EDUCATION (UNCERTIFICATED TEACHERS) (Hansard, 17 December 1956)

§ Mr. Harold Davies (Leek)
I always find it an interesting and quite wonderful fact about the House of Commons that, no matter what world shattering problems we may have been discussing, there always comes a time at the end of the day's business when a private Member can raise an issue and when the House has a Minister at its disposal. I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for being here tonight to deal with what is, after all, in the general gamut of Parliamentary affairs a very small but, to me, important matter.
In the teaching profession are a forgotten few. These forgotten few are the uncertificated teachers. I shall not use the expression "unqualified" but the expression "uncertificated," because the 2,500 teachers who come into this category mostly have long experience of the great craft and art of teaching. When we are dealing with children and with people in these days of statistics and worshipping at the shrine of calculus and other forms of mathematics, we often think of children as figures and of teachers, men and women, as dots and charts, forgetting that they are human beings. Our best statistics are often surgeries of supposition.
There is one overwhelming supposition which is taken for granted by those who know nothing about the teaching profession. It is that the uncertificated teacher may not be as good as the one who is certificated or who has had a college training. It is always a supposition, because there are born teachers and those who are born to teach. Most of the 2,000-odd uncertificated teachers who are staying in the teaching profession today love the profession and the children they teach.
Let us consider how these forgotten few, the uncertificated teachers, are paid. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider ways of improving their position. The scale for uncertificated men teachers is now a minimum of about £320 a year 1064 under the Burnham scale rising by increments of £18 to a maximum of £475. That is the position of those uncertificated men teachers who could go into a much more remunerative job in industry or elsewhere. The women are in a different position. Their minimum rate of pay is £275 rising by annual increments of £15 to £430. The scales are arranged under Section D of the Burnham scale.
I am trying to find out whether the value of these forgotten few who are still left in the teaching profession is realised by the Ministry of Education and by the country in general. Many of these teachers have vast experience in the job of teaching in primary and, perhaps, secondary schools—and perhaps some have had experience in the higher stages of teaching—and they have often also to deal with problems of milk registration and meals. Not only this: because of their experience they often help those who have just come out of college or have taken their degrees and are beginning to learn this great art of teaching or are acquiring methods of teaching practice.
According to the last report, there were about 6½ million children in British schools. I do not know what is the position today, but the report showed that there had been an increase of about 64,000 children in junior schools. It is in the junior and infant schools that the uncertificated teachers are often most valuable. They have had quite a good secondary education and will have passed the General Certificate of Education. Some may even possess a Higher Schools Certificate, or have qualified finally to sit for a degree. Some may have a degree without being fully certificated.
Their record of employment is excellent. The tendency among local authorities today—because they are farming for good teachers—is to persuade teachers to transfer from the primary or infant schools to secondary modern schools. Among the very few uncertificated teachers that we have are those who have proved themselves by experience to be very capable teachers. They must love the job, because that is the only explanation for their enduring the low pay and the conditions in which they teach. Many of these teachers know and appreciate the child's divine sense of wonder, which the modern mechanistic world is tending to crush.
1065 They keep alive in the young children in the infant and primary schools the wonderful, divine sense of wonder and the search for knowledge which later on is taken up by teachers who may be better qualified in specific subjects to carry the child further along this wonderful stream. Because they are not qualified in specific branches of a subject, or have no academic qualifications, we must not jump to the conclusion that the few uncertificated teachers that are left—and who, in a few years, will have gone out of the profession—are not valuable assets in our educational system.
Many have had long service which, up till a short while ago, counted as a qualification. The Minister may say, "They could have qualified by going for one year to the training college in the 1950 period," but teachers are not statistics. Statistically, that may be true, but we must consider the home conditions of the teachers who did not take up the offer. I know of teachers who have had to nurse sick mothers, or keep their families, and who could not possibly afford to be away from home for twelve months, despite the grants that were available. Because of devotion to her family and to teaching and, despite the fact that she might have earned more money elsewhere, she has stayed in the profession and is doing an excellent job as a pianist, teaching in junior and infant schools.
These untrained teachers have made no aggressive public manifestations for an increase in their salary, but those of us who meet these forgotten few realise their difficulties. We should never forget that those who are uncertificated teachers today must be devoted to the children in their charge, otherwise they would have left the profession long ago. But, despite the fact that they have been treated, as I think, unjustly, they still devote themselves to the children and the solid worth of their work is often recognised by H.M. inspectors who are experienced in the craft of teaching.
Many of them promote a zest for life among their pupils and, because of them, many children in junior and primary schools have experienced the joy of living. It is the duty of the nation to examine the scales of pay of these thousand or so teachers, if only because of their experience. There is no need for me to drag out this plea I am making for 1066 the teachers. I do not want to "gild the lily" but merely to state the fact. In this modern world, we often make a mistake in the teaching of our children of trying to develop powerful intellects. We talk of the need for technicians, and I agree that that need is great. But often when we over-emphasise such a need we take away the capacity of the child to feel.
Of all the teachers who have stayed in the profession these forgotten thousand or so who are still uncertificated must love their job. I appeal to the Minister to see whether there is a way in which we can give them some monetary recompense. In a few years their numbers will have dwindled away. Let us remember these gallant people who have stayed in their jobs at a time of need and who are the worst paid in the teaching profession.

