LORD VERNONMy Lords, I desire to ask His Majesty's Government the Question ou the Paper—namely, whether the Educational (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill will be introduced during the present Session; and whether it is intended to provide local education authorities with compulsory powers for closing schools in all cases where efficiency and economy would be increased by amalgamation.
It will be remembered that a Bill was introduced last year by the late Government which was known as the Economy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. That Bill contained certain clauses referring to education. In February last it was stated in another place that the educational clauses would be introduced as a separate Bill to be called the Educational (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. What I desire to know, if the noble Marquess can tell me, is whether that Bill will be introduced during the present Session or whether it is more or less indefinitely postponed.
The latter part of my Question raises, perhaps, a rather more controversial topic because it deals with the effect of the dual system as it is at present applied in the elementary schools. This, of course, was 63 a political issue before the war, but two things at least have changed since the days when it was a subject for argument. In the first place, the financial position of the country is very serious and economies are urgently required. In the second place, I think it is becoming more generally recognised everywhere that a higher standard of education throughout the country is desirable. From both points of view I hope that in the near future the Government intend to review this question. The present position is that no school with more than thirty scholars can be closed except by what amounts to local consent—consent on the part of the people of the district and of those concerned in the school.
In the first Report of what is usually known as the Geddes Committee it is stated, under the heading of the closing of small schools, that:—
We are informed that a saving of £60,000 can be effected by closing schools below one hundred pupils in London and that an additional saving of £1412,500 in salaries might be made in urban areas outside London. The larger proportion of such schools are in rural areas and further savings should be possible there, but no attempt has been made to estimate such savings.I do not think that any action has been taken on that recommendation of the Geddes Committee, but on those figures it would, I think, be surprising if the total saving throughout the country was less than £500,000 if a free hand was given to the local education authorities or the Ministry of Education or both to amalgamate schools where it was considered desirable.In order to confirm these figures to a certain extent, I obtained recently from the Education Committee of the County of Derbyshire a report showing what would be the effect in that county if the compulsory amalgamation of schools was brought about. The figures are rather striking. It is stated in this report that the schools could be reduced from 373 to 339 or a reduction of 34 schools, that the departments could be reduced from 510 to 444 or a reduction of 56, and that the total estimated saving in this one county alone would be £23,000, which amounts to more than a penny rate in the county, and a corresponding saving to the Exchequer which would be in the neighbourhood of £10,000 I do not know whether Derbyshire is unique in this 64 respect, though I do not suppose it is. If those figures are at all applicable to the, rest of the country, I suggest that the saving over the whole country would be a great deal larger than the £500,000 which I have mentioned, based on the Geddes figures, and might even run into seven figures. I would add that in this Report from the Derbyshire Education Commitee nothing is allowed for the saving on upkeep and repairs of school buildings which would, of course, become easier if the schools were concentrated in larger buildings.
Then there is the other aspect of the matter which is the efficiency of education. There, again, the Report is enlightening because it states that amalgamation would not be detrimental and that scholars from the smaller type of school would benefit by the better graded classes. It is well known to everybody that in a larger school with more scholars you can grade your classes better, and that each teacher is dealing with children who are more of one standard and, therefore, can teach them more efficiently. From that point of view there can be no question that it would be of advantage. Of course, the advantages are evident; and so is the objection. The objection arises almost entirely from the denominational question and the voluntary school. Local prejudice may come in to a slight extent as well, but the other is the main factor. I suggest that as the schools are being maintained to-day at an ever-increasing cost to the taxpayer and the ratepayer it is quite unreasonable for the denominations to expect the State and the ratepayer to subsidise any schools indefinitely, because they desire to keep them going on denominational grounds.
There are cases where you have two or three small schools in one village or small town doing work which should be done by one efficient school, and I submit that that is a state of affairs which ought to be brought to an end. The present system is, of course, merely a, compromise as a result of political controversy in the past. It is a very expensive compromise. It may have been justified before the war when we could well afford perhaps the small additional expense, but I suggest that if we could afford it then we certainly cannot afford it now. Whenever economy, in general, is suggested it is 65 stated for the Government that you can only have economy at the expense of the efficiency of the service in question, that if you cut down the Army Vote, you will have a less efficient Army, and that if you cut down the Education Vote you will have less efficient education. But I believe that in this case you can secure considerable economy and at the same time actually improve the educational service. I contend that there is a strong case for some action by the Government.
