§ Mr. WHITEHOUSEI desire to bring to the notice of the President of the Board of Education certain matters of administration affecting his Department. In taking this opportunity, I would like to say that I am one of those who feel that the opportunities given in this House for the discussion of what are after all some of the most vital questions that can be discussed, questions of education, are altogether inadequate. That must be my apology for submitting one or two points for the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman now. I desire to ask the President to make some statement with regard to the attitude of his Department towards certain problems affecting particularly secondary education. I need not remind the House that during the past few years there has been a great development in the facilities for secondary education in this country. At that development we all rejoice. But it has taken place without this House having considered the relation of secondary education to other forms of education or the unity of our educational system as a whole. May I give an example of what I mean? Secondary education is much freer, much more open to experiment, much more adventurous, than our system of elementary 1242 education, because there are not the same restricting and narrowing influences operating upon the former as upon the latter. I invite the President to state whether we shall soon have an opportunity of considering the better relationship that should exist between secondary and elementary education. Are the words "secondary" and "elementary" to stand indefinitely for different kinds of education given to different social grades, or are they to stand for the various kinds of education that are appropriate to the different ages and needs of school children? I suggest that this great problem of the relation of one form of education to another has not yet been the subject of adequate consideration, and that the Board has not yet evolved any satisfactory system for the guidance of education authorities throughout the kingdom. I should like to submit one or two specific points. For many years there has been a movement on the part of masters in secondary schools to get an adequate pension system. That is a desire with which every Member will sympathise. Can the President tell us what kind of progress that movement is making? Is there any deadlock? Is there any reason why the masters in secondary schools should not look forward to the establishment of a satisfactory pension system at a very early date? Further, has the Report of the Consultative Committee upon the whole question of examinations in secondary schools yet been considered by the Board? May we hope at an early date to learn what the policy of the Board is with regard to a report which raises issues of the utmost importance, especially in connection with the great problem of the unity of our educational system to which I have alluded?
§ Mr. KINGI also wish to apply a little stimulus and suggestion to the Board of Education. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman the President will come out of the ordeal as well as his other colleagues have done out of theirs. I called attention by means of a question to a typical case, because the like of it is constantly recurring. I refer to a case where an elementary school finding itself in difficulties, both as regards the size and accommodation that it provides, and the quality of its buildings, seeks to enlarge. There is a case in Birkenhead. In this connection let me say that so far as I have been able to hear about that town, the Birkenhead local education authority 1243 is one of those which should have a constant supervision and caution of the Board of Education. The Holy Trinity school at Birkenhead required enlargement. Those concerned put forward a proposal to open some old and derelict buildings which were occupied some years ago by the Wesleyans. These Wesleyan schools were not actually condemned by the Board of Education, but the managers were warned again and again, six years running, that if they did not alter or improve them, they would have their Grant taken away. Moreover, the medical officer of health and the borough surveyor of Birkenhead condemned these Wesleyan school buildings; they were eventually, in 1908, closed, and have been derelict ever since.
What is the proposal? The proposal is that these buildings should be taken to form the enlargement of Holy Trinity Schools, though they are 300 yards away at the very least, though there is no common playground between them. When this proposal came before the Board of Education in December the Board very properly said: "These are new school buildings, and there must be a regular statutory notice of three months, and they must be recognised on the basis of the new school." After that the local authority put forward a specious proposal that they were not proposing to have anything like that increase of accommodation which the size of the school warranted, and therefore on that ground apparently, so far as I can make out from the answer given to me by the President, they contend that it might be considered as an old school. I understand from the answer given to me that the Board of Education in a weak moment has given way. This is a typical case, and this sort of thing is going on everywhere. I could quote similar cases. I do most earnestly and respectfully suggest that it is not consistent to condemn a school or to go within an ace of condemning the school as a Wesleyan school, and then allow it to open as a Church of England school. I am told that improvements will be made. Apparently the opinions of the medical officer and the borough surveyor have not been taken. I very much hope we shall get an independent opinion on this matter before the school is allowed to open. If this sort of thing is allowed there is no reason why every church institute or other building of a different character altogether 1244 from a school building might not be added for the accommodation of the schools and regarded as an addition and not a new school. It may be urged that it is there and is available, and instead of the real actual laws and regulations of the Departments which are applicable to new schools being put in force, as they should be, impartially and rigorously, in the interests of the children in every case, we may have any sort of building used as an addition to a school, and the rules for accommodation, sanitation, and so forth, disregarded. This is, I venture to think, a very important case, and I hope we shall have the personal attention of the President of the Board of Education given to it. One or two remarks upon another matter of the administration of the Board in connection with cases where teachers in voluntary schools are at the present time more and more harassed and harried by their managers. I brought to the attention of the House the case of a teacher, in my own Constituency, who was dismissed for refusing to be secretary to the Conservative committee in the parish.
