HC Deb 10 May 1894 vol 24 cc901-8
* MR. RENSHAW (Renfrew, W.)

said, he rose to move— That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her to withhold Her assent from that portion of the Code (1894) of the Scotch Education Department which proposes to alter the ages in Section 133 of the Code from 'between 5 and 14 years of age' to 'between 3 and 15 years of age,' and until it is provided that the new arithmetical requirements under the 28th section in Standards IV., V., and VI. shall not come into operation till 1895. He said, he felt that he ought to apologise to the House for intruding upon it at this hour of the morning, but the fact was that the Code was published on the 10th of April, and therefore, unless attention was called to it before the House rose for the holidays there would be no opportunity for discussing the matter. In proposing to alter the age limit in Scotland, and make the period of school age"3 to 15"instead of"5 to 14"as at present, it was suggested—

SIR J. CARMICHAEL (Glasgow, St. Rollox)

I rise to a point of Order. As this Act becomes effective on the expiration of the 10th of May if not opposed, I wish to ask you whether that period has not expired?

MR. SPEAKER

This is a sitting of the 10th, and although 1 o'clock has passed, it is by the Rules of the House still a sitting of the 10th.

* MR. RENSHAW

was not surprised that hon. Members opposite would rather avoid the discussion; but it was essential this matter should be discussed before the notice became effective. He believed when these changes were brought into operation in England in 1891 there was a protracted discussion in the House on the question, and they had a right to ask for the same indulgence when discussing a question of great importance to the education of Scotland. It had been contended that because the age in England had been fixed from 3 to 15, that that limit should also apply to Scotland. But there was no analogy between the two cases. A great inducement to the House and those interested in education in England to agree to fixing the ages between 3 and 15 was that the grant in England was to be 10s. per head on the children in average attendance. But in Scotland the amount available from the Probate Duty and Customs and Excise Acts, whatever it might be each year, was distributed on the basis of average attendance, and the Code provided that the attendance might not be reckoned of any scholar in a day school under three or above 18, and therefore Scotland could derive no-monetary benefit by adjusting the ages to correspond with those in England; and by spreading this grant over a larger number of children they would secure no educational advantage whatever. In Scotland there was a very great difference indeed as to the disposition of parents to send their children early to-school, as contrasted with the feeling in England. He had come to the conclusion that the opinions formed in Scotland on this question were sounder than those which prevailed in England and produced better educational results, and he said that children who came into school at five, or even six, years of age, accomplished, in the great run of cases, far better educational work in schools than those who came in at an earlier age. In England over 10 per cent. of the children in inspected schools were under five years of age, and in Scotland only about 2 per cent. In the Debate in 1891 the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland expressed the opinion that the number of parents who were anxious that their children between the ages of three and five should go to school was increasing. He confessed he did not agree with the right hon. Gentleman in that view, and he could show from the figures that such was not the case. In England for the year ending 31st August, 1893, 30 per cent. of the estimated population between three and five years of age were in the Registers of the schools, whilst in Scotland, out of the estimated population between three and five in the same year, of 200,000 children, only 12,693 were on the books of the elementary schools, or 6 per cent., as compared with 30 per cent. in the English schools. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that Scotch parents were undergoing a gradual change in this direction, but as far as he could read the figures the indications were directly to the contrary effect. As a matter of fact, the Report published for 1889–90, immediately preceding the right hon. Gentleman's speech of 1891, showed that there were on the books in Scotland, of children between the ages of three and five, not 12,693 scholars, as there were last year, but 6,307 scholars; therefore, there had been a substantial decrease since 1890. He was bound to say he thought the right hon. Gentleman had misunderstood the feelings of the parents in Scotland in this respect. They were just as strongly against sending children of tender age to school as before. They had just had the triennial elections of School Boards in Scotland, and he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman whether he knew of any single instance in Scotland in which candidates had claimed support for a proposal of this kind? He believed the School Board of Glasgow, one of the most important in Scotland, had furnished a very earnest representation in opposition to this proposal, whilst the Govan School Board had also expressed its objection to the proposal. Whilst these Boards had expressed their opinion in regard to this question, the county and smaller burghal School Boards would be still more opposed to this change. The change would necessitate the provision of more accommo- dation, and the sending of children to school at such a tender age would undoubtedly prevent the healthy development of their bodies. In the case of rural schools, where the teachers had already more than enough to do, they would render the task doubly difficult if they were to send in these very young children, and would thus retard, instead of assist, educational progress. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to meet the reasonable demand they made that the age should be kept at five, as at present. The change made in the Code in regard to arithmetic, the hon. Member complained, was a serious matter, and the notice of the change having been given in the middle of the school year, it would, in many cases, be exceedingly difficult for the school teachers really to meet the extra demands that were made upon them with regard to instruction. He begged to move the Resolution which stood in his name.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her to withhold Her assent from that portion of the Code (1894) of the Scotch Education Department which proposes to alter the ages in Section 133 of the Code from 'between 5 and 14 years of age'to' between 3 and 15 years of age, and until it is provided that the new arithmetical requirements under the 28th section in Standards IV., V., and VI. shall not come into operation till 1895."—(Mr. Renshaw.)

THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir G. TREVELYAN,) Glasgow, Bridgeton

There is an old proverb which urges us to seize time by the forelock and not to put off till to-morrow anything that can be done to-day. I must say I wish my hon. Friend had attended to that proverb, and there was no day during the last month on which he might not have called the attention of the House to the subject he has discussed to-night, and I venture to say there is not one single word he has spoken to-night which might not have been spoken with equal effect any time during the last four weeks. My hon. Friend has magnified this business to an extraordinary degree. He says it is an unfortunate thing that at a time when School Boards have only been recently elected these great changes should be made. What are these great changes? I will take them in an inverse order from my hon. Friend. The first is the improvement of the standard of the arithmetic of the Scotch children. In this matter I hope the House will take it for granted that we have not gone one bit beyond what is taught to the children in England. Scotland was greatly behind England with regard to teaching arithmetic in the higher standards. We, by this Code, have raised the quality of Scotch teaching to that of England, and I must say that, as being responsible for the education of Scotland, I should not have been content to do anything less. But in doing that my hon. Friend says we have done an injustice towards the teachers in the schools because they will be unable by the time the annual examination comes on to have brought their children up to the same degree of efficiency in the new studies that they would have obtained in the old. That is very true indeed; but whom do you think is likely to be more impressed with that than the Scotch Education Department itself? The Scotch Education Department is not very likely to so arrange its affairs that it will get a smaller grant from the Imperial Treasury. You may be certain we have taken due precaution against that. There might have been some force in the hon. Gentleman's objection in the old days when each child was examined by individual examination, and the grant to the school depended upon it, but now the school grant depends upon the general proficiency and general condition of education in the school. On the other hand, the Inspector has to report, and we have had printed a Circular, which we are going to send round to all our Inspectors, as I have announced in the House on one or two occasions at question time, out of which I will read a paragraph— In view of the changes which have been made in the arithmetic of Standards IV., V., and VI., I am to request that up to the end of 1894 you will, in examining these standards, make allowance for the fact that during the greater part of the school year the scholars have been taught with a view to examination under the Code of 1893. And if in the case of any schools that is not sufficient to enable them to get the full grant if they had done their duty, in that case we will postpone the examination under these new Rules, and examine the children under the old Rules as far as they have got in them. But in any case we shall impress upon our Inspectors that the schools are to be judged by the standard to which they can attain. I think I have thoroughly satisfied my hon. Friend on this point, and so I go to the question of age. Now, here I must say my hon. Friend has very greatly exaggerated the situation. You would imagine we were passing a compulsory Act which would bring the Scotch children into school at an earlier age than that at which they enter it already. You would think by what my hon. Friend said that we were going counter to the feeling and practice of Scotch affairs. Sir, we are exactly following the practice of Scotland and embodying it in the Code. What is the present practice in the School Boards of Scotland? 13,553 children under five years of age at present go to the free schools of Scotland. Out of these 13,553 children only 33 pay fees at the present moment. Between 13,000 and 14,000 of these little children go to school, fees are exacted from only 33 of them in the free schools, and we ask accordingly that this practice may be embodied in the Code. We likewise ask—and this is, perhaps, a more important request—that the parents of the children above 14 and below 15 may have the right of sending them to free schools for free education. What is the practice there? There are 10,412 children at this age who now go to these schools, and of these 9,334 at this moment go free, and all we ask is that the odd thousand shall be allowed to go free likewise. Why do we ask this? I will give the House two reasons. The first is that it is the rule in England. It was the rule laid down in England by the late Government, and I do not think that our Government would be justified, considering the views that we credit ourselves with with regard to elementary education if we remained year after year, 10 years after 10 years, behind this Regulation which the Government of the right hon. Gentleman opposite has laid down in England. We wish to work up to the English practice, and there is another reason—namely, that we have the best reason for believing that this is the opinion of the Scotch Representatives. In the course of the last Parliament this question was raised, a Division was taken, and 26 Scotch Members voted in favour of the change in the Code which we have now proposed and 11 against it; therefore we have the opinion of the Scotch Representatives in favour of it. This is the law in England already; it is being practised in Scotland now; we shall make no great change, but simply embody in the Code what is now the practice in the country. These are matters upon which no one occupying the position of Secretary for Scotland, which I occupy, would consent to go back. I cannot consent to leave Scotland in an inferior position to England with regard to the quality of the teaching of arithmetic, or the right of a Scotch parent to send a child for free education at the same ages enjoyed by parents in England.

