* THE EARL OF ONSLOWrose to call attention to the Circular 709 of the Board of Education giving notice that in the Code for 1909 the proportion of children in average attendance at public elementary schools to the number of teachers will be materially reduced, thus involving a considerable increase of the staff; and further giving notice that this is but a prelude to changes involving additional expenditure; and to ask His Majesty's Government whether they can state the amount of the increase in the rates which may be needful in order to meet these drastic changes.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, it is so comparatively short a time since I drew the attention of the House to the burdens of local taxation and to the way in which national services were being paid for, not out of national but out of local funds, that I feel I owe some apology to the House for reverting to the question even in a different form and under different aspects, more particularly as the noble Lord, Lord Balfour, has just engaged your Lordships' attention in a somewhat lurid picture of the state of affairs in the Outer Hebrides. But I am afraid that we are closely approaching the time when that which is happening in ultima Thule will be happening in our immediate midst—namely, when rates and taxes will between them absorb all the value of the land of this country.
The utterances of the noble Lords opposite and of their colleagues in another place, full of sympathy with the ratepayers and of appreciation of the difficult 692 position in which they find themselves in regard to important national services, leave nothing to be desired; but what does leave a great deal to be desired is the tardy fulfilment of the promises noble Lords opposite have made. We, of course, expected that when the Budget for this year was produced there would be some increase in the income-tax payable on real property, but we did think that some consideration would have been given to the local ratepayer. Indeed, when I came to read the remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer I was buoyed up with hope at the earlier part thereof, in which he spoke of the promised consideration for the local ratepayer and the financial proposals which he intended to lay before the House which would enable him to make good that promise. I read on and on through the Chancellor's speech till I got to the end of it, but I did not find one single word about relief to the local ratepayer, and there is no such relief of any kind promised by His Majesty's Government. As far as real property is concerned, the only property which bears the burden of local taxation, more taxation is to be placed upon it when it is bequeathed, more taxation when it is settled, and more taxation when it is given away; and if it is situated, as mine is, in a populous district where the agricultural value is very small and the capital value considerably higher, it will be liable to additional taxation because some day it may be built on.
The Prime Minister some little time ago received a very important deputation on the question of the burden of education on the local rates; and he said, speaking for himself and his colleagues, that in education they had the preventative of many social evils, and that unless education were kept in a state of complete and progressive efficiency they would have failed in their attempt. It is not only the ratepayers, but equally educationists, who view the present state of affairs with a feeling of grave alarm. A resolution was passed by the National Union of Teachers to the effect that the—
ever-increasing burden of rates is a grave menace to educational efficiency, and calls for immediate increase of grants from the Exchequer.That is the view, not of the ratepayer, but of the educationist who is pressing the Government and the represensatives of the ratepayers to spend more money on education. 693 At the deputation to which I have referred a gentleman who represented the County Councils Association pointed out that the grievance among ratepayers was not so much against increased expenditure which the ratepayers and their representatives could control, as that imposed by Acts of Parliament and by Departmental circulars. The Prime Minister, replying to these observations, remarked that no greater disservice to economy could be done than to throw a disproportionate charge on the Exchequer while the actual daily management rested with the representatives of the ratepayers. It does not rest with the representatives of the ratepayers. The local authority has scarcely any real control; and I think Mr. Runciman must have smiled a little when those remarks were made by his colleague the Prime Minister, because he had all the time in his pocket, so to speak, the education Circular to which in a moment I shall draw your Lordships' attention. He had in the pigeon-holes of his office the bitter cry of the representatives of many local authorities. He had the proposals coming from Leeds to suspend the increase in the teachers' salaries in view of the growing increase in the rates. He knew that economies were being made even in fuel, and that there was an endeavour on the part of many local authorities to get back something by letting their schools for other purposes. Yet within a month of this deputation the Circular to which I draw your Lordships' attention was sent round to every one of the local authorities.What does this Circular do? It is a very unusual document. It is a forecast of the Code for the year 1909, and it is quite clear, I think, from the wording that the Department foresaw that it would create no small alarm in the minds of the local authorities if it came upon them as a bombshell in the shape of the Code itself. It was, therefore, circulated some time beforehand, in order to prepare their minds for the blow which was about to fall upon them. Under the terms of this Circular the Code for 1909 will provide that in future no class is to contain more than sixty pupils, and the size of the upper classes is to be still less, ranging from forty to fifty. Pupil teachers are no longer to be counted on the staff, and after August of this year no more men will be recognised as supplementary teachers, and such women as are recognised will be 694 allowed to teach only (1) scholars registered as infants, or (2) older scholars in the lowest class in a school of a rural parish in which the average attendance does not exceed 100. The value of head teachers will be reduced from 50 to 35 scholars—a reduction of 30 per cent. Certificated assistants will remain as before, but uncertificated assistants will be reduced in value from 45 to 35 children—a reduction of 22 per cent. It is necessary to bear mind that the staff represents three-fourths of the whole expense of a school. To call upon the local education authorities between now and August next to make this enormous change will involve a very heavy burden on the ratepayers.
I have asked for a few figures from some of the local authorities to show approximately the magnitude of the extra charge which may be thrown on the local authorities. I am told that to carry the Circular out to its full effect in the county of Norfolk will mean an expenditure of £11,000—equal to a rate of 2d. in the£; in Gloucestershire it will mean an expenditure of between £7,000 and £8,000, equal to an extra rate of 1½d, in the £; in Staffordshire an expenditure of between £5,000 and £6,000, equal to a rate of three-eighths of a penny; in East Suffolk, £3,400; in Nottinghamshire, £3,000; in Lincolnshire, £5,000. In Hertfordshire the rate is now 11d., which includes £3,000 spent on medical inspection. In Hampshire the additional cost will be very heavy, especially in the smaller schools where there are only from 75 to 100 children.
