HC Deb 07 July 1914 vol 64 cc898-900W
Mr. GIBBS

asked the President of the Board of Education whether he will state the number of children examined by His Majesty's inspectors for labour certificates at the Castle council school, Bristol, on Saturday, 20th June; what number of children failed in reading aloud; and whether these failures are attributable to the new method of silent reading recommended by His Majesty's inspector (Mr. E. F. Davidson) in his notes of a conference between His Majesty's inspector and the chairman and vice-chairman of the Bristol education committee, and the chairman of the furnishing and requisitions sub-committee, at the Guildhall, Bristol, on 22nd January, 1914?

Mr. PEASE

Thirty-three girls and sixty-three boys were examined on the occasion referred to. All these children reached the required standard in reading with the exception of one girl and three boys. In each of these four cases the child also failed in writing and arithmetic, so that even had it passed in reading it would still have failed to obtain a certificate. There appears to be no ground for the suggestion contained in the last paragraph of the question.

Mr. GIBBS

also asked the President whether his attention has been called to a circular recently issued to teachers in Bristol on the subject of reading in elementary schools by Mr. E. F. Davidson, His Majesty's inspector, embodying the notes of a conference between His Majesty's inspector and the chairman and vice-chairman of the Bristol education committee, and the chairman of the furnishing and requisitions sub-committee, held at the Guildhall, Bristol, on 22nd January, 1914; whether the issue of the circular in question was with his sanction; whether the circular possesses the force of an instruction from the Board of Education; and whether he is aware that some of the advice given in the circular is at variance with the instructions issued by the Board of Education on the subject of the teaching of English?

Mr. PEASE

I have seen a copy of the circular referred to, which was issued not by His Majesty's inspector but by the local education authority. The notes by His Majesty's inspector embodied in it were, I understand, drawn up and issued to the teachers at the request of the local education authority. They were not sub- mitted for my sanction before issue, but I see no reason for taking any exception to the action of the inspector in this matter. I cannot find any serious discrepancy between the advice given in these notes and that given in Circular 808 issued by the Board on the teaching of English. But I may point out that Circular 808, as its title indicates, does not contain instructions from the Board, but suggestions for the consideration of teachers and others, and its issue is not intended to preclude either teachers or His Majesty's inspectors from exercising reasonable liberty in adapting its recommendations, in points of detail to suit the circumstances of particular areas or schools.