1. &i- K ^:>^ 6.'*'*^ *, S^'- .d^ <^%\ NOTES ON THE BELIEF TO BE EXPECTED FROM LORD SANDON'S EDUCATION BILL TO VOLUNTAEY SCHOOLS FOR THIE IPOOK/BST OHlILIDK/EI^T- BY JOSEPH NUNN, M.A., Rector of S. Thomas's, Ardwick; Member of the Manchester School Board. MANCHESTER : GUARDIAN LETTERPRESS AND LITHOGRAPHIC WORKS. 1876. ■^Hr' MEMORANDA ON CM STcrtr Sanbnu's ISilL It is souerht in this Bill to remove the "injustice " at present done Lord Sandon's . . , . , speech in intro- to schools for the poorest children, by those restrictions which ducing the Bill, prevent them from receiving the full amount of the Government Grant earned by them. The restrictions are, The restrictions. 1. Subsection (2) of clause 97 of the Education Act of 1870. The Act of 1870. " Such grant shall not for any year exceed the income of the school for that year which was derived from voluntary contributions, and from school fees, and from any sources other than the Parliamentary grant." 2. Art. 32 (a) I, 2, of the Education Code, 1876. The Education ^ ^ ^ ' ' , Code. " The grant which may be claimed by the managers is reduced; — {a) By its excess above, — 1. The income of the school from fees, rates, and subscrip- tions ; and 2. One-half the expenditure on the annual maintenance of the school." It is to be observed that the Code substitutes the word The Act altered " rates " for the words in the Act " any sources other than the ^^ ^ Parhamentary grant." By this means all local endowments, which are but capitalised Endowments, subscriptions, are prevented from being reckoned as capable of meeting the grant. All other miscellaneous sources of income, such as the hire of schools, &:c., are excluded by the same means. Thus the Code, which is the work of the Education Depart- ment, increases the stringency of the Act. A further injus- But further. Art. 32 (a) 2 of the Code, above recited, contains a restriction which inflicts greater injustice upon poor schools than even the restriction in the Act of 1870. Schools are required by this subsection not only to provide a sum equal to the grant earned, but actually to expend twice the amount of the grant to be received, before they can know what it will be. Thus, if a school earns ^100 and has only spent ^180 during the previous school year, ^10 is deducted from the grant. The managers would be able to employ usefully the whole of the grant earned during the next year, into the accounts of which it actually passes ; but they are not allowed to receive it because they have not ventured to spend twice the amount the previous year. The Grant made It should be noted that under the New Code the grants are more precarious. j j 1 • , renaered much more precarious than ever they were before. The self-willed absence of a single scholar may, by destroying the estimated proportion of the number of scholars in the higher standards, or by reducing the proportion of passes in the class examination below 50 per cent., deprive the school of a lump sum equal to ,'oth or even lib. of its grant, and yet the managers are to run the risk of spending in advance twice the amount expected to be earned. It will thus be seen that the restriction of Art. 32 («) 2, which forms no part of the Act of 1870, and which is simply the work of the Department, is much more injurious to poor schools than the clause of the Act of 1870, towards the mitigation of which sec. 13 of Lord Sandon's Act is directed. Art. 32 (a)l2 clearly contains within it the restriction of clause 97 of the Act of 1870, and this, as well as Art. 32 (a) i, would of course have to be modified if sec. 13 of Lord Sandon's Act should be passed. Fines on Church The fines on church schools for the years 1874-5 under Art 32 (a) I amounted to ^8,874. os. 4d., but under Art. 32 (a) 2 (New Code) were ;^ 13,221. i6s. 9d. The whole amount being ^^22,095. 17s. id. This amount is inconsiderable as compared with the total amount of the grant to church schools, ^689,636. i6s. id., but it is made of great importance by the fact that the loss falls almost exclusively upon the poorest schools. It cripples their strength and hinders their full efficiency ; it discourages the teachers and harasses the managers. It is probable that the loss incurred will be greater under the more liberal terms of the New Code. It remains to inquire into the reasons which may be alleged Reasons for re- ^ , taming the re- for retaining these restrictions, and the arguments which may strictions. be urged for their withdrawal. I. It is argued that imperial aid should be met by local ccn- Local effort to be ... ^, . . -I, T 1 /-111 ■< 1 • stimulated. tributions. This is well. In the case of school boaras this condition should be exacted. But it is to be remembered that voluntary schools are precluded from receiving assistance from the rates. Mr. W. E. Forster in his original bill held out the promise The "compro- mise." of assistance to voluntary schools from the rates. He after- wards withdrew this promise under the terms of a " compro- See speeches by mise." This compromise (which has been well-nigh forgotten Gladstone,' and • • iVI r Forster in by its authors and the parties to it, who have strangely come to 1870. apply the word " compromise " to matters in the bill which con- tain no compromise at all, but were simply concessions on the side of the church party) was to the following effect, that instead of the promised aid from the rates, voluntary schools should have an additional grant from the Government, taken at a maximum of 150 per cent. In the face of this compromise the voluntary schools in poor districts are deprived of their earnings (including the promised additional 50 per cent, or some part of it) because they have not a sufficient amount of local contributions to meet the grant. The local contributions are taken away and the additional " The tale of the grant is promised in lieu of them, and then the additional grant is refused because of the deficiency of local contributions. This is singular justice indeed. Voluntary schools have the right to look to Mr. Forster for the removal of this grievance. 