Teachers (Hansard, 19 January 1967)

§ 23. Sir E. Boyle
asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the net increase in the number of full-time teachers in primary and secondary schools between January, 1965, and January, 1966, and in the corresponding two previous years.

§ Mr. Crosland
Approximately 4,300, 5,300 and 4,900 in the three years ended January, 1964, 1965 and 1966 respectively. I expect the figures in the subsequent two years to be 5,000 and 7,000.

§ Sir E. Boyle
Is not that decline from 5,300 to 4,900 disappointing and is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the very real concern caused by his recent circular on the quota and on teacher supply? What does he think has happened to the missing teachers, as it were, and has his attention been drawn to the real anxiety about the numbers of those receiving three-year grants who go through colleges of education and then opt out for some activity other than teaching?

§ Mr. Crosland
That was a very large number of questions in one. The fact is that we had one short period in which wastage produced a slight drop in the annual increase. But looking ahead it is perfectly clear, and it is clear from the last two figures which I quoted, that the huge investment which we have made in teacher training is now beginning to show very considerable dividends. When discussing full-time teachers we must remember the important and growing addition to the teaching force which, I am glad to say, is made by part-timers. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, for demographic reasons we are in the most difficult period at the moment, but I think that can see some easement in two or three years' time.

§ Mr. Gwilym Roberts
Would not my right hon. Friend agree that any present deficiency in teacher numbers is a byproduct of the failure of teacher-training provision under a previous Administration and that there are now healthy trends which show that the position will be rectified in a very few years?

§ Mr. Crosland
It is certainly the case that there has been a massive and dramatic increase in teacher-training facilities in the last two years and my hon. Friend is quite right to say that, although we are now in a period of hard slogging because of the very rapid increase in the birth rate, looking ahead two or three years we can see a dramatic improvement.

§ Sir E. Boyle
If we are to argue about this, is it not a fact that the college of education building programme for the first year of the party opposite was less than our building programme for 1964–65? However, can I ask the right hon. Gentleman a more serious question? Is it not quite clear from the figures which he has given that it will be highly undesirable if there is a hold-up in the provision of university places compared with places in colleges of education, because nothing could be worse than that would-be university students should go to colleges of education and take places which might otherwise be occupied by those who could swell the teaching force in the schools?

§ Mr. Crosland
I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman means when he talks about a hold-up in university places. I 636 have already said in answer to a previous Question that we are already well ahead of the Robbins target for universities and I think that we will continue to be so. As for teacher supply, the only acid and important test is an increase in the number of teachers per year. The figures which I have quoted show that the increase this year will be much larger than in any year over the last few years, and I think this improvement will continue.