S CHOOL FEES AND THE LONDON SCHOOL BOARD.
[To THE EDITOR OF THE " SPECTATOR."] 'SIR,—I think that Mr. Llewelyn Davies misses the point of the opponents of the new scheme for the recovery of school fees in London. The objection of those who have a practical acquaintance with the subject is not to the printed forms in use, which is a small matter, but to the final exclusion of the children who -come fee-less to school.
The new rules seem to be founded on the idea that it is more important to recover the small fee than to secure the attendance of the child, and is like cutting off a head to cure a toothache. Thus, each child who leaves school in London has cost the public, -on an average, at least £20. In other words, it has been thought worth this sum to turn out into the world a trained citizen, instead of a shiftless and dangerous ono. Our contention is that Pit is shortsighted economy to sacrifice what has cost so much -for the sake of twopence.
It would be premature to give a final judgment on the scheme until it has had a more extended trial ; but I may be per- mitted to point out that experience, as far as it has gone, -shows that its promoters will not have the courage of their -opinions. The numbers who have been actually excluded are ridiculously small, compared to what should have been if the rale had been enforced ; but there has been a sudden and -enormous increase in the numbers of the fees remitted. So few applications are refused, that it is hardly an exaggeration to say that free education can now be had for the asking. That is to say, nearly all can get it who are willing to submit to the -empty form of an inquiry into their circumstances. This means that we are travelling full speed to free schools. It is a result which I desire, but it ought to be accomplished by direct legislation, and not by a back-road, and after destoying 'the self-respect and independence of parents.—I am, Sir, Ac ,
Previous page
