§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN (, &c.) Stirling
I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether it is the case that the Scotch Education Department authorised the opening by the School Board of Culross of a school at Oakley, without imposing any special conditions; whether the School Board was subsequently required to confine the teaching in that school to the second standard; whether this is consistent with the 36th section of the Education Act of 1872; and whether the Department will re-pay to the School Board the expense incurred in advertising for teachers, and paying the current salary of a teacher who was engaged under the original sanction of the Department, but could not be employed owing to the Department's change of mind?
§ SIR C. J. PEARSON
The Scotch Education Department authorised the opening by the School Board of Culross of a school at Oakley on the condition that it was to be temporary, and that a satisfactory permanent scheme should be submitted before the close of the term of office of the School Board. Owing to the representations of the Carnoch School Board that the opening of this school, which is situated in their district, was assented to by them only on the understanding that it would be confined to children who had not passed the second standard, the Department has suggested that this restriction should be observed. I am not aware that this is inconsistent with the 36th section of the Education Act of 1872; but the Department's duty under the 30th section of that Act, and under the Code, is quite clear—namely, not to recognise for annual grants a school which is to provide for children for whose accommodation other and suitable provision is already made. The Department does not recognise any claim such as is put forward in the last paragraph of the question, nor are there any funds available for such a purpose; but they hope that nothing will prevent a fair compromise being arrived at.