§ *LORD NORTON, in rising to call attention to the Education Code just issued, and to move a Resolution, said: 1682 My Lords, the Education Code which has just been issued is a sample of the danger of departmental by-legislation. A subject once handed over to departmental legislation ceases to have much attention or serious consideration from Parliament ever after. If that Code lies unchallenged a few weeks longer on the Table it will become law. There is additional danger in the annual revisions of the Education Code, which lead successive Ministers to signalize their tenure of office by constant changes. I myself first codified the Minutes of Council 40 years ago, since which there have been the Revised Code, the Sandon Code, the Mundella Code, and now this Code, which is more important, as it is based upon, and pretends to adopt, the conclusions from three years' inquiry by a Royal Commission. Such a revision might promise some permanency, but for the now developing local Government, which portends a further and more radical reform. I do not propose discussing the whole Code, but a principle which pervades it, of acknowledged mischief, which it only proposes partially to correct. That principle is a variable State aid of education instead of a secure provision of its requisite means. The system of precarious support is thus described by one of the highest authorities—
A distribution of grants to each school on elaborate and minute conditions contained in ever-changing Minutes of the Department, the fulfilment of which is verified by an annual inspection, on the report of which the amount of support to be given for the past year is announced to the managers, summed up in items, and assessed on individual passes in the examination. On this system the managers of our national schools became contractors with Government for certain scholastic results, and on their delivery of so many passes on a 1683 priced catalogue of subjects, the Treasury has nothing to do but to add up the hill and give a cheque for the amount.Expende quot libras has become the test of the worth of any Education Code, even among leading men. The Commissioners summarize on this point the evidence of the teachers, the evidence of the managers, and the evidence of the Inspectors. The summary of the teachers' evidence is—That this mode of payment for education limits education to a hard and fast line of instruction has caused neglect of important subjects not comprised in the catalogue of subjects paid for; throws aside dull children of no profit in the account; has substituted an evanescent cram of memory for the permanent development of intelligence; and has led to mechanical methods of teaching calculated merely to win the grants.The managers' opinion on the subject, although in favour of individual examinations to guide the judgment of the Inspector in his Report, is unanimous against assessing grants upon the detailed results of those examinations, and they use the expression that it has "killed intelligence" in our system of education. As to the Inspectors, they agree that the system leads all concerned to trim their sails to meet the examination, rather than to develop education, and that knowledge so imparted was soon lost. Mr. Matthew Arnold, one of the highest of our Inspectors, attributes the comparatively more intelligent teaching in other countries to the absence of any such system; and he goes so far as to say that the evil is so rooted that there is no escape but by entire change. The Commissioners themselves confess their disappointment from the evidence that though, under the present system, the results of examination might appear satisfactory, the children lost with extraordinary rapidity after leaving school the knowledge which had been so laboriously and expensively imparted. From all these premisses, my Lords, I do think that it is an extraordinary conclusion that the Parliamentary grant should not be wholly, but only partially, freed from such a system of distribution. Two reasons are assigned—one, that its abolition would incur graver evils, which the Commissioners do not describe, and, to me, are inconceivable; the other, that Parliament would not continue so large a grant without satisfying itself that the quality 1684 of the education given justified the expenditure. It was the original idea of this payment on results to tempt Parliament to vote money by an apparent quid pro quo. Now Parliament requires no tempting, but has become profuse in this expenditure; and, as the results obtained, by this mode of payment are proved to be greatly damaged by it, there is no reason for withholding from Parliament the better results and higher quality of education which it might have for its expenditure. For these two worthless reasons the new edition of the Code proposes only to increase the fixed part of the grant from 4s. 6d. to 12s., leaving the rest to be won by hazards as heretofore—a shilling for this and sixpence for that. The most attractive part of our national education will still be a speculation in this lottery. The chief attention, even of managers, will still be devoted to earning the variable income to cover their already incurred expenses. The subjects not paid for—religious instruction, for instance—will still be neglected, dull children will continue valueless, and all the acknowledged evils of the system will