§ This expenditure will undoubtedly be more onerous in the country than in the towns, but in some of the towns it will be quite as heavy. In Sheffield it is estimated that the additional cost will be over £9,000 or an extra rate of 1½d. in the £. I do not know whether the noble Viscount the Lord President of the Council is a considerable ratepayer in the town of Wolverhampton, but, if so, I have a grim satisfaction in feeling that his withers will not be unwrung. It is estimated that the cost will be £4,328 in Wolverhampton, necessitating an extra rate of 2 8d. in the £. I see that the noble Viscount shakes his head. I also observed that the President of the Board of Education stated, in another place, that there had been a great deal of wild estimating on the matter among county councils.
695* THE EARL OF ONSLOWI have asked in my Question that we might be furnished with actual facts and figures, and nobody will be more delighted than the local authorities of the counties I have referred to if it should prove that the cost is not quite so heavy as has been indicated. Then I am told that, although these may be the nominal requirements of the Department, a great deal of latitude will be left to the inspectors. I do not know which I most dislike—the interference of a Government Department or the arbitrary impositions of Government inspectors. We know that all Government inspectors are human and many of them are faddists, and if we are to be left to the mercy of a faddist inspector of the Board of Education as to how far or how little the requirements of the Department are to be carried out, Heaven help the ratepayers! I think a little light may perhaps be thrown upon the origin of this very remarkable Circular. There is a very powerful organisation, powerful in the House of Commons as well as in the country, called the National Union of Teachers. That body holds an annual meeting at which all subjects of interest to educationists are discussed, and this Circular has not escaped attention. One of the speakers at the annual meeting said that—
The Board of Education has happily seized the opportunity offered by the temporary cessation of strife over Education Bills to consider the staffing of public elementary schools and the size of classes, with the result that an admirable Circular had been sent out by the Board.He went on to say that—
There were some 500 well-equipped college-trained certificated teachers waiting to fill the gap which would be caused by the new regulations of the Board of Education, and an additional 4,000 would be seeking employment in August.Is it not remarkable that August should be the exact date which the Board of Education has fixed as the time when these extra teachers shall be employed! The National Union of Teachers was not blind to the fact that some grave difficulties would arise in the path of those who desired to see this Circular carried out if the whole burden were to fall on the ratepayers, and it was stated at that time that the strain on the local authorities would become intolerable, and a reaction would 696 set in unless something was done to relieve the burden on the rates.I read a speech the other day by a member of your Lordships' House, who has occupied a very high position in Government, and who is a very great authority on finance. He did not hesitate to advise those who act with him in his part of the country that local authorities and county councils would be justified, by a combined process of passive resistance, in making it impossible to carry out this Circular. I do not know whether that advice will or will not be acted upon, but, if it is, I should be very curious to know what would be the attitude of His Majesty's Government with regard to the administration of the Local Authorities (Default) Act. That is a very useful Act, and if it had been put in force in the recent Swansea case it might have been productive of much good. But His Majesty's present Goverment were not the authors of that Act. They were always opposed to it, and, as far as I know, have set their faces very deliberately against coercing any local authority under the powers conveyed by that Act. That is in the womb of the future, and I leave it to His Majesty's Government as to how they may deal with the action which recalcitrant local authorities may possibly take.
It is very hard that Parliament, which does not represent the ratepayers—and I am glad to see the Government now admit that the ratepayer and the taxpayer are not the same person—should impose these burdens on them, but still more objectionable is it that by a stroke of the pen from a Government Department it should be possible to add 2d. to the rates without the county affected having any power to protest or remonstrate except through the voice of their representatives in Parliament. I really am surprised that Noble Lords opposite should support what I venture to think is so great a departure from sound Liberal principles. We are told now, in almost every Act affecting local administration, that in cases of need the Government Department may step in and force the representatives of the ratepayers to do that which they may be unwilling to do. There was a provision to that effect in the Small Holdings Act. There the Board of Agriculture is to step in and do 697 that which the representatives of the ratepayers think may place an undue charge upon the rates. The same power of a Government Department to coerce representatives of the ratepayers is to be found in the Housing and Town Planning Bill, which will no doubt reach your Lordships' House later in the session. I do not for a moment deny that it may be extremely desirable, from an educational point of view, that schools should be better staffed than they are at present in some parts of England. The Circular states that the intention of the Board of Education is to bring those authorities who are behindhand in staffing their schools up to a level with those who, in their opinion, have their schools sufficiently staffed; and I notice that in some of the counties, more particularly in Cheshire, it is not expected that the Circular will produce any effect in increasing the cost of education. I do not know whether that is merely a coincidence, or whether it is due to the fact that the noble Lord opposite, Lord Stanley of Alderley, who, I think, is accepted by all of us as the greatest authority upon education in this House, happens to be a Cheshire man, and has brought his Cheshire people up to such a level that nothing is to be desired in that extremely well-managed county. But Cheshire, Lancashire, London, and other densely-populated counties have a very large rateable value, and the burden to their ratepayers is insignificant in comparison with the burden which is placed upon purely rural and agricultural counties like Norfolk and Suffolk.
Your Lordships will have another opportunity of expressing opinion on this subject when the Code for 1909 is laid upon the Table; but, at any rate, I do hope your Lordships will declare, with no uncertain voice, that it is not desirable that, in the picturesque language which has been used elsewhere, Departments should be perpetually applying ginger to local authorities to make them do what the Departments deem to be their duty, but which they do not. I think that, as far as possible, local authorities ought to be left to administer the law that Parliament entrusted to them, and that this Circular, calling for enormous expenditure and issued by a stroke of the pen of a Government Department, ought either to be paid for out of funds provided by Parliament or to be discountenanced and discouraged by Parliament.
§ * VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTONMy Lords, I am not going to follow the noble Earl in any discussion as to the Budget, nor am I going to discuss the general question of finance. But there are one or two questions he has asked which I should like to dispose of at the beginning of the few remarks with which I shall trouble your Lordships. The noble Earl objected very strongly to this change which the Board of Education contemplate being announced by a Circular prior to the issue of the Code. That Circular was issued simply with the object of promoting public convenience. The Board of Education thought that, as they were proposing a considerable change with reference to the administration of educational affairs in the forthcoming Code, they should, as soon as, possible, before that Code was prepared, lay before the local authorities the changes contemplated. There was no arrière pensée in that proceeding. With reference to the statement of the noble Earl regarding the month of August, I would point out that the 1st of August is the date on which the new Codes always come into operation, and all changes of an important character must, for obvious reasons, take effect in that month.