SIR C. PEARSON (Edinburgh and St. Andrew's Universities)

said, he wished, first, to call attention to the fact that at this time of the morning, as usual, they were engaged in discussing a Scotch topic which he, for one, considered was of very much greater importance than the Secretary for Scotland was inclined to allow. The right hon. Gentleman said they ought to follow the practice of England. That practice could only be followed if the matter was recast from its foundation; but if they began piecemeal they would introduce nothing but a false analogy, by introducing the analogy of England. It must be known to every hon. Gentleman who knew anything of the subject that the theory on which the free grant was distributed in England was utterly different from beginning to end from that on which it was distributed in Scotland. Suppose that at this moment the ages in England were as they were in Scotland—5 to 14. The diminution of the age from five to three in England would bring with it a very much larger freer grant than in Scotland. It would bring in 10s. per head of the children added. In Scotland it would not have that effect at all; it would not result in bringing in another penny to the free grant, but would merely bring about a new distribution of the grant amongst the existing schools in Scotland. That of itself seemed to be a very valid reason against the insertion for the first time in the Scotch Code of this most material alteration. But there was another matter to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred, and on which the House was entitled to information. That was whether this alteration was demanded as a matter of principle, or by the public of Scotland? In point of principle the reason why hitherto in the Code the ages were 5 to 14 was that those were the compulsory ages in free education. Now they were about to extend free education above and below the compulsory limit, and that was a new departure. They were also entitled to some information as to the effect of this proposed alteration on the School Boards and on the rates. Undoubtedly they would have, in many cases, large demands for additional accommodation in various districts. School accommodation was a heavy burden, and in some parts was cheerfully borne; but if they were going to compulsorily impose a large amount of additional taxation to bring children to school that did not go naturally to school at such ages—with- drawing the matter altogether from the discretion of the School Boards—they would create a great deal of discontent and work a great deal of injustice. On those grounds he heartily supported the Motion of his hon. Friend.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 40; Noes 107.—(Division List, No. 45.)