The London School Board, at the instance of Mr. Lyulph
Stanley, have determined to throw open all their schools as free schools after the passing of the Free Education Bill, and not to encourage what Mr. Stanley very unjustly calla the -" snobbishness" of parents who wish to keep their children from the contamination of companions steeped in the impuri- ties of some of the worst haunts of the London poor. Mr. Stanley's resolution was passed, or rather, the dilatory -amendment on it was rejected, by a majority of 21 to 13, the resolution itself being afterwards agreed to nem. -con. To us it seems that the more free schools there are, -up to the point at which the children of all really indigent parents are fully accommodated, the better. But that is not the same thing as saying that the less choice there is for parents who are not indigent, the better; and that is what the resolution of the London School Board against permitting any schools with extra charges for extra advantages, really means. Does Mr. Lyulph Stanley consider it " snobbishness " when fathers and mothers in his own class take pains to keep their children away from corrupting companionship P If he does -not, why does hel attribute " snobbishness " t6 working men who make much greater sacrifices to secure the same end P
Previous page