There are two totally distinct questions before your Lordships— one educational and the other financial, and the two should be kept quite distinct. I am entirely in sympathy with the noble Earl with reference to the position of ratepayers. One of the greatest questions of the day is the unsatisfactory relations between local and Imperial taxation. I think that the ratepayer is often very unfairly treated under our present financial system, and the Government have made no secret that the first business of next session will be to deal with the Poor-law which is at the bottom of all these questions. Nothing will be satisfactory until Parliament deals with the whole problem of the Poor-law. I do not quarrel with the noble Earl in his complaint of any addition to local rates, but I think he has been sadly misinformed as to the facts of the case and as to the ultimate result of this Circular so far as cost is concerned.
The objects of the changes introduced by Circular 709 are stated in paragraph 2 of the Circular itself, as follows:—
The Board aim, on the one hand, at a reduction in the size of classes, such as will afford relief to teachers, often seriously over-burdened, and secure 699 more individual attention for scholars; and, on the other hand, at stimulating the employment of teachers possessing superior qualifications.As regards the employment of teachers, the Circular is intended to encourage the employment of certificated teachers as compared with teachers holding lower qualifications, to discourage—or rather to restrict the range of—the employment of teachers who have no recognised qualifications at all, such as supplementary teachers, and to stimulate, so far as may be necessary, the employment of a greater number of teachers in individual schools, especially in small schools. I am very glad to see in his place the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford. When it was expected that this debate would come on at an earlier date, the right reverend Prelate wrote a letter to The Times, in which he expressed his regret that he would not be able to be present on that occasion to take part in the debate. The right reverend Prelate, however, made some very important remarks in that letter with reference to the position of unqualified teachers, and I hope he will say in the House to-day what he wrote to The Times on that question.If it is necessary to quote any authority in support of the reforms which the Circular contemplates, I should refer to the recommendations of the Royal Commission over which Lord Cross presided, and which reported as long ago as 1888. Both the Majority and Minority Reports laid stress on the laxity of the scale in the Code of that date prescribing the minimum staff of the schools, and pointed out that, as a matter of fact, the aggregate staff employed in the schools at that date was largely in excess—to the extent, indeed, of forty-nine per cent.—of the staff required for the aggregate number of children in average attendance. There was, in effect, available a very considerable margin of teaching power, and the Commissioners urged that steps should be taken to bring the requirements of the Code up to the standard of the practice of the great mass of the schools. The situation at the present day is very similar to that of 1888, and there is, in the aggregate, a considerably greater margin of teaching power, especially in the more highly-qualified grades of teachers.
The Majority Report does not recommend any specific staff scale, but it com 700 ments strongly on the large size of the classes existing in many schools, and summarises the opinion of the expert witnesses who appeared before the Commission as being that the average maximum number for an ordinary class in the schools should be forty, and for the highest class twenty-five. The Minority Report in this respect is rather less drastic, and concludes with the following words:—
We are of opinion that, though in large schools with thoroughly efficient trained assistants classes of sixty in average attendance may be satisfactorily taught, yet that classes of fifty would be far better, and that it would be more easy to educate as well as to instruct them.Some progress has been made since 1888 towards introducing the reforms advocated, and the staff scale was gradually raised in some particulars, but no substantial change has been made since 1898; and, as regards the size of classes, it may fairly be said that the reforms advocated in 1888 have been very long overdue. This is a difficult matter to explain except to experts. But the question on which this reform turns is the number of teachers to be employed properly to staff a school. What is proposed is this, and I think the House will see that in a typical case it is not a very extravagant proposal. The number of scholars for which the head teacher counts is reduced from fifty to thirty-five; the certificated assistant teacher counts for sixty as hitherto; the uncertificated teacher counts for thirty-five instead of forty-five, and the supplementary teacher for twenty instead of thirty.
THE EARL OF ONSLOWWill the noble Viscount say what he means by a typical case? I understand this is to be the rule in all cases.
§ * VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTONThat is to be the measurement of the staff, as a whole, but there is no interference with the local authority as to its distribution. The local authority will redistribute, alter, regrade, or do what they think proper, but they must have a certain number of teachers in a school which contains a certain number of scholars. They will apportion them among the classes, and they are given greater freedom in this respect than formerly. Every one desires the improvement of education, and the only way to do it is to improve the qualifications of the teachers and not to overwork them. I think I may say that, so far as educational 701 considerations are concerned, the Circular has been received with general approval, and those interested in education would be glad to see the reforms carried out. The whole of the criticism of the Circular has been focussed on its financial aspect—
§ * VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTONAnd it has been urged that such great additional burdens should not be imposed on local authorities without additional State aid.
§ * VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTONIf the Imperial Exchequer would find the funds, there would be no objection to the principle.
§ * VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTONThat certainly narrows it down. There are good reasons for believing that the financial burden likely to be imposed by these changes has been greatly exaggerated. Although since 1888 the staffing scale has several times been made more severe, I am not aware that the successive changes have been made the occasion of demands for increased aid from the State; and if it is the case that the Circular—or rather the Code in which it will be embodied—only requires some authorities to do what other, and very similar, authorities have been both willing and able to do on their own initiative—in other words, if the Circular only contemplates a levelling up to the standard of good or adequate existing practice—the case for increased Exchequer aid to be given to all authorities alike is not a very strong one. I do not wish to say anything disrespectful of the local authorities, but I know the source from which a good deal of this information comes. Estimates have been published in certain areas which not only show signs of hasty or careless work, but also indicate a disposition to make the worst of it. The language of the Circular is not, I think, open to the charge of obscurity or want of precision; but, even if it were, it must be remembered that it is addressed to experts, or at all events to bodies who have experts in their employment, and nothing would have been easier than for those bodies to address a question to the Board of Education on any point on which they did not feel certain. Very few inquiries, however, have in fact 702 been addressed to the Board by authorities as to the meaning of the Circular.
