§ LORD GORELL rose to call attention to the Board of Education Circular 1297 relating to special schools, and to ask His Majesty's Government if they will not now modify the requirements therein set out as to the size of classes of blind children. The noble Lord said: My Lords, compared with the affairs of China 745 the Question that I have placed upon the Paper is extremely simple. It does not affect an enormously large number of people, though it does affect a consider able number, but, quite apart from the question of numbers, it affects a class with whom the fullest possible sympathy should be shared—namely, the children in the schools for the blind. The point that I wish to make can be stated most clearly by referring, first of all, to the Regulations which were in force up to January 29, 1923. By Section 21 (c) of the former Regulations it was laid down that the teaching staff should not, as a rule, be regarded as sufficient unless there were at least one full-time teacher for every fifteen children in average attendance at a school for the blind.
§ That provision in the Regulations has been altered by what is known as Circular 1297, the object of which, as specifically stated in the circular, was to reduce the cost of these special schools. The circular contains words recognising that in these cases much more individual treatment and highly specialised teaching are necessary than in the ordinary schools—a proposition so obvious that it need hardly have been stated—and then goes on, in subsection (4) of Section 2, to call upon the local education authorities to take every opportunity of reducing the number of teachers employed, by the simple expedient of not appointing another teacher when a vacancy occurs, with the object of fulfilling the third clause of this circular, in which it is stated that the Board will be satisfied if the staffing of special schools conforms to the standard of one full-time teacher for every twenty children in average attendance at a school for the blind. That is to say, they substitute in a sentence the figure twenty as the normal size of a class for blind children for the former number of fifteen.
§ The point of my Question is to press His Majesty's Government to restore the smaller figure. I would mention that this is a case in which every teacher of the blind, without any exception whatever, is convinced that if this latter figure of twenty in a class is maintained it will be impossible for teachers to do their duty by the children in their charge. Upon that point they are absolutely unanimous, without any exception. Moreover, they have at various times since the issue of that circular made representations in 746 that sense to the Board of Education. The College and Association of Teachers of the Blind, the British Medical Association and the National Union of Teachers have one and all made representations to that effect to the Board of Education, and they have not met with any success. I therefore feel it my duty, as I happen to be chairman of the council of the teaching profession, in which the teachers of the blind take their part with all the other classes of teachers, to bring the matter to your Lordships' attention.
§ It is further my information that wherever this Regulation has been enforced it has had a very detrimental effect upon the training of blind children. I am informed that in a number of cases where this has been so the head teachers have written to the Board of Education testifying to that fact. Now, the reason why every teacher of the blind in this country gives it as his or her conviction that it is not possible to deal with more than fifteen in a class satisfactorily, is that it is impossible to treat a class of blind children as a whole, except in purely oral instruction which does not play by any means the greatest part in their education. Wherever it is necessary to teach the blind child to use its hands instead of its eyes the child cannot be taught orally but has to be actually shown, and in such subjects as geography, natural history and elementary science the teaching must be individual. Most of all, in the important subject of handcraft one of the primary objects is to teach children to use their hands to take the place of sight so as to enable them to become self-supporting citizens. It must be perfectly obvious that if the result of this provision, originating solely from economy, is to send out children inefficiently trained, as the price of a very little direct economy the nation is going to have to bear a much larger indirect cost, because the children will not be so self-supporting as before.
§ I am given to understand that the noble Lord who is going to reply on behalf of the Government has been making investigations on the subject from medical authorities, and I have no doubt that if he thinks fit he will detail the result to your Lordships. That is not the point which I make at all. I am not attempting to challenge anything to do with the health of the children, or 747 whether twenty in a properly ventilated and properly sized class room will not be as healthy as a class of fifteen. I am taking the point that this is a small direct economy leading to a much larger indirect expenditure, and that from the point of view, not merely of the most humane and generous treatment of the children who have lost their sight or never had it, but also from the point of view of economy, this provision in Circular 1297 ought to be modified or rescinded altogether.
§ I have said that it is the unanimous opinion of every single person who is engaged in teaching blind children that it should be done if they are to carry out their work satisfactorily. That is a testimony which it seems to me deserves very serious attention, because if the Regulation of twenty in a class for the blind is preserved it means that you are asking a large number of people to do work under conditions under which they are satisfied they cannot do their work properly. This request is not put forward in the interest of the teachers. I have been among them and talked with them and I am satisfied that they would all be perfectly willing to conduct classes of twenty, even if it meant harder work for themselves, if they felt that they could really give the children the education which they require. It is put forward distinctly in the interests of these blind children. I mentioned the date of the Circular—namely, January, 1923—and that is not unimportant. I think it might have been urged at a time when economic pressure was so great that the experiment might be tried of slightly increasing the size of the classes. It has been tried now for more than two years and I think, in view of the evidence which I have endeavoured to represent to your Lordships, it is perfectly apparent that the experiment has failed. Therefore, I ask the Government whether they cannot see their way to replacing the provision of the circular so far as the teaching of the blind is concerned by the old provision.