§ Lord ALEXANDER THYNNEQuestion?
§ Mr. KINGThere is no question at all. It is admitted by everybody, and if the Noble Lord gets up and says what I am saying is not true I will give him as strong, denial as the laws of Parliamentary Debate allow. Here is a man sent out of his school on purely political grounds. He had to deal with a board of managers, the chairman of which has been fined in the Police Courts for assaulting one of the teachers in the school. When he was in possession of the key of the school he happened to drop it one day, and it was taken up by the parishioners, who thereupon held the fort for six weeks against the parson of the parish. That is the sort of man allowed to harry elementary teachers in this country.
§ Lord ALEXANDER THYNNEWill the hon. Gentleman give the name?
§ Mr. KINGIt is the Vicar of Whitchurch, in Somerset, and I will give his name to the Noble Lord privately.
§ Lord ALEXANDER THYNNEI think the hon. Gentleman ought to give it across the floor of the House when he brings the charge here.
§ Mr. KINGAnother case occurred only the other day in Northamptonshire, where 1245 a teacher was actually dismissed from her school for attending a Wesleyan chapel. Fortunately the case was taken up by the National Union of Teachers and brought into the Law Courts, and I am pleased to say that the Law Courts have justified her rights and the integrity of her position. What a pass things are coming to when these cases, which might be multiplied, occur without the Board of Education intervening! I know they are in a difficult position, and that their intentions are good, but I want their courage to be equal to their good intentions, and until they try to do their utmost to maintain the liberty and position of teachers, I feel that continued protests will have to be made in this House. I throw out the suggestion that in revising the Code the Board might make it a condition of the Grant that teachers shall be fairly treated, and that if they are not fairly treated the school should be considered as not adequately and properly managed, and in these circumstances the Grant to the school might be reduced or taken away altogether. These are only a few cases which I have put before the House, but I hope I have said enough to show that there is urgent need for the Board of Education to take these matters into their consideraion.
§ The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. J. A. Pease)I am aware of the grievances which occur in certain of the schools of this country, but the duty of the Board of Education is limited and our powers are limited with regard to intervention. So long as the education is efficient in these schools we have no legal power to intervene. No doubt the hon. Member has performed a useful duty in drawing attention to cases such as he has referred to, and I believe that public attention is more likely to stop any such scandal than anything else, and it is only by bringing them under the notice of the public that the few managers of this country who may treat their teachers without due regard can be brought to book.
§ Lord A. THYNNEMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has any ground for assuming that the facts are as stated by the hon. Member in regard to Whitchurch.
§ Mr. PEASEI have had information of a similar character conveyed to me, but 1246 it is not within my province to interfere so long as the schools are managed efficiently.
§ Lord A. THYNNEWith regard to Whitchurch, has the right hon. Gentleman any evidence? I have every reason to believe that the statement of the hon. Member for North Somerset is not in accordance with the facts.
§ Mr. PEASEThe facts have been stated to me, but I have no power to intervene no matter whether they are true or false.
§ Lord A. THYNNEHas the right hon. Gentleman information from an official source?
