§ *LORD REAY
, in rising "To ask the Lord President of the Council—
1. When the Board of Education recognised the certificates issued by the City and Guilds of London Institute, mentioned in page 2 of their regulations, for the award of teachers' certificates in different branches of domestic economy, session 1902–1903, and whether any Papers on the subject will be communicated to Parliament.
2. Whether the attention of the Board of Education has been directed to the serious reduction, in the qualifications required, from the standard now demanded for the limited diploma under the existing regulations dated March, 1902.
3. Whether representations have been made by those engaged in the work of training teachers in domestic subjects, urging that the granting of the new certificates will unduly lower the standard desirable for this class of teachers, and whether the Lord President will further consider the expediency of lowering the standard hitherto required by the Board of Education,"
887 said: My Lords, the Code of Regulations for day schools imposes certain qualifications upon the teachers in regard to the subjects to which my Question alludes. The system of the Board of Education with regard to cookery is to grant, on examination, a full or a limited diploma; it also recognises certain training schools for cookery, and certain certificates for teaching cookery granted by recognised training schools. With regard to laundry work, the Board of Education does not itself undertake any examinations; it simply recognises training schools and the certificates granted by those recognised training schools. The list of institutions recognised by the Board of Education is given on page 44 of the Day School Code. That Day School Code is as recent as last Spring, and on that list of recognised institutions the City and Guilds of London Institute, to which I refer in my Question, does not appear. The regulations for the granting of cookery diplomas by the Board of Education are as recent as March of this year.]t was natural to suppose that the regulations contained in documents issued by the Board of Education in March last, and issued in the Day School Code, would not be disturbed. Contrary to this expectation, however, certificates to be awarded by the City and Guilds of London Institute have been recognised. Those certificates are three in number—the evening school teacher's certificate, the elementary day school teacher's certificate, and the teacher's diploma in domestic economy. A document issued by the City and Guilds of London Institute gives the conditions under which these certificates are granted, and there is a material difference between the conditions imposed by the City and Guilds of London Institute and those imposed by the Board of Education. I wish briefly to allude to the difference which exists in the two cases.
As regards the elementary day school teacher's cookery certificate of the City and Guilds of London Institute, the hours of instruction required in day or evening classes registered by the institute amount to 200, or 400 at a recognised training school. The qualification required for a cookery certificate 888 under the Board of Education is 840 hours training in a training school recognised by the Board. The difference, therefore, is very considerable. There is the further condition in the case of the City and Guilds of London Institute that evidence must be produced of having taught, or assisted in the teaching of, the subject for a period of not less than one year to the satisfaction of His Majesty's Inspector or the Inspector of the local authority; or the canditate must have received, as certified by the Principal, adequate instruction and practice in class teaching in a recognised training school. That, of course, does not entail any examination, and does not account for the difference of 400 and 840 hours training.
With regard to laundry work, the City and Guilds of London Institute require for the elementary day school teacher's certificate 200 hours instruction in day or evening classes registered by the institute, or 400 hours instruction in a recognised training school, and there is the same proviso as in the case of cookery in regard to practice in teaching the subject. The difference here, again, is very material, as the Board of Education requires 512 hours training in a training school recognised by the Board.
With regard to the diploma in house management, which is an entirely new expression—I suppose it is what has hitherto been called housewifery—the City and Guilds of London Institute's condition is that a separate certificate will not be issued, but candidates for the teacher's diploma in domestic economy, Group A, will be required to satisfy the examiners as to their knowledge of the subject. Again, the condition imposed by the Board of Education is much more stringent, viz., 250 hours training in a training school recognised by the Board, out of which time forty hours must have been spent in teaching classes of children.
How does the matter stand with regard to the diploma for teaching all three subjects? The qualification of the City and Guilds of London Institute is fifty weeks of twenty hours a week—equal to 1,000 hours instruction—at a recognised training school for domestic economy, and to produce evidence of having 889 received, during training, adequate instruction and practice in class teaching, and to have passed the examination in hygiene, elementary stage, Section I, and to pass the examinations for the day school teacher's certificate in the subjects included under Group A or Group B; whereas the Board of Education requires l,573 hours training in a training school recognised by the Board, and the recognised diplomas of cookery and laundry work.
I think I have shown that the result of the recognition given to the certificates of the City and Guilds of London Institute involves a reduction of the standard hitherto required — a standard which, I may say, was being gradually raised with very good results to those who were taught. I am anxious to know what has induced the Board of Education to make this change, and especially why the change has been made when what I may call the issue of the standing orders for the year—both in the Code and in the Regulations issued by the Board of Education—had led all those engaged in this department of educational work to think there would not be an invasion by another body into the circle of institutions recognised by the Board. I believe the Board of Education has received some complaints, which I think are very legitimate, from those whose teaching was organised with a view to satisfy more stringent requirements. I trust the noble Duke may find it possible to communicate some Papers with reference to the correspondence which has taken place between the Board of Education and the City and Guilds of London Institute on the subject.
