§ MR. H. LEWIS (Flint Boroughs)
I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education what action has been taken by the Education Department with reference to the complaint of Mr. Edward Francis, of Flint, who has represented to the Department that his son John Oswald Francis was removed to a lower standard owing to non-payment for school stationery; whether the Department has taken any, and, if so, what action on the representation of Mr. R. T. Price that between the 17th and 20th February last his child, Maud Price, aged 9, was sent home twice with a message to bring to school the next morning money to pay for school stationery, and that on returning the following morning without the money she was caned; what action has been taken by the Department in the case of Mr. Edward Shaw, of 39 Mount Street, Flint, who has complained to the Department that his children have been sent home from school for money to pay for school stationery, and when the money was not sent the children were caned; whether in any, and, if so, which of these cases a charge of school stationery could be legally made; and whether such charge could be legally levied or not, do the Department sanction the punishment of children because their parents have not provided them with money to pay for school stationery?
§ SIR J. GORST
The Committee of the Council are assured by the managers that John Oswald Francis was not removed to a lower standard for the caused alleged in the Question, but failed to obtain promotion owing to his low attendance and irregular attendance consequent upon employment in a grocer's shop. The Committee of the Council are also informed that Maud Price was absent from school from February 8th to February 21st, and therefore could not have been caned on the date in question. They are also informed that the children of Mr. Shaw were not caned for the cause alleged; but inquiry in the Maud Price and Shaw cases is still proceeding. The charge for stationery was legal in all the cases named, but was not compulsory. The answer to the last paragraph is in the negative.