The principal points on which the Circular has been misunderstood are the following: It has been assumed that a certificated teacher would be required, not only for each complete group of 80 children at a school, but also for each fraction of a group over and above a complete group. The illustration given in the Circular itself seems to me to render this interpretation quite out of the question. It has also been assumed that the individual teacher in a school may not teach a larger number of scholars than that for which he counts when the sufficiency of the staff as a whole is being considered. For instance, it has been assumed that, because the uncertificated teacher counts for 35 children in the staff scale, he may not teach a class of more than 35 children. This misunderstanding was removed by the answer given as long ago as April 5 in the House of Commons by the President of the Board of Education to Mr. Charles Roberts.
The methods of estimating the financial effect of the Circular in some areas have been singularly hasty and fallacious. It is, however, quite possible to form a very fair estimate of the financial effect, and some very excellent specimens of close estimating have in fact been furnished to the Board of Education. In some cases, however, the estimator has contented himself with doing a very simple sum in arithmetic. He has argued that as the teaching value of certain grades of teachers has been reduced at certain rates, therefore new teachers must be provided to make up the aggregate teaching value of all the teachers in the area to the figure at which it stood before the reduction. This method is doubly erroneous. In the first place, it entirely ignores any existing margin of teaching powers in the aggregate staff, and it entirely ignores the margin in the staff of individual schools, by reference to which alone any reliable estimate can be formed. It assumes that, if the authority had, say, 20 per cent. margin under the old conditions, it must maintain the same margin under the new conditions. It is quite possible, however, that the practice of the authority is so far above the old scale that in these cases no increase of the staff at all would be required. In other cases the estimating officer has taken each school and class separately, but has entirely 703 ignored the possibility of any adjustment by regrading or reclassifying the school and by redistributing the staff. Where this method of estimating has been pursued, and at the same time the Circular has been misunderstood in the way I have already described, it has not been at all difficult to produce a most alarming financial result.
The noble Earl referred me to Wolverhampton. Having been chairman of the Wolverhampton School Board, I am not quite ignorant on this point, and I have gone into the question of Wolverhampton. Wolverhampton has a very good school staff at the present moment, and I am satisfied that the additional expenditure of putting the Circular in force will be practically insignificant—you would have some difficulty in giving it a rate value at all. I know it was widely reported that the Wolverhampton authorities anticipated that the Circular would involve an additional expenditure equivalent to a rate of much more than 2d. in the £. I am informed by the Board of Education that this is an entire mistake, and that there is no reason to anticipate that the changes announced in the Circular will involve any substantial increase in respect of salaries.
§ * VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTONI am quite sure the town clerk would not form any opinion that he was not satisfied was perfectly sound and right, but it is evident that he has arrived at a conclusion on the figures supplied to him which is not correct. Another case to which publicity has been given is that of the borough of Leicester, where it was estimated that additional staff costing £3,310 would be required. I am informed that at least £3,000 can safely be struck off this estimate. The calculations of the Leicester authority appear to have been based on the present size of existing classes, and make no allowance for the possibility of regrading. I may say, in passing, that one case is quoted in Leicester of a class in Standard VII having an average attendance of no fewer than 88 scholars under a single certificated teacher. I put it to your Lordships whether that can be defended on any ground whatever. As regards other areas, I have seen estimates that, in the West Riding of Yorkshire, the cost of additional salaries would be £23,000 a 704 year, and that in the county of Durham the cost would be no less than £20,000 a year. I am advised that these figures may safely be rejected. No estimate is worth anything which does not take account of the possibilities of adjustment by regrading and reclassifying schools, and by redistributing the existing staff.
In the areas of almost all local authorities there is a very considerable margin of teaching power in the aggregate. Without this aggregate margin, there could, of course, be no margin in the individual schools. The problem is to distribute the available staff in such a way that there shall be a sufficient margin in all schools and no excessive margin in any school. In one case—that of Leicestershire—I am informed that the very able Director of Education has made an exhaustive inquiry into the circumstances of every school, and has found that a saving of between £700 and £1,000 on his first estimate can be effected by redistribution of staff, reducing the cost involved by the Circular to practically nothing at all. If it is said that there are educational objections to adjustment by redistribution, regrading and reclassifying, I can only say that I am informed that in, many cases distinct educational advantages would result. It is, perhaps, rather a bold prophecy to make, but I am not at all sure that in the end some local authorities will not have reason to bless the Circular which has been issued by the Board of Education for calling their attention to points in which economies can be legitimately effected by improved. administration.
THE EARL OF ONSLOWCould the noble Viscount say what the original estimate in Leicestershire was and what it has been reduced to?
§ * VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTONNo. I have not the figures, but the Director of Education has, after making exhaustive inquiry, found that a saving of between £700 and £1,000 on his first estimate can be effected by redistribution of staff. The noble Earl alluded to the requirement in the Circular that no class shall contain more than 60 scholars on the registers. Speaking generally, I do not think it is too harsh to say that, if a local authority is severely hit by this rule, it does not deserve much consideration. It may, of course, be conceded that where an authority 705 has inherited a long-standing deficiency of accommodation or a large number of badly designed or arranged school buildings which require replacement, or has really had great difficulties in meeting the demands of a growing population, it would be unfair to condemn it without qualification for teaching some of the children in unduly large classes. This consideration applies to a case like that of Newcastle-on-Tyne, where the problem of school accommodation is admittedly a difficult one. But I am informed that in Newcastle there were quite recently 331 classes with over 60 scholars on the roll, 52 classes with 70 or more scholars on the roll, and 16 classes with 75 or more scholars on the roll. I think that shows how very desirable it is that some improvement should take place.
After all, however, there remain a very considerable number of local education authorities who, it is believed, will either not be affected at all, or not affected very seriously, by the new Regulations. Among county areas I may refer to the cases of Lancashire, Cheshire, Surrey, Wiltshire, Dorsetshire, and Leicestershire. Among urban areas I may mention London and the county boroughs of Liverpool, Manchester, Bristol, Plymouth, Devonport, Bradford, Blackburn, Burnley, Norwich, Yarmouth, Croydon, West Hartlepool, Southport, Chester, and other places. In some cases improvements have been contemplated, or are already in progress, which will be completed before the effect of the new Regulations is felt; and it is, of course, quite unfair to attribute to the new Regulations the cost of improvements which would in any case have been undertaken, or which the authority would have been obliged to undertake, under the old Regulations. There has, I am afraid, been a disposition to saddle the Circular with some expenses which do not properly belong to it.