§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Dennis Vosper)
It was kind of the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) to express his gratitude at my presence. He has raised, not a little matter but an important one, and I am grateful for the reasonable way in which he has raised it. I shall be interested to see the reactions we obtain from those who will read the report of this short debate.
I join the hon. Member immediately in paying tribute to these teachers; we certainly could not get on without them. I have had personal experience of the service they render. In only one respect do I quarrel with the hon. Gentleman; he described them as "forgotten men". That is not right. They are essential to maintaining the teaching force. Their cases are frequently brought to the attention of my right hon. Friend and myself by hon. Members, and my right hon. Friend has given consideration to their position. They are not forgotten, but their present position results from a policy decision taken nearly eleven years ago, and it will be very difficult to reverse it.
Let me explain how the situation arose. Since 1945, when regulations for schools were first made under the 1944 Education Act, teachers in maintained and assisted primary and secondary schools, and in special schools, were to be regarded as qualified if they completed to the satisfaction of the Minister a training course, 1067 which is at present two years, or alternatively possessed such special qualifications as the Minister might approve. When this decision was reached, many thousands of teachers did not possess these qualifications. In that year a special committee under a Ministry chairman, and consisting of representatives of local authorities and teachers, considered what could be done for those teachers who were in the schools before 1945 but who could not be qualified under the new regulations.
That committee decided that former uncertificated teachers, that is, those who were not trained but held the School Certificate or its equivalent, should be given qualified status if they had given 20 years' teaching service by April, 1950. Secondly, it was agreed that those who had given between five and 20 years' service by April, 1950, should be offered special one-year courses of training. Between 2,000 and 3,000 took the course and became qualified. There were completely unqualified teachers, without any certificates whom we today call "supplementary teachers" They were employed before 1945 and are still in service.
There are 2,239 teachers who were uncertificated in 1945 and did not become qualified. There are 139 other unqualified teachers and 1,330 supplementary teachers, to whom I have just referred. All those were in employment before 1945. No additions have been made to those categories, and, of course, the number declines each year. There are also temporary teachers, appointed since 1945 for a limited period. They do not concern us tonight.
It is a measure of the progress made towards a highly trained teaching profession since 1945, and even more so by comparisons with the position before the war, that in 1938 there were 29,000 unqualified teachers and that by 1947 the number had dropped to 16,029. In 1955 the total of those categories was only 5,058. Whereas, in 1947, 9 per cent. of the teachers were unqualified, today the figure is only 2 per cent. It has been reduced, not because unqualified teachers have gone out, but because they have become qualified, or have retired, and because of the great increase in the number of qualified teachers. This trend towards a more highly trained teaching 1068 force is encouraging and is welcomed in all quarters.
The hon. Member was really concerned with those 2,239 whom we call former uncertificated teachers, who, for various reasons, did not take the one-year course enabling them to become qualified. The hon. Member asked what was to be done about them. I will take the two alternatives separately. Can they now receive qualifications, and can anything be done about their salary? I take first the qualification. During the five years which elapsed after 1947, 2,625 teachers, varying in age from 24 to 55, took one-year courses, very often at great personal sacrifice and trouble to themselves and their families. I am sure the hon. Member realises this difficulty. If we were to relax our rules once again to bring in those uncertificated teachers who did not take the course, we should have to consider very carefully whether that would be an injustice to those who made the sacrifice and took the course.
I think it doubtful that many of those who failed to take the course in 1947 or in the years afterwards could come forward and take one now. On the other hand, it was made quite clear at the time that qualified teacher status could not be attained by continuous service. That is to say, if a teacher was not able to take the one-year course he understood at the time that he could never expect to become qualified. The point is that this was an agreed decision reached after much consideration. Although I do not reject completely a review of this decision, it could only be done in consultation with all the interested parties.
I turn to the question of the hon. Member asked about salaries. I admit that the salaries of former uncertificated teachers are low. The scales are based on the principle that no unqualified teacher should get as much as a qualified teacher. As the hon. Member knows, salaries are a matter for the Burnham Committee, and at its review earlier this year the scales for former uncertificated teachers were fixed.
The hon. Member mentioned the figures, but I will repeat them. They were: men, starting at £320 a year and rising by annual increments of £18 to a maximum of £475—which is the starting salary for a qualified teacher—and women, starting at £275 and rising by £15 1069 increments to £430. Salaries for the other non-qualified teachers are somewhat lower or are left to the discretion of local education authorities. It is possible, however, for additional allowances to be paid for certain posts. I cannot very well comment tonight upon this decision of the Burnham Committee, but the remarks of the hon. Member will no doubt come to the notice of those concerned.

§ Mr. Harold Davies
That is exactly what I wish.

§ Mr. Vosper
Leaving aside this alternative way of assisting these teachers, I should make it clear—in case there are any concerned even today—that it is possible to take a shortened course of training in order to become qualified. I mention that in case some years ago a teacher could not take a course and can now. My right hon. Friend would certainly consider any individual case brought to his notice. Further, as I mentioned when I started speaking, my right 1070 hon. Friend has been aware for some time that these teachers, who are doing a most valuable job, feel that the scales are weighted against them, although they all understand the reasons for that original decision. For the reasons I have stated, I cannot tonight suggest that the parties who agreed to this decision in 1944 would be willing to abandon it now and re-open the question. Nevertheless, what the hon. Member has said will be studied by them and by my right hon. Friend.
I end as I began by saying that these teachers are doing a most important job. Let there be no doubt about that. Without their assistance the task of qualified teachers would be much greater. In my opinion, the desire for a qualified profession which we are attaining is perfectly compatible with equitable treatment for these teachers.