infect the whole for the useless retention of a part of it. If asked what is to be done, the answer of the whole world comes to that challenge. We are the only nation which pays for national education in such a way. There is no other nation, there is no Colony of this country which attempts to maintain a system of national education by a precarious offer to managers to win prizes. In the United States the plan is, out of a Common School Fund, to make distribution to the various school districts in the country according to the population and the rateable value of the district. The Report makes a calculation that the present average amount of the prizes won is about £1 per head. Why not take that figure, and make it a normal capitation grant, somewhat more or less according to population and character of locality, so that the managers may know what means they have to put to the best purpose? Of course, that must be done here, as in other countries, on the condition that continued recognition of the school by the Government depends on any defect reported by the Inspectors being as soon as possible corrected. I know there is a fear in some minds that the Inspectors 1685 would hardly dare to make strict and true Reports in cases which might involve the dismissal and ruin of teachers; but that fear is proved to be foundationless by experience in our own country. In London and in other of our large towns the School Boards have already found from the evils of the present system that it was better to throw upon the rates the fluctuations of the Parliamentary grant, and to assume for themselves a fixed system for the support of their schools, though it obliges them to have another set of Inspectors by the side of the Government Inspectors. From the Report of their own Inspector upon the general conduct of the school they see to any defects being remedied, even if that has involved the dismissal or the degradation of a teacher. No difficulty whatever is experienced. These Boards will not sacrifice the interests of the school for the sake of incompetent teachers. I want to point out, in the next place, that even the increased fixed grant, which I consider a very great improvement, is spoilt in this Code, by making it on a triple scale of graduation, according to the Inspector's discrimination of the merit of each school. We have not here to form an opinion; we have proof that such graduation of merit is wrong. It has been tried and failed. The plan of attempting to mitigate the evil of payment by results by a merit grant has already failed. The Inspectors, by bad habit, assessed it like the rest on particular results instead of on general conduct, and all confessed that it was impossible to draw the line between the comparative grades of merit fairly and satisfactorily. National School education cannot be a competitive system. If it were, the race would be unfair between a village school in Wiltshire and a town school in Manchester, and the one of hardest work and most needing aid would get the least. This consideration shows the third and last blot I wish to point out in the Code. While it offers a small bonus to ill-defined poor schools, which by-the-bye, it neutralizes by requiring a larger staff, the same curriculum is held out for a rural and a town school; and the assessment of prizes attaches the highest rewards to what is unattainable by the poorer schools. It would be a better plan to invert the scale of prizes, if we are to have prizes at all, and to 1686 give the higher prizes to the lower subjects. It would be better if there were higher fees for specific subjects, which are chiefly taught to richer children, and at the same time free exhibitions for poor children able to go to the higher subjects. It is absurd to offer all an equally free education. Free education means that everybody should pay equally, whether they make use of the schools for their children or not. There should be some proportion between the advantage derived from the schools and the money which is paid for them; and, as the richer children who go in for higher subjects have richer employments before them, there can be no injustice in their being required to pay more towards the public aid which they receive, giving poorer children the advantage of exhibitions, and the poorest only exemption from fees. There are many other points in the Code to which attention might be drawn, but I do not wish to trespass further now on your Lordships' time. This Code has been laid some time upon the Table, and in a few weeks will become law. I have only raised one point, but it is a vital one—a point of principle, a point which affects the whole system, and I maintain that unless the system is entirely changed the best use of our enormous expenditure on education cannot be obtained.
§ Moved to resolve, "That the new Education Code is defective in retaining any variable grants to schools, meeting any report of inefficiency by withdrawing or reducing the means of efficiency, instead of securing adequate means of efficiency and making the correction of any inefficiency a condition of continued recognition; also, in graduating the increased fixed grants on a scale of adjudged merit, similar to that which has just be proved impracticable; also, in continuing to make grants on the same terms and standards to schools of dissimilar circumstances."—(The Lord Norton.)
