EDUCATIONAL POLITICS
THE circular in regard to grants and other matters which has been sent to Local Education Authorities by the Minister, and received with dismay, though we see points to regret in it, is not, after all, really a matter for panic. Lord Eustace Percy has made it clear that the circular was for consideration by the local authorities. Portions of it express a policy which has been prepared by his Department to remedy faults that have emerged from the experience of working present methods. These Lord Eustace evidently means to put through, but details may be modified after the frank and helpful discussion that we hope to sec.
The important change proposed in financial adminis- tration is that the " percentage " grants should be replaced by " block " grants. Under the percentage system a great deal of the expenditure desired by local authorities and approved by the Board has been halved between rates and taxes. The Board gives its approval saying, " if you raise half the cost, we will supply the rest." On the whole this method has been a stimulus to spending, as some would say with regret ; to progress, as others would say with satisfaction. This method has worked well. Authorities have known that they bear half the responsibility of paying for their proposals, and yet the national responsibility for education has been recognized and the national Treasury has done much to equalize the burdens between rich and poor localities. As for those who pay, the difference between paying out of one pocket or the other, rates or taxes, is not so serious as it appears in the Council chamber where the reporter of the local paper is busily writing for its ratepaying readers. Since the block grants are to be fixed as 99 per cent. of the recent percentage grants, we cannot flog up much resentment at the sum transferred from taxes to rates. The control achieved by the Board in return for grants is penetrating enough. The Board admits, with regret we do not share, that control Tails to be complete even under the percentage system. If the Board resigns itself to still less control under a block system, we have no objection to it on that score.
The objection that has been almost unanimously raised against the circular is connected with the principal item of annual expenditure, the teachers' salaries. Here there is no real excuse for making trouble, because all parties -are morally bound to observe the " Burnham " scales.
The local authorities have eagerly pointed out that they adopted Lord Burnham's settlement " on condition that the present grants system is not altered to their prejudice." Lord Eustace has said that the Board has no intention of upsetting the settlement and, further, that " the continued payment of the scales adopted by the authorities as a result of that settlement will be a condition of grant." The .parties, therefore, should easily come to an agree- ment on a matter in which, fundamentally, they are already at one. Lord Eustace has only to assure the authorities that there is no hidden device of the Board to _saddle the authorities with extra expenditure in other directions if more of the Board's grants will have to go to salaries. He asserts that, since the salaries are due to fall slightly under the scale, the Board will actually lose some expected advantage. Whatever happens, the salaries should not be touched. In the past the teaching profession in this country has not received anything like the respect due to it. And salaries are a rough measure of public respect. There is more to be said on both sides, but we do not want to obscure what should be the real basis of discus- sion. There are in the circular other points on which we cannot now comment, vague promises of provision for capital expenditure when the Treasury has a superfluity, and of provision for technical education. There is also the proposal to cut down by 80s. the grant for each child under five years. The Board disclaims any intention of raising the age of entry, and we are not sure what the authorities are expected to make of this cut. It is the one definite withdrawal of money proposed, but so far it has caused little outcry. The only hint Lord Eustace has given is that he contemplates part-time attendance of these infants. If the idea is that children will be en- couraged now, and perhaps compelled later, to stay beyond fourteen at school, though accommodation is not yet pro- vided, we should not be sorry to see the necessary space made by limiting the infants' places. It would be especially well justified while " leavers," boys at any rate, cannot find employment. The numerous projected Central Schools for children picked out of the elementary schools and intending to stay beyond fourteen arc not ready yet for their useful function of extending the age limit for voluntary scholars and giving, in the jargon of educa- tionists, a vocational bias to the curriculum. Everyone who goes in and out of our infant schools sees that the youngest classes are nurseries rather than schools. On the whole it is at present worse to turn boys into the streets at fourteen than to keep children of four at home. Many of these babies benefit materially at school. Many mothers, through fault or misfortune, are not competent to bring up their infants so well as an unmarried teacher who has won certificates in quite different directions. But others would be better at home, and if by a compromise half could attend in the morning and half in the afternoon, there would be no great loss, and places could be found for older scholars.
There is no member of the Cabinet better placed than Lord Eustacc Percy at the Board of Education, but our one fear is lest such an able and energetic worker may show too authoritarian a spirit and too little patience with the local authorities, mainly disinterested and public-spirited partners with the Board. In defence of his circular he says that " the block grant system will really give local authorities the freedom they were intended to have under the Act of 1902, but which they have never yet had in practice." We do not know what details he had in mind, but we believe that a wise use of block grants might well lead to greater freedom of the local authorities, and we should heartily welcome that. The ideal H.M.I. is not the one who is always trying in a bureaucratic spirit to stereotype our schools according to every jot and tittle of the Board's Circulars, but the one who sees that the tax-payers' money is well and efficiently spent and encourages, as some few do, originality in a teacher when it deserves approval. As education passes more and more into the hands of the State, this stereotyp- ing process grows more and more constrictive, and, as we know, the whole tendency is towards the needs of clerical and urban life. That is the most obvious constriction among many. Professor Flinders Petrie, who, having sifted the experience of the ages, often produces most apt criticisms of life to-day, wrote an admirable letter on this subject in the Times, of Friday, December 11th. Plainly some children should be early trained for country life ; yet the difficulties in the way of local authorities, managers and teachers in giving such training arc immense. One imagines the day when, instead of peopling the Colonies with agriculturists we shall, like France, be seeking aliens to people our own countryside. We urge the local authorities in their forthcoming discussions with the Board to concentrate on seeking the further freedom held out to them, and then boldly to use it. As the price of wisdom is above rubies, so is this freedom to be valued above grants, block or percentage.
Previous page
