LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.
THE FEE SCHEME OF THE LONDON SCHOOL BOARD. [To THE EDITOR OF THE " SPECTATOR."1 SIR,—I think I never knew a matter with regard to which journalists, and through them the public, have been BO misled as they have been in their judgment of the new fee scheme of the London School Board. Even members of the Board have not taken the trouble to guard themselves from perverse mis- apprehensions of it. Critics of the scheme have dwelt, as you do, on the obnoxious character of the paper of questions which is supposed to be supplied to parents to answer. You say that those members of the Board who are now in a majority "set to work to disinter some private instructions to School Board visitors suggesting points of inquiry to them in dealing with applications for remission of fees or excuses for non-payment, and converted them into forms of public interrogatories to be filled up by parents applying for remissions or failing to send their fees regularly." This is far from being true. I have acted under the Board for many years, both as a member of a " B " Com- mittee, before which parents are summoned, and as a manager. In the former character, I have been very familiar with the paper said to have been disinterred. It was used in every case of application for remission of fees. I take the liberty to regard the objections now made to it as fanciful ; but it was of little use, as it was filled up by the visitor with answers given by the parents, which on the most critical points were not verified by other inquiries. But the visitor had to make the return and send it to head-quarters, to be laid, I believe, before the Bye-laws Committee of the Board. Offensive or harm- less, useful or useless, this paper, under the new scheme, has practically fallen into disuse. It is not sent to parents, and in no case have they to fill it up. The parents receive only a notice requiring them to attend before a sub- committee of managers, and the managers have the power to recommend remission of the fee after questioning the parent ; if their recommendations receive the signature of a divisional member of the Board, they take effect at once. It seemed to me at first that the paper of questions had disappeared altogether ; but I found that the managers may, if they wish for further information, ask for it from the visitors, in which case the information will be given in the old way. No change takes place in the mode of using the paper, if it is used at all ; but it will only be used in exceptional cases. It has not as yet been used once in the Lisson Grove quarter.
So that, with regard to this paper, the character of the change not only differs from, but is the actual reverse of, what you and others have been led to suppose. The scheme has, so far, worked extremely well in this locality, and all the twelve head-teachers with whom I have had to do are pleased with its results. In one department, the fees paid in one week have been more than double the amount obtained in a previous week. But the difficulty of the scheme will begin when the prosecution ' of parents for non-payment begins. Parents can only be prose- cuted reasonably and successfully in really bal cases ; and if it is found that prosecution is very rare, the old carelessness is not unlikely to recur.
I will only add that I have no interest in defending the party at the Board which now has the majority ; I have always sup- ported their opponents.—I am, Sir, &c., [If the case is as Mr. Davies says, we are glad to hear it, and are very sorry that we were misled; but it is odd the Board did not publish this defence themselves. Anyhow, our substantial objection to the new policy, the exclusion of the children from school, remains as before.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
