ECONOMY AND EDUCATION
[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.] SIR,—Your correspondent, " Old Reader," who protests against your " undue partiality to the teachers," fulls into a N•ery common error when he bases his protest on the fact that teachers' salaries are 150 per cent, higher than they were in pre-War days. He, himself, describes the pre-War salaries of teachers as "meagre "—how meagre, I fear, he hardly knows. Does he realize that, according to official figures, the average annual salary of a secondary schoolmaster, in 1914, was £175? And does he consider that to raise this average to 1437 10s. per annum is excessively generous ? Does he remember that, to obtain a post in a secondary school, • university degree is needed—a qualification not to be gained *without some expense and a modicum of intelligence ?
As to the May Report, one of its signatories, Mr. Latham, admitted publicly that the Committee had recommended the cuts in teachers' salaries without taking evidence germane to the matter. Could any more crushing indictment of the Committee be framed ?
Lastly, it is futile to compare the "struggling tradesman" with the professional man, unless other professional men besides teachers are included in the comparison. After all, the schoolmaster is, and must remain, an employee on a fixed scale of salaries. If " Old Reader" compares the "struggling tradesman" with the doctor, or the lawyer, he will find a much greater disproportion between the two sets of earnings.
t*t llornsey Lane, Ilighgerte, London, N.0.
Previous page