I must add that I have not alluded as yet to the evening school teachers certificate, mentioned on page 2 of the Regulations of the City and Guilds of London Institute. It is the most extraordinary part of the scheme. It appears to be the fact that it is proposed to issue this entirely new certificate. Hitherto, no separate "evening school teacher's certificate" was known. In these evening continuation schools we may pre-suppose a certain amount of previous knowledge acquired in the day schools by those frequenting them. The qualifications of the teachers should be higher, instead of which they are 890 lower. For this certificate all that is required is that a candidate should have passed in hygiene, elementary stage, Section 1, and produce evidence of having received, in the year preceding the examination, at least 100 hours instruction, including practical lessons, in a class registered by the institute. The alternative is to have regularly attended a course of instruction at a recognised training school. That means that a candidate could qualify for this certificate by spending 100 hours in a training school—that is to say, four or five weeks special instruction—besides passing in hygiene, elementary stage, Section 1. That seems to me to be not the least surprising result of this unexpected interference of the Board of Education with existing rules. I beg to ask the Question standing in my name.
§ THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Duke of DEVONSHIRE)
The City and Guilds of London Institute applied, in March last, for the recognition by the Board of Education of three classes of teachers' certificates proposed to be granted by the institute to teachers in certain branches of the subjects which are commonly known as "domestic economy." The certificates proposed for teachers in evening schools, and the teacher's diploma, so far as it related to teachers in secondary schools, presented no difficulty, and they were recognised by the Board of Education in April last; the recognition has been announced in the supplementary regulations for secondary day schools and for evening schools issued by the Board last month. The certificates for teachers in elementary day schools and "teacher's diploma" in the above named subjects taken in groups for teachers in those schools were the subject of some correspondence, and in the beginning of June the Board stated that they were able to "give a general approval to the regulations and examinations for certificates in the various branches of domestic economy proposed to be issued by the City and Guilds of London Institute," and that they were "prepared to recognise those certificates for the purpose of Article 101 (g), (h) and (m) of the Code." This recognition was announced in the regulations recently issued by the institute. At the same time the Board pointed out that it might be necessary to have further discussion as 891 to the details of the conditions of training and examination. With this object, a discussion took place about three weeks ago between Sir Philip Magnus and some of the officers of the Board, including the Inspectress of Cookery, at which a fear was expressed—which I think has been repeated by the noble Lord—that as the minimum number of hours training required by the institute was much lower than that required by the regulations of the Board, there would be a falling off in the standard of qualifications required in teachers of these subjects. To meet these objections, the institute drew up the instructions of 11th July, and in forwarding them to the Board of Education, Sir Philip Magnus said—You will see from these instructions that it is by no means the intention of the institute to grant certificates on easier terms than those on which they have been hitherto obtainable from the Board. On the contrary, I think the examinations will be found more difficult. At the same time it has been the object of the institute to relax somewhat the regulations with respect to the distribution of the hours of instruction, and you will also note that the institute is desirous of throwing upon the Principal and the teachers more responsibility, and of relying upon their interest in their students' work to make the instruction as thorough as possible. Certainly in the future schools will not continue to be recognised unless the Principal can be trusted to organise the teaching on satisfactory lines.Some misapprehension appears to have existed with regard to what is meant by the minimum number of hours to be devoted to instruction in any subject. You will see from the enclosed that it is certainly not intended that the institute's minimum should be taken as the school's maximum. The instructions will, I hope, show the importance which the institute attaches to the practising lessons to be given in the training school, and you will note that in no case can any candidate obtain a day teacher's certificate who does not produce adequate and satisfactory evidence of ability to teach.These statements appear to the Board to be satisfactory, as showing that the institute does not aim at any lowering of the standard; but before next year's regulations are issued by the institute and before any notifications of recognition of the certificates, so far as they relate to teachers in public elementary schools, is inserted in next year's Code, very careful consideration will be given to the question of the practical effect of these certificates, and of how far they have tended, or may tend, to alter the standard which the Board 892 consider necessary for teachers in these subjects. Representations have been received, and will doubtless continue to be received, from institutions carried on under the Board's regulations, and fears have been expressed which the Board at present consider to be groundless. I need not go into specific points, but I should like to observe that it does not appear to have been generally noticed that the instructions of July 11th lay down that the only schools recognised by the institute as affording the training necessary for these certificates should be those at present recognised by the Board of Education. I have, moreover, the authority of Sir Philip Magnus for saying that the institute are ready at any time to alter or amend any details in accordance with the wishes of the Board, and I can assure the noble Lord that the Board of Education will watch very carefully the practical working of the institute's scheme, and its effect on the teaching of these important subjects.
At present the Board believe that, while substantially preserving the standard, the institute's certificate system is based on principles of elasticity and freedom which will re-act beneficially on the qualifications of these teachers.
I hope the statement which I have obtained from the principal secretary for the secondary branch of education will substantially answer the Question of the noble Lord.
I do not think that there would be any advantage in laying the correspondence on the subject upon the Table, as a great part of the negotiations, if I may call them so, have been carried on by means of interviews, without a knowledge of which the letters would not afford much information.
§ House adjourned at five minutes past Five o'clock, to Thursday next, half-past Ten o'clock.