outside who take an interest in educational matters, the system of payment by results has been condemned, and, so far as I am concerned, not only in the House, but on more than one occasion outside, I have spoken in condemnation of the system, and can, therefore, accept the proposition without reserve. Then comes a further important point in the Motion— And that the condition of a school should be tested not by the individual examination of every scholar, but by the general inspection of the institution as a whole. That, also, I accept, and I believe hon. Members who read the Report of the Royal Commission will find that is accepted in principle by the Majority and Minority Report. But now I come to a point where I find a discrepancy in the speeches of my hon. Friends who moved and seconded this Resolution, and that is in regard to the question whether the Motion involves the utter and complete abolition of individual examination of scholars. The hon. Baronet who moved the Resolution alluded to a system he would support of a kind of second-hand individual examination, but I think the hon. Member who seconded demanded that the Inspector should hear the children examined, and he, while seconding the Motion without reserve, would so far preserve the system of individual examination that it should be applicable in certain cases. Now, this is important, in view of the fact that within a few weeks I shall have to submit to the House a Vote for £3,750,000 for purposes of elementary education. I think, therefore, it is most important that in voting for this Resolution the House of Commons should know the precise position in which it is placed. For myself, I support the Motion in the light of the speech of the hon. Member who seconded it, who demands that a certain system—not the present system—of individual examination should be preserved. Here I am supported by the authority of the hon. Member for Oxford University, who was also a Member of the Royal Commission. My hon. Friend is, I believe, one of several Members who signed one of these documents we find on our breakfast table in the morning, putting in the most alluring and enticing form a suggestion that we should put the closure upon our dinners and hasten down to make a House at 9 o'clock. He, I believe, is a supporter of this Motion; but I notice also that he signed the Report of the Commission containing this sentence— The distribution of the Parliamentary Grant cannot he wholly free from the present dependence on the results of examination, without the risk of greater evils than those it is sought to cure. The point, then, I would earnestly press on the House is this: that I accept the Motion in the spirit of the seconder of it, and in the sense in which I understand my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University gives his support, with the reservation that I am in favour of a sufficient test of the efficiency of a school by individual examination being preserved up to a certain point.

*MR. SYDNEY BUXTON

Perhapa the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to explain that what I said, or what I meant to say, was that the Department should retain the power to examine individually, if necessary, in order to test efficiency; but that the grant should not depend on this examination. That I take to be the effect of the right hon, Gentleman's words.

*SIR W. HART DYKE

No doubt this explanation is demanded on account of the difficulty in which I am placed, that I cannot go further into this discussion. What I understand the hon. Member really wishes is to substitute for the present system of grants a fixed grant assessed and paid according to the efficiency of the school as a whole, and one important item to be taken into account in considering the grant will be the knowledge of the children in elementary subjects such as can only be tested by a certain amount of individual examination. There is one other point I should like to mention. I cordially adopt the last clause in the Motion which refers to the freedom to be allowed to teachers to classify scholars according to their aptitude. I wish to see that this freedom is liberally and properly administered; but there must be a reservation that where the Inspector finds it is abused by those in charge of a school, he shall have power to step in. I have no further observations to add with regard to this Motion. I accept it with the reservations I have made. I hope the Debate will be conducted on fair and just lines. I am sure that no hon. Members wish to do mo any injustice by prematurely discussing my proposals. Since I have had the honour of holding office I have received fair-play from all quarters, and I am sure that now I shall not appeal in vain for similar treatment. It will shortly be my duty to explain the proposals which the Government have to make, and till then I trust hon. Gentlemen will not attempt to discuss them. I regret that this very position of affairs has prevented me from doing justice to the Motion, which has not only my hearty sympathy, but my very best support.

(10.35.) MR. E. HARRINGTON (Kerry, W.)