§ Mr. PEASEI have no official information, but I have received information conveyed in newspapers, but whether it is accurate or not, I cannot say. With regard to the particular schools at Birkenhead, the hon. Member seems to think that that school is now being accepted as efficient, which was not condemned, to which exception was taken in the year 1904. I think that was the last date upon which we had a report from that school. That school contained 426 students, 267 in the mixed department and 159 in the infants' department. Our inspector then reported that there was lack of sufficient class-room, that the playground was insufficient, that the ventilation was bad, that the offices were generally unsatisfactory, and the girls' cloak room was badly placed. The school was closed, and other provision was found for the children, but there has not been sufficient accommodation found, and the local education authority has been satisfied with the accommodation which was provided by this Wesleyan school. The premises are no longer going to be utilised for the elder children, but they are going to be used for the infants. That accommodation would provide room for 200 infants, and the architect of the department has reported en the school and stated that he was not satisfied with the main entrance, and has suggested that a corridor should be attached to the entrance, but on investigation we find that this point can be met by another door being made available as a main entrance. In regard to the ventilation that has been remedied, and if an additional room was provided for the children to be 1247 able to march in and to have their little drills, and especially playing on wet days, he thought the necessary provision would be made. That point has been met, and an unfurnished class-room has been provided. This, with the existing playground, gives adequate space for the playground of these little infants. He finally reports that the school will be adequate. Our inspector has visited the place, and he has also reported that in regard to the accommodation for infants it is excellent. Therefore, I think the hon. Member may take it that whilst this Wesleyan school in 1904 was not suitable for 426 children, it can be and has been made absolutely suitable for 200 infants.
The other point raised in connection with my Department was with reference to secondary schools, and the hon. Member who raised it asked that an opportunity should be given for the consideration of the whole system of secondary and elementary education and of the question of the unity of education. I shall be quite ready to listen to any criticisms that may be made upon my Department in a debate of that kind whenever hon. Members can arrange a day for such a discussion, but I should like to take this opportunity of pointing out that there has been a very great development in connection with secondary education during the last few years. The provision of public secondary schools is not, after all, a statutory duty of our local education authorities. There are about 330 local education authorities in this country, and we have to-day 985 secondary schools receiving public Government Grants. The number of these schools is being rapidly increased. If I may just read over the figures for each year from 1904–5, the House will realise what a steady increase there has been in these non-private venture schools and non-privately owned schools receiving public money. There were 575 in 1904–5, 689 in 1905–6, 769 in 1906–7, 843 in 1907–8, 912 in 1908–9, 950 in 1909–10, 973 in 1910–11, and at the present moment there are 985, so there has been a steady increase, and I do not think we can say the local authorities of this country have really been backward in providing secondary education. Many of these schools have been remodelled and brought very successfully into an organic whole in a scheme of educational provision, and the results so far are very satisfactory. Let me just take one case. There is a population of about one and a 1248 half million in the West Riding of Yorkshire, and there are only about 15,000 children in the whole of that population who are not within a reasonable distance of a secondary school. I am advised that if I press this matter too much upon local authorities, instead of an advantage being gained, the result may possibly not be so satisfactory. Most of our Local Education Authorities have realised the importance of secondary education. It is not a question, as the hon. Member suggested, of a difference in social scale between elementary and secondary scholars, for we find that, in certain ages, more than half of those now attending secondary schools have come on from elementary schools. Our only regret is that they are not retained in the secondary schools longer than they are. I do not think at the moment we can really press the local education authorities, as a whole, to do more than they are doing in connection with the provision of secondary education.
With regard to the pensions for school teachers, only last week I met a deputation of teachers of a very representative character, who brought forward a plan which they asked the Board of Education to criticise and consider. We had a very friendly discussion, and the next step is that the representatives of the school teachers should prepare a plan and submit it either to the Board of Education or to the Treasury. If they are not prepared to go forward with their plan, it will be left to my Department to approach the Treasury direct. The matter is under consideration. The point is not being lost sight of by me; but, at the present moment, I am not in a position to say what the Government can do. My own feeling is that there is no claim whatsoever on the Government in connection with a majority of the schoolmasters in secondary schools, unless it is in relation to those schools for which Grants are paid out of public money. The hon. Member also asked me what the Board of Education were doing in regard to the report of the Consultative Committee in connection with secondary examinations. That report has only recently been published. We are now considering it in my Department, and I hope, later on in the Session, to be able to state to the House what proposals we shall make to Parliament and to the country with regard to the carrying out of these recommendations. I am not in a position to-day to give a more definite reply on that point.