The noble Earl complained that under this Circular the local authorities will be placed more at the mercy of the Board's inspectors. In administering a great Department of the State you must trust your officers, and having been concerned with educational matters for some years I can safely say that there is no staff of public servants who deserve more confidence than the staff of inspectors under the Board of Education. Their instincts are not to spend but to save money, to get as good an 706 education for as small an amount of public expenditure as is possible. There is not the least reason to fear that His Majesty's inspectors as a class will act with less discretion and consideration in the future than they have in the past. I admit that the new Regulations will constitute an important change, but it is a step onward, and I cannot think that the House of Lords will express disapproval of an attempt made by a very competent Board of eminent administrators to carry out a policy which Lord Cross's Commission of twenty years ago recommended as desirable. Politics have nothing whatever to do with this matter. The Board of Education are proceeding cautiously and carefully, and I believe that when effect has been given to this scheme we shall all be glad to admit that it has brought about a great improvement in the public education of this country.
§ LORD BELPER:My Lords, I listened with great interest to the speech of the noble Viscount, very conciliatory in tone, but a great part of it an ex parte statement with regard to the financial liability which will be cast upon the boroughs and counties. There was one remark which the noble Viscount made at the beginning of his speech in which I entirely concur—namely, that two questions are involved, one educational and the other financial; and to my mind it is a great mistake if we to-day succeed in mixing up those two questions in any way. Let me say, speaking for the County Councils Association, that they recognise that fully. They recognise that the educational question is one on which there may be all the satisfaction which has been expressed by the noble Viscount, and many of the county councils would, I know, be very willing to see this reform carried out if it could be done without a large additional burden on the ratepayers. For that reason the resolution which has been passed by the Executive Council of the County Councils Association does make this very clear distinction, for it declares that—
Whilst abstaining from any consideration of Circular 709 until a report thereon has been obtained from the educational committee, the Council deprecates the practice of imposing heavy additional burdens on the ratepayers by Departmental circulars without previous discussion in Parliament.That, I think, is a very intelligible ground to take up. As a matter of fact, this 707 resolution was carried almost unanimously, only one gentleman voting against it, and I believe it very fairly represents the feeling of the county councils with regard, as I say, to the financial part of this scheme.The noble Viscount said the object of the Circular was to give notice to the local education authorities as to what they might expect in the Code; but what we complain of is this, that in the middle of March, at the time when the estimates for the coming financial year are made up, there is suddenly sprung on the county councils and borough councils, without any notice and without consultation of any sort, this Circular, which if it is to be carried out must throw some financial burden, at all events, on a great number of authorities during the course of the financial year. It is an axiom of those who manage the affairs of the nation that they cannot entertain any alteration of the estimates after the time that the estimates have been considered; and surely, knowing that the financial estimates of the year in every educational body—and they form a very large part of the rates that have to be raised—are always made in March, it is unreasonable in March to send down a Circular to county councils which will cause their estimates to be reconsidered.
The other point I wish to put is that the circumstances under which this Circular has been brought forward are such as to cause very strong feeling indeed amongst local education authorities. Let me revert to the point which Lord Onslow put in his opening speech. There was a very influential deputation, representing every education authority in England and Wales, which was the result of a meeting at which resolutions were passed unanimously urging the Government to readjust the education burden, which was so much larger compared with the grant given by the Government than in years past, and especially dwelling on the question of medical inspection. The Prime Minister received that deputation, and he not only declined until the whole question of local taxation was considered to give any relief for education, but he absolutely refused to give anything at the time for medical inspection, although there had been a provisional promise a year ago that some grant would be given on this heading. Mr. E. N. Buxton, the well-known educationist, who was once Chairman of the London School Board and is now 708 Vice-Chairman of the Education Committee of the County Councils Association, pointed out that the Act which dealt with medical inspection was one with which they all sympathised, but it was supplemented by an expansive Circular sent out by the Board of Education necessitating extra financial burdens. The Prime Minister, in reply, said—
I do not think, as to that, there is any point in regard to which the head of the Education Department has increased the severity of the burdens; in fact, he had no power to do so by any Circular from whatever source it may come.I hailed with great delight the statement of the Prime Minister that the Board of Education has no power to issue regulations increasing the charge put upon the rates by the Act. I quite admit that this does not refer intimately to the matter now before us, but when the question of medical inspection comes up again the statement of the Prime Minister will be very valuable evidence with reference to the position taken up by the Board of Education in trying to force particular expenditure in regard to medical inspection upon the authorities. It did strike us as rather a strong instance of the irony of the situation that the very next day the Circular to which the noble Earl has called attention was issued, putting this additional burden upon local education authorities. We feel very strongly upon this matter, and I sincerely hope, after the statement that the noble Viscount has made, that the charge will not be so high as has been anticipated. But I should like to ask him to, at all events, consider, when the time comes, the estimates and figures brought forward by the educational authorities.