§ *VISCOUNT CRANBROOKMy noble Friend is always strong in the opinions which he entertains, and having protested alone in the Royal Commission, he now repeats his protest. He is, in fact, an Athanasius contra mundum in support of his views. I do not think it will be necessary to discuss the question raised by my noble Friend of payment by results. I am not called upon to defend that system, and I am not, like my noble Friend, going to condemn it, but I feel sure that an attempt to hoodwink Parliament and the country was never 1687 thought of by my noble Friend Lord Sherbrooke, who was the author of that system. My noble Friend was not likely to do anything underhand or misleading in any way. I am quite sure my noble Friend was anxious to make education as good as possible in the country, and he tried a great experiment which has not failed to confer great benefits on the country. A system has grown up under which we ascertain fairly well what every child in the schools has learned. If a new system is introduced I am quite sure that the Inspectors would be influenced by the one which preceded it. It might be said with truth of the Commission itself, and the evidence upon which they founded their Report, that the bias was strongly against trusting altogether to individual examination. They were anxious that a much wider view should be taken with regard to the schools of the country, and that the Inspectors should be at liberty, while they did not neglect the child, to look at the condition of the school itself and all the circumstances which surrounded it; that they should test it as far as could be tested, as it used to be to some extent before 1862; and that they should take upon themselves to examine the whole system of a school, and, as far as might be, its moral tone and all conditions connected with it, and upon that base their Report to the Department, which should decide, not merely upon the opinion of the Inspector, but upon the facts he reported. The Commission recommended that the sum of 10s. should be substituted for the 4s. 6d. granted under the present system, and that was to be in their view a fixed grant. But when the Department came to consider that question, we saw that 10s. would not exactly meet the requirements, because it would not leave a sufficient balance for the results of individual examination, and because we felt also that there need be no examinations in Standards I. and II. already given up in Scotland. Now, my noble Friend says that the principle of the Code is competition. But that is not so, inasmuch as, under competition, one person gains a prize of which another is deprived. All schools will obtain the grant who fulfil the conditions, and attain the required standard. The principle, no doubt, will be laid down by the Department of estimating 1688 the condition of the various schools, and seeing which of these several grants should be made. Let me refer for a moment to one of the chief ones, the 15s. 6d. grant. There has been a great desire that if drawing should not be made compulsory, every effort, at least, should be made to spread it throughout the country. Therefore, in the larger schools we have made it a condition that to obtain the 15s. 6d. grant drawing should be effectively taught. In other schools, where the numbers are not sufficiently great to afford an efficient staff, though we have not made it a condition, still we desire that drawing should be encouraged in every way; and being under the Science and Art Department, what will be given will be-something beyond the 17s. 6d. to which the Government are confined by the Education Act of 1876. My noble Friend says that this Departmental legislation is much to be deprecated. I am not responsible for that mode of dealing with educational law. If, year after year, an Act of Parliament had to be obtained for altering the Code, anyone may imagine what enormous difficulties would have to be encountered. As a matter of fact, the Code, as my noble Friend has shown, can be assailed upon any point which anyone chose to take up. There would, no doubt, be a difficulty in doing this in the House of Commons, but in your Lordships' House there is none, because we have abundance of time, and whenever my noble Friend wishes to attack the Code he can certainly do so. My noble Friend says that £1 ought to be given for every child in, every school of the country. The limit which can be given is 17s. 6d. No doubt 17s. 6d. is only a limit where it is not met by other resources of the school; but, as a matter of fact, it is practically the limit for many schools. That being so, we cannot, of course, deal with the question in the way my noble Friend desires. And now a few words as to what is a variable and invariable grant. I do not know whether your Lordships have read my noble Friend's Resolution. It is not in my opinion easy to construe. What I understand my noble Friend to want is that there should be a uniform grant, a fixed amount, whether the school is bad or good; but that if a school is backward and does not make up the deficiencies pointed out by the 1689 Inspector it should cease to be recognized. Therefore upon the cessation of recognition the Government grant would be withdrawn.
§ *LORD NORTONNot immediately.
§ *VISCOUNT CRANBROOKThe grant would not cease immediately, but the school would cease to be recognized. Now the present proposal is that there should be a minimum grant of 12s., which could not be withdrawn without 12 months' notice. Therefore the school would have more than 12 months to put itself in a position to retain the 12s. My noble Friend must see that that is a considerable advantage, and in conformity with his own desire so far as it goes. The Inspectors, no doubt, will, as hitherto, give fair consideration to the circumstances of the school and the class of children coming to it. I cannot see a great difference between the present system and a system giving what my noble Friend calls a fixed and invariable amount, if that amount is to depend on the decision of the inspector just as it would in the case of the smaller sum. It ceases to be a fixed grant just as the other ceases if the conditions are not fulfilled. I do not say that I look forward with certainty to the success of this Code, but I do look forward to it with expectation and satisfaction, because it meets the wishes of many most deeply interested in the question. The Royal Commission was composed of two parties, and there were two Reports, but upon the points which the Department has taken up the Commission was practically unanimous. And here I wish to pay my