70. Mr. BARLOW
asked the President of the Board of Education whether, seeing that the Board intervened in a matter in dispute between the Accrington local authority and the managers of St. James' non-provided school regarding the appointment of a teacher to the post of headmaster to the school, and that on 8th May, 1916, the Board decided in favour of the managers of the school, but on 13th July of the same year reversed their decision, he will say what is the ground of the reversal?
§ 71. Mr. CLYNES
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the local authority in Accrington has refused to sanction the appointment of a non-college-trained teacher to the post of head teacher; whether this refusal disregards public statements made on behalf of the Board of Education to the effect that the absence of a college training in no way disqualifies a candidate for the position of head teacher in any public elementary school; and whether, therefore, his Department can take steps to enforce a decision which would secure promotion for competent teachers who are now disqualified for some technical reason?
Mr. WALTER RE A (Lord of the Treasury)
On 8th May, 1916, the Board of Education, in reply to an inquiry, informed the local education authority for Accring- 320 ton and the managers of the St. James's Church of England school that the teacher whom the managers desired to appoint was not disqualified for appointment as head master by any regulations of the Board. The authority having given a direction that the teacher to be appointed should be college trained, the Board were called upon to determine under Section 7 (3) of the Education Act, 1902, whether this was a direction as to the educational qualifications of a teacher which the authority were legally entitled to give. By letter of 13th July they determined the question in the affirmative.