§ THE MARQUESS OF BATHMy Lords, the answer to the noble Lord's Question on the Paper is that, having regard to the pressure of Parliamentary business, the Government do not propose to introduce during the present Session a general Bill containing miscellaneous provisions in regard to education. They hope, however, to introduce at an early date a Bill dealing solely with the incidence of the cost of education in public elementary schools of children in poor law and charitable institutions. I have also been asked since I came to the House to make it clear, as representing the predominant partner on this occasion, that this answer applies to education in Scotland.
This answer also, of course, really disposes of the second part of the noble Lord's Question, but in the course of his speech he has raised certain important considerations on which I should ask your Lordships' permission to make a few remarks. The noble Lord contemplates the entire repeal of the limit of numbers—practically the repeal of that portion of the Act of 1902 which relates to the voluntary schools—and also an amalgamation of schools which are not of the same denominational character. As he pointed out, if a school has fewer than thirty in attendance the Board of Education or the local authority have now the power compulsorily to close that school, provided that they think the school unnecessary having regard to the interests of secular instruction, to the wishes of the parents, and to the economy of the rates. I need not point out to your Lordships, with your experience, that economy of the rates points to the desirability of the closing of schools, the wishes of the parents are invariably against it, and the interests of secular instruction are frequently—I 66 will not say invariably—served by the closing of small schools, but the noble Lord will bear in mind that by the Act of 1918 schools of the same denominational character in the same locality can be grouped together for the purposes both of efficiency and of economy, and since that Act was passed local authorities all over the country have, I believe, availed themselves very largely of its provisions. This grouping can be carried out without any regard to the limit of thirty which applies to the case of the closing of schools. If economy were the only consideration I certainly would not deny that as the matter now stands the position does constitute a certain impediment to economy. There are a number of existing schools with an average attendance of thirty which could be closed, and the children sent to some other school in the neighbourhood. It would save money, but it would be a cause of considerable inconvenience and annoyance. It is also true, I think, that a practice of this kind does load to the promotion of secular efficiency in education.
It is not very easy, as the noble Lord knows, to organise and carry on in a satisfactory way a school of very small dimensions. In large towns, as he also pointed out, even the limit of thirty is very small, and a school with that small attendance may be a cause of quite unnecessary expense, but in the country the position is different. There are many places where you could not carry on the education without the very small schools. The children would have to go long distances to school. There are obvious advantages in closing small schools, but I would point out that economy is not the only question. As the law now stands you can group schools belonging to the same denomination, and no alteration in the law would have much effect unless it provided that children of the Church of England schools could be compelled to go to a council school, or vice versa, or even children of the Roman Catholic persuasion compelled to attend a school with the principles of which they did not agree, and leave the school which has almost invariably been built at considerable sacrifice by members of their community. I think the change of children being taken from a council school and compelled to go to a 67 denominational school would probably be as unsatisfactory to the champions of undenominational education as the reverse is to the advocates of denominational education. This question of the single school areas has long been recognised as one of the main grievances felt by many under the Act of 1902, and the effect of legislation such as the noble Lord has suggested would be to multiply very largely the number of these single school areas and intensify the grievance.
The system established by the Education Act must be regarded as a whole, in which the respective rights of the voluntary schools and the council schools were delicately adjusted. It is very difficult to embark on a readjustment of these rights without reopening the whole settlement, and the present is not a ripe moment for doing so. The case does not depend solely on the question of religious belief. Such an amendment as the noble Lord suggests would press very hardly on rural districts. In those districts the village school is very often the centre of the village life and the experience of the Board of Education has been that a village resents very bitterly being deprived of its school. In many cases an endowment has been given for the express object of providing a school in a particular place, thereby preventing the children of that district being compelled to go a long distance for their education. In those circumstances, naturally, people feel that if the school is closed they are deprived of something which is peculiarly their own.