We have a committee of the County Councils Associations sitting this week which will have information from all the counties in England with regard to their estimates. I can assure the noble Viscount that we have no wish to exaggerate what those estimates are likely to be. They will be very carefully sifted, and if it comes to a question whether this will put any, or a serious, burden on counties, I hope the Board of Education will promise to give consideration to our statement as well as to the facts that they have gathered themselves. I only mention that because there was another occasion, with regard to medical inspection, when, although our figures had been very carefully collected, the Board of Education declined to discuss 709 the matter with us at all. I trust that, as there is some doubt as to what this extra charge will be, the matter will be carefully looked into with a view on both sides of arriving at a true solution. With no wish to say anything with regard to the educational part of the question, I do desire again to enter a strong protest—and in this matter I think I am speaking on behalf of a very large number of counties in England—against these charges being continually put upon the ratepayers, charges many of which have not the direct sanction of Parliament and which the authorities themselves could not foresee, and, therefore, have not been able to include in their estimates.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYMy Lords, I will not at this hour go at any length into this question, but I desire to made one or two remarks on the Circular. In the first place, having given a good deal of attention to it and tried as far as I could to verify some of the figures that have been published as to its probable extra cost, I wish to say that, in my opinion, the information on which the noble Earl who initiated this discussion has relied is grossly exaggerated. The suggestion of an increased burden of 2d. in the pound is far beyond any possibility. Twopence on the rate throughout England and Wales would amount to £1,300,000 or £1,400,000.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYI do not think we are competent at this moment to discuss the financial question properly. It requires very careful examination. I am obliged to the noble Viscount the Lord President of the Council for the official information he has given us, but I feel that in a question like this it is important that the financial side should be gone into very carefully, the local authorities being able to be heard and to explain their views. I cannot help thinking that if a small and able committee of the County Councils Association could call at the Board of Education and confer with the officers of the Board, the matter could be cleared up.
Mr. Runciman,in the reply which he gave in the House of Commons the other day, stated that five county authorities had submitted to him their own estimate of what the proposals in the Circular were going to 710 cost—namely, Gloucester, Hertfordshire, Devonshire, Bucks, and Cheshire. After all, these are the figures coming from the authorities themselves, who would certainly not understate the case of pressure; and I may say that, having worked out the figures which they gave, according to Mr. Runciman's answer, I find that on the question of teaching staff the increase in the cost in these five counties, on their own statement, is 2.7 per cent., and if we take the increase on the whole of their maintenance cost it would be under 2 per cent.
I was very much surprised when I read the statement made by the Town Clerk of Wolverhampton, and I have taken some trouble to test his statement. Having gone into the matter I am absolutely satisfied, as the noble Viscount below me is, that the Town Clerk of Wolverhampton was unnecessarily terrifying his town council and that he raised a perfectly gratuitous scare. Among other things, he stated that, on account of the alteration of the size of classes and the value of the teachers, they would have to build a very large number of additional class-rooms. I have obtained the latest figures of Wolverhampton, and find that this is a town which has very materially neglected its duty in the way of school provision. There were a large number of schools scandalously overcrowded, and I took the opportunity of observing to this official that the evidence showed that, quite irrespective of any Circular, they were under an obligation to make a considerable addition to their school provision. The answer I received was that they were at present building for 1,200, and plans were being prepared for the accommodation of a further 1,200.
This Circular is a very belated contribution to the bringing of our teaching staffs of elementary schools up to something like the standard as to numbers which efficiency requires. I wish sometimes that a noble Lord from Scotland would tell us how very much behindhand we are in the matter of education as compared with Scotland. To give England the same proportion of certificated teachers as Scotland possesses the number would have to be increased by 26,000, and the training college accommodation would have to be twice enlarged. I should like to ask how many supplementary teachers there are in the whole of Scotland, and what proportion they bear to the teaching staff. The fact is that 711 we are wretchedly behindhand. We have been going on teaching our children with teachers incompetent for the purpose, and the sooner we make up our minds that that is to come to an end the better. I am glad to say that a large number of the county authorities have increased their staffs; and it is improbable that the cost of acting on the Circular will be more than a halfpenny rate in the small fringe of counties where the schools are understaffed.
Now, may I say a word in sympathy with those who have spoken from the other side? Though I think this Circular was rightly issued, being intended to be a warning and intimation and to pave the way to enable people to discuss and consider what would come later in the Code, I do feel that in this time of transition and ever since the Act of 1902 the local authorities have had very heavy work put upon them. They have had very heavy expenses to incur, and some of them have rushed into expenses that they need not have incurred. The National Union of Teachers is a very powerful organisation, and is always contending that the teacher is the person who ought to get the money; and anyone who has studied the figures of expenditure on schools since 1902 will see that the larger portion of the increased expenditure has been on the salaries of the teachers, and I think if there had been little more caution at the beginning the pinch would not be so great now. The local education authorities have had many problems to tackle which would have proved difficult in the case of authorities that had been at work for many years and were thoroughly familiar with all the details of administration. Therefore, I do sympathise with the local authorities who would like to have a little breathing time, and I also sympathise very much with those noble Lords and others who feel that there ought to be some protection of the rights of self-government possessed by local authorities in charge of education.
Complaint has been made of the great amount of administrative discretion put into the hands of the Board of Education. You could not possibly administer an education Code without giving immensely wide powers of an administrative character to the Board of Education; but I do say that the present Board is pressing Depart 712 mental authority a little too far. I will take the case of the medical inspection of schools. I was delighted when I saw the statement made by the Prime Minister that Departmental circulars cannot extend a statutory right. There is no doubt that the Board of Education has taken upon itself in its Departmental circulars, and now in the Code, to invent an officer called a school medical officer—an officer not contemplated by the Act requiring medical inspection; and the Board of Education is practically trying to force upon local authorities the appointment of one medical officer for the county who should be associated with the work of schools. As to whether that is good or not I do not express an opinion, but I do feel that there ought not to be an attempt by Departmental circulars to exercise powers which the Act of Parliament never conferred.
There is another matter to which I should like to refer. I daresay some noble Lords may have seen, in the course of the recent controversy about this Circular, that there appeared a long communiqué in the Morning Post giving an official explanation of the purpose of the Circular. The Morning Post, which has been a remarkably ably-conducted paper on this matter of education, had a leading article in which it was stated that this was the " official explanation." I do not think the Board of Education ought to publish commentaries and explanations on their own circulars through a newspaper. If that is to be done, it should be done officially from the Department itself.
