SENIOR SCHOOLS IN RURAL AREAS [To the Editor of THE
SPECTATOR.]
Sn1,—The two letters in your last issue do little to justify the policy of giving a preference to non-provided senior schools in places where only a single senior school is required.
Lt.-Col. R. E. Martin says that non-provided senior schools which receive building grants are completely under public control, except in respect of religious instruction. But that exception has far-reaching consequences. What exactly is involved ?
It means that no " reserved " teacher can be appointed by the Local Education Authority, unless the managers of the denominational school "are satisfied as to the teacher's fitness and competence " to give denominational instruction. Moreover, the managers may cause even a " reserved " teacher to be removed, " if the managers are of the opinion that any reserved teacher has failed to give religious instruction efficiently and suitably."
These' managerial powers severely circumscribe the freedom of the Education Authority. Such conditions may be tolerable where all the children gathered in a particular school are of one religious faith, and such conditions may be found in large towns. But it is notorious that in the villages and small towns the population is divided in matters of religion. Conse- quently, the question must be asked in all seriousness—Is- it fair to erect a new Anglican senior school in a single-school area, where a considerable proportion of the school population is not attached to the Established Church ?
In many rural places denominational pressure is exceedingly strong. I have before me a circular letter addressed to a Local Education Authority by a Diocesan Board of Education demand- ing as a right what is really a matter of grace. This Board proposes to build four senior schools, basing its claim upon the fact that the great majority of the existing elementary schools are Anglican, but oblivious of the other fact that no Council schools could have been provided. Because the L.E.A. does not at once fall in with the demands of the Diocesan Board, they are circularised to the following effect : " Where a L.E.A. declines to allow such schools to be provided, it is adopting a standpoint at variance with the Act (of 1936)."
This is a complete misrepresentation of the Act, which is purely permissive in regard to building grants.
The circular goes on to say that " if the co-operation so much desired between the Church and the L.E.A. is to be maintained and furthered, it is obvious that the L.E.A. must be prepared to enter into afflreement with the Church in the
matter of the provision of these schools." The Diocesan Board says "Must," where the law says " May."
The situation is the more disturbing because claims are also being put forward that all teachers in schools aided with building grants shall be " reserved." Obviously, that is against the whole spirit of the recent Act, which, recognising that denominational teaching would be continued, made provision that a sufficient number of teachers might be reserved for the purpose. If all the teachers nominally appointed by the L.E.A. are to be subject to a denominational test, those in the teaching profession who are not members of the Church of England are going to find their opportunities for service and advance- ment seriously diminished.—Yours faithfully,
Previous page
