§ Mr. J. DAVIESasked the President of the Board of Education, whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the inspectors of the Central Welsh Board, which is the body responsible for the inspection and examination of the great majority of public secondary schools in Wales, are not pension-able; and whether he will take steps, by an amendment of the Board's scheme or otherwise, with a view to putting the inspectors of the Central Welsh Board on a footing of equality with the inspectors of the Board of Education in the matter of pension?
§ Lord E. PERCYThe answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. The Central Welsh Board have expressed a wish to discuss this matter with my right hon. Friend on his return from abroad, and I do not think it would be desirable to anticipate the results of this discussion.
§ Mr. FOOTasked the President of the Board of Education, whether he is aware that one of the art inspectors employed by the Board recently submitted a Report upon the work of 21 secondary schools provided by the London County Council, in which he graded the schools in five classes according to their supposed merit; on how many visits to each school was this attempt at classification based; and whether the Board approves the attempt to classify schools in this manner?
2272W
§ Lord E. PERCYThe Report referred to is a summary of a series of reports on individual schools made by an expert inspector after a day, and in one case half a day, spent at the school, during which the work was carefully examined and presumably discussed with the staff in accordance with the usual practice. The individual reports themselves, which were generally of a very favourable character, were all sent in full to the Local Education Authority, and each of them to the school concerned. The summary report was sent merely as a memorandum of general conclusions and of points which appeared to need the further attention of the authority. It is not the practice of the Board to classify schools in order of merit. Such a classification can only be tentative, and however suitable it may be as a basis of discussion between the Board's officers and the Local Education Authority's officers, the Board do not regard it as suitable for publication.
§ Mr. FOOTasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that one of the art inspectors employed by the Board recently submitted a Report upon the work of certain secondary schools provided by the London County Council, in which the efficiency of certain teachers was disparagingly criticised; and whether the teachers concerned were given any opportunity at the time of the inspection of meeting the criticisms which were subsequently embodied in the written Report?
§ Lord E. PERCYThe answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. It is proper and, indeed, necessary, if the standard of public education is to be maintained or improved, that the Board's inspectors should be at liberty to state in their Reports any opinions they form, whether adverse or favourable, in the course of inspection of schools, as to the efficiency of teachers, and that their opinions should be communicated to the local education authorities concerned. Where the Board's inspectors intend to include in a Report adverse criticisms of a serious character upon the work or efficiency of teachers, they usually, as far as practicable, discuss with the teachers concerned the grounds of those criticisms, and consider any explanations they may offer. It is, of course, open to the local 2273W education authority to satisfy themselves as to the validity of the inspector's opinions, and I understand that it is the practice of the London County Council to afford their teachers full opportunity of replying to any criticisms which are made on their work or conduct.
§ Mr. EDEasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the area of the Surrey Education Committee is partly within the metropolitan police district; that the local education authority failed to arrive at an agreement with its secondary teachers as to whether the provincial or London scale of salaries under the Burnham Committee's Report was the appropriate one for the area; that when the Burnham Committee was asked to determine the appropriate scale it also failed to come to an agreement; and that the Surrey Education Committee has paid its secondary school teachers upon the provincial scale, at a considerable saving to the county and national funds of expenditure that would have been entailed at the London scale had the latter been applied either to all the secondary schools in the county or to those situated within the metropolitan police district; and whether, in view of these facts, he will be prepared to recognise for grant the whole of the salaries payable to such teachers under the Burnham Committee's provincial scale without deduction of the five per cent. that it is agreed shall be deducted where the teachers are paid upon the appropriate scale?
§ Lord E. PERCYI am aware of the circumstances stated by the hon. Member. The Board have received no indication of the intention of the local education authority to submit a proposal for the continued payment of full salaries on the provincial scale to the teachers in Surrey secondary schools.