§ Mr. BOLANDI make no apology for asking the House to turn its attention to a matter vitally affecting voluntary schools in Scotland. Perhaps many hon. Members do not remember the case given by Lord Pentland some four years ago under the Scottish Education Act of that year. It was proposed, under Section 15, that out of the residue Grant the voluntary schools in Scotland should share to a definite extent. I ask the Secretary for Scotland today to give me some indication that he proposes to carry out that pledge. The matter is of such importance that I wish to put on record the actual pledge given by Lord Pentland in this House four years ago. It will be found in Vol. 196 of Hansard, 10th November, page 95, as follows:—
Mr. Sinclair said his statement was that it was impossible for the Government, in accordance with the Scottish system of education, to do anything by wav of preference to the voluntary schools. What he anticipated wits that the voluntary schools and the board schools would be placed in a better position to the extent he bad mentioned. Within the limits he had stilted, not by way of preference, but by way of equal treatment, every school in Scotland would receive, instead of the Aid Grant per head of 4s. at the present time, an Aid Grant, of 6s, per head, which would place them in a considerably more, substantial position to meet the increased charges that would have to be met. He gave that to the House as the nearest approximation they could arrive at at the present time. He would again point out to the critics of the Bill that the sum which would be left of the residue Grant must be subjected to subtraction for national and district charges, and that therefore it was impossible to give more out of that sum than he had stated. However, he would give an undertaking that if the sum he had mentioned was not reached, it should be made up to it.That was a distinct pledge given by the Secretary for Scotland that, out of the residue Grant of the Scottish Education Fund, a sum of 6s. per head of the pupils in attendance would be given to the voluntary schools. The reason why we laid such stress upon this was, that when the Bill was going through Committee those of us who represented the interests of voluntary schools were continually put off with the statement that out of the residue Grant sufficient would be forthcoming to enable the voluntary schools in Scotland to carry on their educational work efficiently. At the same time we pointed out, and I daresay the fact remains true to-day, that as they started, the voluntary schools in Scotland, certainly the Catholic schools, were receiving less, to the extent of 25s. per head of the school population, than the corresponding children in board schools. To that extent of 25s. per head the children in voluntary schools in Scotland were tit a decided disadvantage. We pointed out that it was necessary, before the residue Grant was absolutely taken, that 1250 we should get a definite undertaking from the Government that out of that a certain proportion should be granted to voluntary schools. It was necessary, when the Bill came back on Report to this House, to move the recommital of the Bill. I had the pleasure of doing that on Clause 15. We were supported in our claim by no less than three Members sitting on the opposite side—Mr. Alexander Cross, as he then was, Mr. O'Donnell, and the present Member for Inverness Burghs (Mr. J. A. Bryce)—who all supported the claim that voluntary schools should be put in an efficient position. Eventually, as a result of two hours' discussion, the Secretary for Scotland gave the pledge I have just read to the House. Four years have passed. That residue Grant, so far from yielding the voluntary schools the 6s. per head, which we claimed and were promised, has not benefited them to the extent which we required. On the contrary, I am informed that a great number of them are absolutely starved by the failure to grant this 6s. per head. I wish to point out to the Secretary for Scotland that this was a very definite pledge given four years ago, that the position of voluntary schools in Scotland, if steps are not taken immediately to remedy this grievance, is bound to become worse, because, as I understand it, more and more charges are placed upon the Scottish Education Fund, and other charges will be put in in preference to the claims of the voluntary schools. We shall see the residue Grant gradually disappearing until practically nothing will be forthcoming for the voluntary schools. I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not a fact that that pledge was definitely given by his predecessor, and whether he proposes to take the necessary steps to carry out that pledge?
The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood)I am afraid I shall have to trouble the House with a broad and, I hope, very brief outline of the system of educational finance in Scotland, in order adequately to meet the point which has been put before the House by the hon. Gentleman. I need not trouble the House with the major part of that finance, the two millions of money which is given as the Government Grant to Scotch education. It is quite enough to deal with the small part of the Government Grants, amounting to a little over half a million, which make up the Scottish Education fund. That sum is made up partly of the 1251 Local Taxation Grants, which amount to something approaching a quarter of a million, and the General Aid Grant, which was 9s. 7¼d. From that, before it reaches the Scottish Education Fund, 2s. is taken off to increase the fee Grant, which is paid directly to every school, and that leaves the amount that goes into the Scottish Education Fund at 7s. 7¼d. At this time no less an amount than £105,000 was given as a new Grant at the rate of 3s. per scholar in connection with the Scottish Education Act of 1908, and this year there has been added an extra sum of £25,000 for the purpose of superannuation and a sum of £7,500 for the purpose of medical treatment. There are certain first charges which have to be defrayed out of this fund, charges for central institutions, for pensions and for necessitous school districts, and the remainder goes to the Secondary Education Committees. These Secondary Education Committees have statutory power or other power to deal with secondary schools, with bursaries, with Grants for additional staffs in small schools, and with medical inspection. The class of schools for which my hon. Friend speaks, the Catholic schools, are not put to any expense whatever in regard to medical inspection.
