HC Deb 12 April 1923 vol 162 cc1293-4

asked the President of the Board of Education the number of teachers unemployed at 31st March and the number of supplementary untrained teachers who have been introduced into the schools to replace trained teachers on the grounds of economy?


asked the President of the Board of Education how many persons who are not certificated teachers are being employed in the present year by the London County Council for children under five years of age who attend London schools; if this policy has the support of his board; and what is the estimated yearly saving to his Department of such a policy?


I presume that the hon. Gentlemen are referring to the suitable women teachers for whose employment provision is made in. Article 11 (a) and Schedule I.D. (8) of the Code. I understand that so far 80 teachers of this class have been appointed to schools in London as infants' assistants. They have had a short period of training and are employed only for children under five years of age. I am not aware of any other important proposals of this kind; but it is open to local education authorities to obtain the approval of His Majesty's Inspector for the employment of such teachers far children under six. The difference between the pay of an infants' assistant and the pay of a certificated teacher (two years college-trained) in London is in the first year £85 10s. and increases annually. The saving to the Board's Vote in each case is therefore £42 15s. in the first year, increasing annually. I regret I have no figures to show the number of teachers who were unemployed on the 31st March last.


Does the right hon. Gentleman consider it economy to introduce those untrained teachers, who will mean such great cost in future owing to the lack of education on the part of the children who are under them?


Will the right hon. Gentleman consider stopping the engagement of un-certificated teachers so long as a number of certificated teachers are unemployed?


We have debated this question at some length on the Motion for Adjournment before the Recess, and I do not think that I can usefully cover the ground again by answers to supplementary questions. I must not be taken as accepting the imputations contained in the first supplementary question.

Back to