This grievance is not entirely a sentimental one. Labourers are unwilling to go to places where there is no school, and farmers themselves complain that they are unable to secure labour for this reason. I suggest that any action which reduces the amenities of village life is greatly to be deplored. There is the question that the remoteness of the school to which children may be sent involves a real hardship. It is true that under present conditions they may be compelled to go three miles to school, but a daily walk of six and five miles, or even four miles, to and from school is not to be undertaken lightly by children of a tender age, and even when you are able to provide for their carriage to and from school their home life is affected because they are unable to return home at 68 mid-day. The remarks I have ventured to make on behalf of the Board of Education are not intended to imply that no change in the law is desirable. I do suggest, however, that they point to the conclusion that the matter is one which is likely to arouse a good deal of controversy and that it cannot be settled except by general good will and all parties agreeing to a solution.
§ VISCOUNT HALDANEMy Lords, the remarks which the noble Marquess has just made prove one thing very conclusively, and that is that the Government would be very rash to imagine that it could pass such a Bill in the short time of the Session which now remains. It bristles with controversial questions. The noble Lord who has introduced the subject has certainly shown that there is a good deal to be done still; and the noble Marquess has not questioned it. As to the multiplicity of small schools it often amounts to an abuse. There are many cases in which you cannot get rid of the small school, but it is possible to convey children to school much more than is done in some parts of the country. In the part of the country where I live the children are regularly conveyed by motor when there is a distance to go to school, and that is much cheaper than having separate schools.
The real difficulty is not that there are many cases in which the small schools could be amalgamated, but that the problem is complicated by the question of denominationalism, and the noble Marquess has not given any indication that the Government intend to deal with it in this Parliament. I am not one of those who think that people will be content with Cowper-Temple religion in all the schools. Whether we agree or not, they have strong views on the point that you cannot compel them to send their children to be educated in a school where they do not like the religious atmosphere. On the other hand, it is equally absurd to think that we should have the division of schools into two grades, denominational and undenominational. In Scotland, as the noble Lord opposite knows, the question has been solved brevi manu by the people. We have taken the whole of the schools, whether Roman Catholic, Episcopalian or Presbyterian, and they are not allowed to educate or get any grants 69 either from the taxes or the rates unless they submit to State inspection. That being done and the standards of the school being kept up and carefully watched, then they are free to teach anything they like in the way of religion. There are certain safeguards and qualifications, but they do not interfere with the liberty of having the denominational atmosphere that you like in the school. That is in what is supposed to be the most theological part of the United, Kingdom. It has worked very well and there has been no formidable objection to it.
It is for the Government to consider whether we are not working towards a stage when the whole policy might be taken up. No compromise on the religious question is possible. You must leave people the liberty to teach the religion which the parents wish in the schools. It may be absurd to think that it should be carried to the lengths it is, but it is equally absurd to think that Cowper-Temple religion should be treated as sufficient by people who hold strong views. The Scottish model may be a precedent, or it may be that some other way may be found, but until the Government does that I do not see how it is going to deal effectively with the question, and the noble Lord has done very well to bring it to the attention of Parliament.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYMy Lords, the discussion on this subject has taken a somewhat unexpected turn and I think I ought to say a few words. A great mistake would be made by anyone who supposed that the difficulties which attend any drastic policy with regard to the closing of very small schools are mainly due to denominational difficulties at this moment being acute. They are not. That is not the question which raises the principal difficulty now. At this moment the degree of divergence of opinion between those who have been the maintainers of the non-provided school system for years past and those who have objected to that system has much diminished, and the consultations constantly taking place between those for whom I may be regarded as the spokesman and those who represent other interests in our educational and religious life, show that the acuteness of the denominational difficulty, which undoubtedly loomed so large, is capable of 70 being adjusted in a way that seemed improbable a little while ago. I am by no means prepared to admit that the difficulties in this matter are due to a narrow denominational view standing across the path of educational progress.
Other considerations have been pointed out to-night which have to be weighed in this matter, and which certainly have at least as much to do with it as any question of denominational views. Those of us who are familiar and are in touch day by day with the life of very rural parts of the country are aware that, however undesirable on purely educational grounds may be the maintenance of a very small school, it is often, in a hamlet, worth almost any effort to preserve something of the kind. It is the one influence, apart from very elementary material influences, which has some place in the life of the hamlet and its surroundings, and the man or woman—often it is an admirable woman—who is teaching in that school fills an exceedingly valuable place among the villagers to the general advantage of the community. There are quite other considerations than those mentioned to-night which should lead to a wise caution being shown in taking away schools from very small and isolated hamlets, where they have a place of their own and are doing work of their own of a very definite sort.