acknowledgments to the Commission for the enormous labour and diligence that it applied to its task, and especially to my noble Friend who was good enough to take the Chair (Lord Cross), and give himself to the work with an industry and intelligence which cannot be over-estimated. But that being so, I think I may put it to your Lordships with some confidence that, as our legislation is founded upon the recommendations of that Committee, it may fairly be accepted primâ facie, unless there is something very objectionable in it. The only point before the House at this time is whether or not your Lordships wish that one invariable sum should be given to every school in the country, whatever its condition and 1690 efficiency at the time, or that there should be the conditions which the Department propose, and that the grant should not depend, as before, solely on the proficiency on examination of particular children. The Inspectors' duty will be quite a different one from that of examining the children. He will have to satisfy himself as to the general condition of the school, of the class, and of the child; and that the children are brought up in good manners and habits of obedience. It is the character of the school as well as the mere learning that is to be taken into account. I do not wish to occupy time by reading, but in the instructions to the Inspectors, given in the Code itself, it is provided that—
The Inspector will bear in mind, in recommending a general grant, the results of any visits without notice made in the course of the school year, and will not interfere with any method of organization adopted in a training college under inspection if it is satisfactorily carried out in the school. To meet the requirements respecting discipline, the managers and teachers will be expected to satisfy the Inspector that all reasonable care is taken in the ordinary management of the school, to bring up the children in habits of punctuality, of good manners and language, of cleanliness and neatness, and also to impress upon the children the cheerful obedience to duty, of consideration and respect for others, and of honour and truthfulness in word and act. The Inspector will also satisfy himself that the teacher has not unduly pressed those who are dull and delicate in preparation for examination at any time of the year; and that in classifying them for instruction regard has been paid to their health, their age, and their mental capacity, as well as to their due progress in learning.I would point out to your Lordships that there might be many cases in which a good school might not pass the number of children required, and it would be a great hardship that a school which was really better in its general character should be in a worse position than another which was really in an inferior condition of general efficiency. My Lords, I think I have dwelt on all the points to which my noble Friend referred, and I have no desire to extend the discussion into the Code itself. If my noble Friend wishes at any time to bring forward the larger question of the whole Code, we shall be prepared to meet him; but in regard to the present point, which is a very narrow one, we believe that the Commission were right in thinking that there should be a gradu- 1691 ated scale of efficiency, and that a good village school and a good town school should each have a good grant.
§ EARL BEAUCHAMPThe noble Viscount has referred to the Inspectors. May I ask my noble Friend whether he will lay upon the Table a copy of the instructions to the Inspectors, because I think unless that is done we are very imperfectly informed as to the whole scheme of the Code.
§ *VISCOUNT CRANBROOKI think the noble Lord is a little mistaken. I referred to the instructions to the Inspectors in the Code itself. With regard to the instructions which may be given hereafter to the Inspectors, it is not usual to give those instructions until the Code is established, because they may become absolutely useless if the Code takes a different form.
§ EARL BEAUCHAMPMy suggestion applied not to the instructions which my noble Friend read from the Code, but those to which he referred at the commencement of his speech as being necessary to the proper understanding of the Code.
§ *EARL FORTESCUEI think this Code is a great improvement on its predecessors in various respects. I think the very humane provision that no deduction below 12s. should take place for a year is a very great improvement. I doubt whether sufficient allowance is always made for the very great disadvantage in which schools in sparsely-inhabited districts are placed as regards attendance in bad whether. I know of one case in which two children returning from school across a bleak and exposed tract were cut off from their home by a snow-drift, and it was only by Heaven's mercy that they were discovered before being frozen to death. That is only an illustration of the difficulties of insisting upon regular attendance in schools so situate. It is essential that very great allowance should be made in the case of children who have to go long distances across bleak tracts to school. There is nothing more irrational than the system which formerly existed of requiring a child to be presented in higher standard at the end of the year in the same subjects as that in which it had been presented, not passed, before, and I am gratified that a little common sense has been applied to that rule, which has been a 1692 fertile source of over-pressure. I agree with the noble Viscount as to the great advantage of drawing, and it does not seem to meet the requirement that in large schools the boys should be adequately instructed in drawing is at all an unreasonable one. Besides, drawing has the further advantage of developing intelligence while affording rest to the brain from the injurious strain upon it, too often caused by the general undue number of hours devoted to mental study. I still would wish, without going the whole way with my noble Friend, that there were less of fluctuations in the amount awarded in particular years in order to diminish the amount of annual anxiety to managers and teachers, which will be still left under the present Code—anxiety which, in the case of female teachers especially, is often found not only to affect their health, but also in some degree their efficiency in teaching. But, on the whole, I feel grateful to the noble Viscount who presides over the Education Department for having so far followed the recommendation of the very able and indefatigable Commissioners.
§ Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.