I do think that the Circular is a little obscure and requires clearing up. There is a point in it which I wish to criticise because it illustrates what I have been objecting to—excessive Departmental interference with local management. It is quite true that the Circular gives general values for the staff and in some ways gives greater liberty to the local managers than the old Code did, because whereas the old Code earmarked a particular teacher for his own value, the new Code leaves discretion to the managers and to the head teacher to organise the school and to put a teacher at considerably more than what I would call his face value provided that the staff as a whole satisfies the requirements as to numbers. What I do not like is that the Code gives the Government inspector the power of making what I would call a per- 713 sonal assessment of each individual teacher. The Government inspector may object to any teacher being sent to any class which the inspector thinks he is not competent to teach. I think that is too minute an interference. The Code should say that you must have teachers of proper qualifications and that the teachers of proper qualifications are valued at so much. I hope that the inspectors will be a little restrained on that point; otherwise the inspector will become something that he ought not to be. He will be the organiser of the school instead of these matters being left in the hands of the local authority.
There are many other things that one might say, but at this late hour I will conclude by repeating that in my opinion the Circular is only a small instalment of what is due to the efficiency of education. At the same time I would be glad if the Government could satisfy the apprehensions of the local authorities by showing in detail that it will not cost what they think it will, and if they would restrain what I must call the grasping at power by the officials of the Board of Education. At this moment the Board of Education has not exactly the confidence of the people who locally administer education, and I think a greater sense of security among those who manage the schools would be very valuable to the public.
* THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD:My Lords, I rather hesitate to ask your Lordships' indulgence at this late hour, but there are one or two words I desire to say. I would not venture to intrude with reference to finance, except to say that, in my opinion, there is no more wasteful finance than the continuance of an expensive and inefficient system of staffing our schools and maintaining them. But what I rather desire to say is a word or two on behalf of the children from the educational point of view. I venture to think that it has not been sufficiently emphasised to-night that the real business of the Board of Education is to see that the system of education is efficient, and, as I understand this Circular, without, of course, committing myself to approval of every little detail in it, it means that the Board of Education is desirous of making our system in some sense really efficient. If the Board of Education has failed at all hitherto it has been in the way of being far too tender and too dilatory in this respect. 714 The Board is met with two great obstacles—first of all, the excessive size of the classes in a great many of our schools. I am quite sure that none of us would be satisfied if our own children were being educated, at any age, in classes of sixty, seventy or eighty under one teacher, and, therefore, I cannot but feel that the Board of Education deserves our entire support in its endeavour to reduce the number of children in each class. Then, again, the Board is met with the prevalence, in some parts of the country, at any rate—a prevalence which is not decreasing—of uncertificated and unqualified teachers. Many of these teachers have no adequate knowledge of the duties they are called upon to perform. I may venture to mention to your Lordships a little experience of my own. Some time ago we established for my city and neighbourhood a system of special classes for pupil teachers, and in establishing those classes I ventured to make it known that we should be glad to see any of the uncertificated teachers at our classes who chose to come, so as to improve their education, and a considerable number of those teachers came. But the masters in charge of the classes very soon reported that they had nearly all disappeared, and when we inquired the reason we found that it was that they were ashamed to expose their ignorance before the pupil teachers in the classes. That led us to try another experiment—namely, the forming of special classes for uncertificated teachers. Again they came in good numbers, but very soon the classes almost entirely dwindled away, because so many of them were ashamed to show their ignorance before one another. These Article 68 teachers have been rechristened supplementary teachers, but they are still being appointed in large numbers in many parts of the country. I venture to think that it is the plain duty of the Board of Education, by some such means as this Circular, to stop the appointment of teachers who possess no known qualification except, I believe, that they are eighteen years of age, of good character, and have been vaccinated.
If this liberty to appoint uncertificated and cheap teachers is to go on, we are left in this ridiculous position, that we have established a certain number of training colleges and are turning out students from those colleges, a great number of whom cannot obtain situations without having to wait a considerable 715 time owing to the places for which they are fully qualified having been already occupied, and occupied in many cases by the very young people who failed to pass the tests of qualification which these students did pass. Indeed, the only qualification which many of these cheap teachers possess is that they have failed to pass the examination necessary to enter the training colleges. I do think that, in the presence of such a state of things, we ought to give our sympathetic and hearty support to every endeavour on the part of the Board of Education to make the system of education with which it is charged as efficient as possible.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYMy Lords, I cordially concur in what was stated by the noble Viscount the Lord President and also by Lord Belper that the question must be looked at from two totally different points of view, and I think I can say, conscientiously, that during the three and a-half years I was privileged to be President of the Board of Education I did my utmost to promote the efficiency of education and to emphasise the necessity of considering the heavy burdens which the ratepayers had to bear.
The provisions of the Circular have been fully dealt with, and your Lordships will hardly expect me to re-discuss them. But I should like to say that, from the education point of view only, I find no fault with the Circular. The right reverend Prelate alluded to the hardship to those teachers who have gone through a course of training and who at the present moment find themselves in a position in which they are unable to take advantage of the training they have undergone. I concur with what he said. I think that after they have trained themselves to become teachers, and in view of the important fact that each of those would-be teachers has cost the State something like £200, their services should not, if possible, be lost to the State or any injustice done to them. I would, however, remind the right reverend Prelate that a few years ago there was a shortage of trained teachers, and the Board, to meet this, had to sanction the employment of untrained teachers. These supplementary teachers having come to the rescue and done their work honestly and conscientiously, it does seem to me that these drastic provisions will bear hardly upon them.
I turn now to the other side. There is 716 no question that in all parts of the country there has been great complaint of the way in which the rates have increased, and undoubtedly in all parts of England the education rate has risen very materially and has caused great grumbling on the part of the unfortunate ratepayers. This Circular must, to a certain extent, increase the rates. Whatever the actual figures may be, there is no doubt that there will be an increased expenditure as a consequence of this Circular. In the first place, there must be new class-rooms to accommodate the more numerous classes, and the replacement of less expensive teachers by more expensive teachers must, of necessity, increase the cost. It is in rural schools, where the numbers are small and supplementary teachers are employed to a considerable extent, that the cost under this head must naturally fall. It is in the rural districts and not in the towns that the burden of this extra expense will be most heavily felt.