No one can realise better than I the educational disadvantages of a very small school. That goes without saying, and I need not enter into it now. No one teacher can take children from the ages of three to fourteen without immense difficulties arising in doing justice to all classes of pupils. The difficulties are immense, but they are capable of being overcome and I think that to a considerable degree they are being overcome. I am myself entirely in favour of a very considerable increase in the amalgamation of small schools, either by the process of transport which has been referred to, or in other ways. In this, as in many other matters, Scotland has set an admirable example, and if England were prepared to follow the course there suggested on the lines to which the noble and learned Viscount has just referred, a great many of the present acerbities and difficulties would be non-existent. The point which I rise to emphasise is that I should be very sorry indeed if this were regarded 71 simply as a denominational question. I am quite certain that at this moment the difficulties which loomed large in this particular aspect of our educational system a few years ago are day by day diminishing, and are likely to diminish steadily in the coming months.
THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYMy Lords, as I have been Chairman of an Education Committee in a strictly rural county for twenty years I should like to say a few words on this question. I fully endorse what has fallen from the most rev. Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury as to there being no denominational feeling or any obstacle of that kind to doing away with the small rural school. The opposition comes from every sect in the parish, particularly on the ground that they do not wish to lose facilities for the education of the children of the agricultural labourer. You cannot attempt to close a school for economical reasons or to amalgamate it with another without encountering the strongest opposition from everyone in the parish, chiefly on the ground that the one thing which the agricultural labourer asks before he hires out his services is whether there are adequate facilities in the neighbourhood for the education of his children. If you close these schools in the small rural parishes you absolutely exclude the children of the agricultural labourer from these facilities, and he does not come into the parish.
This question is not, however, a very difficult one, and I rather rejoice at the answer which the noble Marquess has given on behalf of the Government and at his indication of the lines upon which the Government are proceeding. We have found that there is not very much difficulty in dealing with the problem. Where we have found schools of thirty or forty children in a small parish, we have applied to the Board of Education to place such schools under the control of a non-certificated mistress and to send the younger children of the parish to such a school. It is possible to obtain such a teacher at a much smaller salary than we should have to give to a fully certificated teacher. We allow the younger children to be taught in that school by a non-certificated teacher, and we arrange for the conveyance of the older children to the nearest school which 72 is fitted to receive them and to give them a higher type of education. We have done this in several instances, and we find that the cost of conveyance is much less than the higher salary that is paid to a certificated teacher, so that there is a great saving. If that plan is carefully thought out by local education committees I think a great deal can be done.
The noble Lord who opened this debate touched upon the question of towns, and asked why there should not be an amalgamation of schools in areas which have two or three schools where one would suffice. May I remind him of the obstacle to that process? It is the cost of building. You have at once to erect a larger school for the accommodation of the children attending the schools thus amalgamated, and the difficulty is prohibitive. That is why the Act of 1918 is practically a dead letter so far as continuation schools are concerned. It is due to the enormous cost of the building which would be entailed by carrying out that Act. I assure your Lordships that, as the most rev. Primate has said, it is not denominational feeling that is preventing the abolition of the small schools, but the feeling in agricultural districts that we should maintain facilities for the education of the labourers' children and give them the best teaching that can be, obtained. I hops that we shall never see a movement to do away with the small parish school, which is really the one educational influence to which every inhabitant of the parish looks.
LORD VERNONMy Lords, I desire to thank the noble Marquess for his very full statement in reply to my Question. I would only like to add that I never suggested, and I do not think anyone would suggest, that schools should be done away with in villages where they are really necessary and are the centre of the village life, or where this would necessitate children walking a long way in order to obtain their education. That was never my suggestion, but there are cases in which you have a parish with three schools where one school would suffice with a very slight alteration, and without re-building or building an entirely new school. It is in that kind of case that I suggest that gross wastage is going on. The noble Lord who spoke last stated that amalgamation would not save money in the towns, but that certainly was not the opinion of the 73 Gaddes Committee, whom I quoted, and who estimated that the saving on salaries alone would be £142,000 in areas outside London.