§ Mr. R. RICHARDSONasked the President of the Board of Education whether both panels of the Burnham Committee nominated members to confer with officers of the Board upon the question of the remuneration of teachers in central schools as referred to in paragraph 6 of his letter to Lord Burnham of the 28th June, 1921; if so, with what result; whether, with the approval of the Board, the Colchester local education authority established a central school after conferring with the Board and with His Majesty's inspector for the district On the question of staffing; whether the head master was selected by the local education authority on account of his experience, coupled with the fact that he is a graduate of London University; whether at the time of appointment the head master was in charge of a Grade V school, and had he remained would have been entitled under the Burnham allocation of scales to reach a maximum salary of at least £570; whether the local education authority had actually fixed the maximum salary of the head master at £660, but 703W has recently been informed that the Board will be prepared to recognise expenditure of an allowance of the appropriate amount as specified in paragraph 2 (b) (i) of Circular 1254 in the case of the heart master referred to, and that such allowance may be continued beyond the maximum of the allocated standard scale, in accordance with which scale the central school teachers' salaries should be calculated; whether, under this decision of the Board, the head master would he entitled to reach a maximum salary of £524, thus possibly entailing a loss to him of £46, or a loss, upon the basis adopted by the local education authority, of £136; and what does he propose to do to remedy such an unfair decision with regard to central schools?
§ Mr. FISHERThe answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, but the problem was complicated by existing financial circumstances and no definite conclusion was arrived at. The facts of the particular case are as stated. It is governed, as the hon. Member points out, by paragraph 2 (b) (i) of Circular 1254, which represents the furthest limit of concession to which the Board were able to go for the year 1921–22. I am now considering what arrangements can he made for the current year, but I do not think it likely that the expenditure which the local education authority propose to incur in this case could be recognised by the Board.