There is great diversity of opinion as to what is to be the cost of the new Regulations under this Circular, and I think we are justified in asking for some statement on that subject from His Majesty's Government. I think we should be justified in even moving for a Return giving some idea as to the cost before we accede to this proposal. Perhaps the noble Lord who will follow me will be able to give us the figures, but, if not, I hope he will tell us that when the Code is brought up the Government will be able to give the figures on which they base their estimate as to what the cost will be. An important deputation, as has been pointed out, waited upon the Prime Minister on March 18, before the issue of this Circular, to urge upon the Government the necessity for increased grants for education. Mr. Hayes Fisher said on that occasion—
Buildings, equipment, every single item of expenditure in connection with education, was going up, most of all, necessarily so, that for the increase of the salaries of teachers. Hygiene, manual education, physical education, organised games, all conjured up a vista of expenditure, all of which was falling on the ratepayer. The pressure of the Department, of expert opinion, and of public opinion, all tended to make the cost of education greater. But the relative portion of the charges borne by the ratepayer had increased, and must increase unless they got more Exchequer grant. From 1892 to 1902 the Exchequer grant was more than sixty per cent. of the total cost. Since 1902 that percentage had been gradually going down, and was now less than fifty per cent.717 It cannot be said that the Prime Minister, in his reply, offered the deputation any satisfaction. Mr. Asquith said—It was quite true that the Royal Commission on Local Taxation described education as, at any rate in the larger sense, a national service, and he agreed with them. But it was a national service, as they pointed out, which was locally administered—in other words, a service in which the representatives of the taxpayer had no direct or immediate control. When they were dealing with a service national in its character but local in its administration they could do no greater disservice to economy, and therefore to efficiency, than by throwing a disproportionate amount of the charge upon the central Exchequer, while the actual daily effective management rested with the representatives of the ratepayers.Proceeding, the Prime Minister used these important words—It was said that in the successive Education Bills introduced by the present Government sums varying from a million to a million and a-half pounds or more would have been asked of Parliament in addition to the existing Parliamentary grants. He agreed. They would have been prepared to pay a very large price for educational peace.When I heard the noble Viscount the Lord President say that this was not a political question, these words recurred to my mind. I cannot but think that this was an attempt to bribe the local authorities to accept the Government's education policy. It seems to me that it was another attempt to influence administration in the direction of their own political opinions. Mr. Birrell promised £1,000,000 in his Bill, Mr. McKenna £1,400,000, and Mr. Runciman £1,600,000. Now when the local authorities ask for a grant they are sent empty away. If these grants could be offered for political purposes, surely a grant should be given when demanded by so important a deputation on behalf of the local authorities. I hope we shall hear something on that point before the debate concludes.
§ * THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF CREWE)My Lords, I desire to make one or two observations in reply to points that have been raised in the course of the debate, but at this hour I will not detain your Lordships for more than a few minutes. So far as the educational merits of this Circular are concerned there has been little dispute, and the statements of the Lord President have not been contravened by any subsequent speaker. The noble Marquess who has just sat down devoted the latter part of his speech to the 718 financial aspect of the case, and asked whether it would not be possible for the Board of Education now, or, at any rate, at as early a date as possible, to make some definite estimate of what they understood the cost would be. Owing to the very nature of the case that is not entirely an easy thing to do. The amount of the actual cost must undoubtedly depend to a fiery considerable extent upon the manner in which the re-arrangements are carried out by the different local authorities. That duty, no doubt, throws a heavy burden of work upon them, and until that work has been carried out it is difficult for the Board of Education to form any definite estimate; but as soon as they have received from the various local authorities their revised estimates, which I think in many cases will be very different from the hurried estimates sent in on the first alarm, the Board of Education will endeavour to check them, as far as they can, from their own information, and, although I am not able to make any promise, I hope we may be in a position when the matter comes before Parliament again to say something rather more definite on that matter. What we can say at present is that there is no doubt that a great many of the preliminary estimates of the local authorities were largely exaggerated. Some of them seem to have gone through the simple process of dividing the teachers into the number of children, and, of course, it is perfectly evident that if that was done you could reach the most alarming results. They left out altogether the almost unlimited possibility of regrading and rearrangement of classes, which in a great many cases will, I am confident, have the effect of reducing the charge to almost nothing.
The noble Marquess who has just sat down spoke of the supplementary teachers. It is frankly admitted by the Board of Education that the desire, which I think must be shared by all those who are enthusiastic for education in the country, is, without hardship to individuals, gradually to replace those supplementary teachers by certificated teachers. I have no doubt that in many cases you can find a supplementary teacher who is a very good teacher. We do not dispute that for a moment; but, other things being equal, it is, of course, obvious that the goal to which we have to look forward is the time when all teachers in all schools shall be 719 thoroughly qualified and trained. There is one observation I wish to make with regard to the remark which fell from Lord Stanley of Alderley. In very kindly terms, and speaking with an authority which we all recognise to be unequalled in this House and almost unequalled in the country, he drew attention to what he considered to be something in the nature of a usurpation by the Board of Education in directions which might be left to the discretion of the local authority. I have no doubt that my right hon. friend who presides over that Department will attach every weight to what the noble Lord said, but I confess that this consideration does occur to me. I think we must agree that of all the directions in which local management has to be combined with some degree of central control there is none in which the relation is likely to be so difficult a one as in this matter of education. We are not, I am afraid, as a nation very greatly in love with education, and although I am not going to disparage for a moment the admirable work that is done by the education committees of different county councils, those education committees work often under difficulties of their own. They work 720 in some parts of England, I am certain, knowing that they are not in complete sympathy with the majority of their council, who may in many cases be the opposite of educational enthusiasts; and therefore I ask the noble Lord to reflect whether what he considers undue interference on the part of the Board of Education may not tend to strengthen those members of the county council, sometimes the minority, who are educational enthusiasts. At the same time I quite admit that it is desirable to leave local discretion to operate as far as possible in all cases where it can reasonably be done; and I repeat that the words which fell from my noble friend will receive the careful attention of the Department. I have nothing more to add. The question has been very fairly argued, and the important distinction between the educational aspect of this matter and the financial aspect has been carefully drawn and kept to during the debate. Consequently I think my noble friend may be well satisfied with the result.
§ House adjourned at ten minutes before Eight o'clock, till Tomorrow, half-past Ten o'clock.