LORD SOMERSMy Lords, I want first of all to sympathise with the noble Lord who has asked this Question in not having a direct representative of the Ministry here to answer his Question. I know perfectly well that this is a matter in which he has taken a great deal of interest, that it is a matter about which 748 he knows a great deal and which he has very much at heart. Therefore I must apologise, although it is no fault of my own, that it is only a matter of five or six days which I have been able to give to searching out the feelings of the Ministry and trying to get some of the-facts sufficiently in order to enable me to answer the Question. It might possibly be assumed by your Lordships, from the Question as asked by Lord Gorell, that the number of children usually in classes for the blind is twenty, as mentioned in the circular to which the noble Lord has referred. I cannot say this on my own authority, but on the information which I have been able to get it appears that in very few cases are twenty blind children taught by one teacher, and I would like to point out that under Section 3 of the Circular 1297, referred to by the noble Lord, the maximum number of children who are to be taught, or can be taught, by one teacher is twenty. That is the maximum, and this particular circular merely lays it down as a guide. In no case is the number of twenty to be exceeded, and as a matter of fact I am informed that in most cases the classes are very much smaller than twenty. However, that is a matter with which I have no doubt the noble Lord is as familiar as I am.
It is the question of principle, I am certain, on which he wishes the opinion of the Government. Of course the Question deals almost entirely with blind children, but, on the other hand, the special schools have to deal with a great many other unfortunate children as well. Various schools deal with the mentally deficient, and I could enumerate other unfortunate classes of children who have to be dealt with in this way. Naturally, the expense of their education is very heavy, and particularly so, I think I am right in saying, in the case of blind children. Blind children, in the nature of things, must be residential scholars and the consequence is that the cost of the schooling in their case is specially heavy. I suppose, if one went through the length and breadth of this country with one's eyes open, one would probably find, taking the mentally or physically deficient children as a whole, that there are four children outside the scope of these schools for every one in the schools themselves. That being the case, it is a 749 question whether it is best to concentrate on one particular class of deficient child so as to bring the education of That child up to the highest pitch possible or, on the other hand, to be satisfied with what is possibly not the best education and to bring the particular form of education to a wider field than would otherwise be possible considering the expenditure entailed. That, I think, is really the question. At present the opinion of His Majesty's Government is that until they have the money—they have the will, I know—to enable them to cover the whole ground of the education of deficient children they must be satisfied with a certain standard—a standard which probably does not come up to the ideal which the noble Lord sets himself. On the other hand, under these conditions more children are getting the benefits of education than would under the very special treatment which the noble Lord indicated in his Question.
I have before me the Questions asked and the answers given, both here and in another place, by the present Government, the last Government and the Government before—Questions raised by those who are anxious that everything possible should be done for the best education of blind or otherwise deficient children. The answers have always, I think, been extremely sympathetic, but they have always, I am afraid, had to be the same. His Majesty's Government would do everything in their power to make this education the best possible education under the economic considerations that govern them. I do not think, even in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Banbury of Southam, I should be wrong in saying that the economic stress of to-day is not very much less than it was in 1923, when this particular circular was published.
I hope I have given the noble Lord an indication of what the Government feel about this matter. I am given to understand that the Minister himself will be only too delighted if the noble Lord would address any question personally to him; he would give him an interview, and be able to tell him anything further which I have been unable to explain. Every case indicated by the noble Lord, in which the teacher has not been satisfied with the way in which the class had been carried on, has been investigated by the Department in order to see whether the objec- 750 tions raised really amounted to anything very important, or whether they arose merely from the wishes of the teachers from an ideal point of view to get better results from classes as small as that desired by the noble Lord instead of twenty as indicated in the circular. I hope I have said enough to show that the Government sympathises with the noble Lord and under any other circumstances would reduce the number in a class to fifteen.
§ VISCOUNT HALDANEMy Lords, I think my noble friend Lord Gorell has rendered a useful service in raising this question because he has got a very fair answer from the noble Lord who has spoken for the Board of Education. They too, it is evident, do not like the number of twenty which has been substituted for the number of fifteen, and all they have got to say about it is, first, that they have no money, and, secondly, that the classes do not number twenty in practice. It was reassuring to hear from the noble Lord that most of the classes at any rate do not exceed fifteen in the case of blind children.
§ VISCOUNT HALDANEThat is satisfactory as far as it goes. I would remind the noble Lord that the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself said recently that upon education we could not afford to economise, and the reason is that, if yon do not educate, you have such a flood of after expense on the other side of the account from those who have been defectively educated. This point has been brought out. It is plain that the Board of Education do not think that you can educate more than fifteen children in these classes. It is plain that they would go back to the fifteen standard if they only had enough money to do it, and I think it is valuable that in your Lordships' House my noble friend's Question should have brought out so much agreement and so much indication that at least the question is one which will not escape future attention.
LORD GORELLI fully recognise the courtesy with which the noble Lord has answered me and I recognise also that in view of the fact that he is not himself personally responsible for the Department 751 I cannot press him to answer further. But I would point out with regard to the fact that there are not many cases of twenty children in a class at present, that the whole purpose of the circular is to bring that about in the future and my Question was directed to stopping that process. The circular contemplates not filling up vacancies. It says expressly that the Board do not expect that that will immediately come about, and that is the reason why there are not the full number of twenty everywhere.