I quite sympathise with the closing remarks of the right hon. Gentleman, for I hold that when a good thing has to be said, the sooner it is said the better. I thank the hon. Baronet the Member for Evesham for having brought this Motion forward and for thus having exploded the vicious system of payment by results. I believe that the system of education which has, for the last 15 years, been fostered in this country and in Ireland has been injurious to the children and dishonouring to the teachers. It has been a system calculated to bring the teachers and parents into conflict. Now, I have not read the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council on Education; but I must say I do not think that, in a matter of this kind which affects the education of the children of the community, the question of courtesy to the Minister ought to be made subservient to the necessities of the State. I have been glad to see a practical unanimity among hon. Members on this question. I have myself been looked upon as a strong politician, but still I have been pleased to see this subject approached from both sides of the House with an evident desire to eschew politics. I hope I shall not be understood as complaining of the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman has met us. I agree with him as to the importance of retaining the individual examination of children If there is not an individual examination of the children in the schools for some purpose or other, the visitation of the Inspector will be of no use. I speak with practical experience, for, during 13 years of my life, I was connected: with the primary education of children. It is very easy to dress up a school and to present a class to an Inspector, and above all, for a teacher to undertake the examination in the presence of the Inspector and to make a show class. These periodical examinations we all know of. I am strongly against the system of payment by results, and I want the Inspector to be brought more into individual contact with the individual children of the school. There is another thing. In all Departments under the control of the State, and which may be paid for by public money, I would have unexpected visits to be the rule rather than the exception. Now, it is all very well to talk of courtesy. It is a very nice thing for a Departmental gentleman to wire down to his friend and say, "I may possibly be found in such a place on such a day;" but the primary thing is for a school to be always in such a state that the Inspector will find it in order at any hour or moment he may drop into it. I am talking of Irish experience principally. There any gentleman can come in and inspect the schools, but he has no privilege of examination without the permission of the teachers. I would have the Inspector in a position that he may drop in at any moment and claim the privilege of examining any class. That is really essential. The reason I am against the result system is this: I believe if you have a good, honest, intelligent teacher, he can do more for the children if he is un- fettered than if he is crushed by this system, which is gradually driving up the standards. And then with regard to the standard of age. I do not follow the hon. Gentleman in his comparison between Whitechapel and Pimlico, but there are numbers of things to be taken into consideration. If he takes either Whitechapel or Pimlico, or if he takes a district in which Irish was the language of the children before they went to school, it would be very unfair to treat the latter children on the same standard as regards age as he would treat those children who, by constantly listening to their parents, have acquired a great deal of intelligence before being subjected to school teaching. These things have to be considered. The duty of the Inspector is to judge of the general proficiency of the school. Then the results of the payments would be regulated by general matters, such as the number of children attending the school and their average attendance. That would be very good; but there ought to be another thing. The hon. Gentleman ought to draw no hard and fast line, and he ought to take into consideration the difficulties of the very different situation of the schools. I think that there should be some elasticity in the rule which he formulates in the matter, and that in out-of-the-way places where there is no possibility of having a large attendance if the teacher is doing more than commensurate good, he should be more than commensurately rewarded. If a teacher in an outlandish district has proved himself by every standard capable of instructing these children, and capable of showing results which no one could have expected in that district, there should be some elasticity in the arrangement to enable the Government to give him increased payment. Regarding this Motion as aimed at the pernicious system of payment by results, I am strongly in its favour. I desire to see the primary teachers in this country and in Ireland properly recompensed. If a teacher has a natural aptitude for his profession, he takes an interest in the children under him, and he should be allowed, if he thinks it right, to keep a child a longer time in the lower classes than he is now allowed to do. In the elementary schools in Ireland the teachers are paid fees which are progressive according to the classes in which the children are placed; and if a teacher keeps a child back in its own interest, he does so at the loss to himself of the progressive fee, while the parent is down on him because his child is not so advanced as a neighbour's child may be. I am glad that a House was kept for the discussion of this Motion. I believe the Mover and Seconder have made out an irresistible case, and I do not think any hon. Member will get up and defend this vicious system of payment by results. It is our duty to see that we have the best possible system of education for our children.

*(10.50.) MR. F. S. POWELL (Wigan)

I do not wish to prolong the Debate, but desire to express the opinion that too much blame has been cast upon the present system of elementary education, which has not been so devoid of results as has been stated. The disappointment which it has caused is due partly to the early departure of children from school, and partly to the want of continuation schools in our national system. The evils that hon. Members have deplored will be greatly relieved by the Code which will shortly be laid on the Table by the Government, and the whole subject may then be fully discussed. I will not prolong the present Debate, and will only add that I believe no class of men and women are more worthy the confidence of the people and more desirous to properly discharge the duties entrusted to them than are the elementary teachers. I feel greatly rejoiced that the old system is ended. We bid farewell to it with gratitude for what it has accomplished in the past, and we look forward with hope to a better system.

(10.51.) MR. C. A. V. CONTBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)

Considering the position of what I may call suspended animation, in which I am, as a member of the London School Board, owing to the attack of the Chief Secretary on me last year, I may, perhaps, be regarded by some as having no claim to, take part in a Debate on education. But I wish to emphasise one or two points which have come out in the course of the discussion.

Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,—

House adjourned at Eleven o'clock till Monday next.