These are payments over which the district committees have discretion. I do not think we could interfere in some of that discretion without legislation, but after these payments the residue that remains is dealt with as an addition to the fee Grants, and it is in this point that my hon. Friend is interested. It is obvious that this residue varies between one district and another in accordance with the expenditure on the subjects I have mentioned. A certain number of districts in the last year for which I have the figures, 1910–11, were receiving more than 6s., and others were receiving less. A district might spend all the money on these objects, whereas another district might spend a small sum; but a district which spent half the fee Grant was not necessarily worse off educationally, because it had spent its money on important educational subjects. For instance, supposing a district gave no bursaries there would be more for the fee Grant. The pledge to which the hon. Member refers, given by my predecessor, was not, and could not have been a pledge that any actual sum should be given to an individual school, or that the sum in all the 1252 districts of Scotland should be the same. Supposing you got an additional Grant from the Treasury, it does not at all follow that you would have an addition to this fee Grant. It would all depend on how the district committees spent their money upon the objects which I have mentioned. There is no necessary connection between the additional Grant from the Treasury and an addition to this fee Grant, and I have no reason whatever to suppose that education authorities in Scotland would agree to what would be necessary to attain a fixed minimum, namely, the giving up of their discretion in regard to these matters. I do not think that we have power to make them do it, and it would be a very serious disadvantage to education in Scotland if we were to attempt anything of the kind, and the disadvantage would not be confined to School Board schools. It would be a disadvantage which would be shared by every class of scholar in Scotland—by the Roman Catholic schools as well as by others. In the Glasgow district, according to the figures of 1910–11, where there is an immense proportion of Catholic-schools, the fee Grant was 9s. and in Edinburgh it was 6s. 5d., but in Dumfries, where I suppose they spend more money on secondary education, it went down to a mere trifle. I think my hon. Friend must not assume for a moment that the Catholic schools did not share the advantage, although it did not come in the particular form of this Grant. But, apart from the general advantage which all classes of scholars in Scotland share, the figures show that there has been very great advantage to the Catholic schools in recent years. Really the heart and substance of my hon. Friend's complaint is that the Catholic schools are being injured, and I think the main point of his charge is as to how the Catholic schools have been disadvantaged since the passing of the Act of 1908.
§ Mr. BOLANDI am not making any complaint as regards Glasgow and other places, which have received more than 6s.; but I do say that a pledge was given that there should be a minimum Grant all over Scotland. Where it has been exceeded, so much the better; but where it has fallen down, as in the case of Dumfries, it is only fair that it should be made up to 6s.
§ 5.0 P.M.
Mr. McKINNON WOODDoes my hon. Friend suggest that the education authority in Dumfries is to spend this money on 1253 scholarships, bursaries, secondary schools, medical inspection, and so on, and yet have a minimum fee Grant? Are they to eat their cake and have it? It is perfectly impossible to expect a uniform sum or a minimum sum under that system. What are the figures in Scotland in regard to the Catholic schools? In the year 1907–8 voluntary contributions supplied £36,000, and total Grants £156,000. In the year 1908–9, before this Act came into force, the total expenditure had risen to £209,000. The voluntary contributions had also risen to £41,000. That was 19.6 per cent. of the total expenditure. The total Grants had also risen, and were £158,000. That was 75.6 of the total expenditure. But in 1910–11, after the Act came into operation, the total expenditure was £231,000, and the amount of voluntary contributions for Catholic schools had fallen from £41,000 to £32,500. The total Grants had risen from £158,000 to £188,000 in round figures, and represented not 75.6, but 82.2 per cent. The only way you could bring about a uniform fee Grant would be to take away all this from district education committees. You have got the substance of what was promised. You have got a very great addition to the total Grants—an addition of nearly £30,000, and an increased percentage of the State contribution to the Catholic schools, and so I hope that my hon. Friend will remember that the substantial advantage has been with the schools which he so ably represents.