6 At present he appears to set himself in opposition even to Lord Sandon's partial mitigation of it. Mr. Forster, on 2. But Mr. Forsterhas an argument of his own. " He should the introduction . . , ^ . . , , ■,. ofLord Sandon's look with jealousy upon the prmciple of requirmg the locality to find as much money as the central Government, as it would raise the danger of making it a general bureaucratic system or lead to a great deal of extravagance which arose from persons spending, not their own money, but that of the taxpayers." The making of the system " bureaucratic " by the substitution of additional imperial aid, for aid from local rates is, as has been observed, his own work. Extravagance to But what of the danger of "extravagance?" The total e iscourage . g^j^Qyj^|. ^f ^^ie extravagance as regards church schools, as has been shown, would for the years 1874-5 have been ^22,095. 17s. id., bestowed upon the poorest schools in the country. This is just about the amount spent by the Manchester School Board alone, under the extravagant and wasteful School Board system inaugurated in 1870, for the present year. ^'Extravagance" indeed ! It is not reckoned extravagant, or leading to extravagance to give a grant of ^500 to a school which can raise £700 by school pence alone ; but it would be extravagant to give the same sum to a poor school educating the same number of children and which could only raise ^300 by fees. No better plan of encouraging extravagance could have possibly been devised than the present system of giving to the rich and starving the poor. 3. But another argument against relieving poor schools from the injustice under which they labour has been invented. The Liberation The Liberation Society write thus : — °'^'^*^* " The proposal to double in poor districts the amount paid to schools from the Parliamentary grant (clause 1 3) will reheve the supporters of the Denominational Schools from the obligation to contribute to the cost of their maintenance." The "Dissenting ^he " Committee of Dissenting Deputies " write thus :— Deputies." c jj^g j^j^ provides for additional payments to schools in localities designated poor districts, which districts will, the committee believe, include a large portion of the country. By means of such additional payments it will not only be possible but easy to carry on Denominational Schools without any voluntary subscriptions whatever." Observe, first, how the proposal to cease making deductions see Note, from grants fairly earned is described as " doubling the amount paid ; " making " additional payments." The amounts deducted in 1874-5 from Church Schools were altogether ^22,095. 17s. id. The remission of these fines, say the Deputies, would enable Church people to " carry on " their schools '^ without any voluntary contributions.'' Singular arithmetic indeed ! The voluntary contributions in Church Schools for 1874-5, ^vere ^470.375. i8s. 3d., but the remission of ;^22,095. 17s. id. would have enabled the schools to dispense with voluntary contributions altogether ! What is the truth of the matter ? Large schools in towns, where large fees are obtainable, arc already self-supporting. Of this kind of school the '' Dissenting Deputies " have chiefly had experience. (Mr. Brodie's Report on British Schools.) The 1^'"^ Book iseg, 70, pp. 312, 313. sects represented by the Liberation Society and the Committee of Deputies have done little or nothing for the education of the poor, and to their utter ignorance on the subject, rather than to wilful misrepresentation we must put down their ridiciTlous mis-statements above quoted. There is no doubt that an additional number of schools in Self-supporting 1 ■,-,■, -.r • -r 1 schools. large towns would become self-supportmg if the present re- strictions were removed, but the enormous majority of schools would require as at present large subscriptions to keep them up. It should be added that it is very desirable that schools should become self-supporting. The denominations by pro- viding the buildings, by incurring all risks of failure, by con- tributing the labour of management, which School Boards have to pay for, do far more towards meeting the cost of education than is represented by the meagre proportion of time left for religious instruction by the time-table conscience clause. If it should be found that the grant is too large, it should be reduced all round ; but the possibility of the grant being too large should not be given as a reason for doing injustice to poor Schools. If any change is needed in the direction of economy, it is one which should reduce the grant payable to large Schools where high fees are taken. The reasons which may be alleged for retaining the restric- tion of the grant contained in Art. 32 {a), have been dealt with. It remains to consider the argument for retaining that contained in Art. 32 (a) 2. ^ nditurifin^A^rt ^^ ^^ Supposed that by means of this article the expenditure 32 («) 2. of the School will be brought under review, and managers will be prevented from spending money upon " School treats, &c." It is a vain device, or at least can operate only against poor Schools, who have the least money to waste upon such luxuries. Where the School fees exceed the amount of the grant, the excess in the fees can be spent in any way the managers think lit. If ^20 be spent on a School feast, the deficiency thus created in the School funds is filled up by the Government grant. The check is no check at all. But if a poor School, to encourage attendance on the examination-day, expends a few shillings in a tea party, a deduction is made from the grant. The safeguard against wrong expenditure simply becomes a means of perplexing and harassing the managers of poor Schools. Schools would If the Department are so wedded to this article that they know what they have to look for. will not part with it, it should at any rate run thus : — 1 he grant is given conditionally upon its being properly spent during the following year ; if it is not so expended, a deduction will be made from the grant next falling due. Arguments for The arguments for retaining the restrictions upon poor stJktIons.°^ ^^' Schools having been disposed of, the reasons for removing them may be briefly expressed. 1. They are inconsistent with the principle of "payment by results." 2. They are inconsistent with the terms of the " Compromise " made in passing the Act of 1870. 3. They prevent the thorough efficiency of Schools in poor districts ; discouraging the teachers and harassing the managers. 4. They encourage school "farming." The managers fearing the great risks thrown upon them, put the risk upon the teachers, who virtually thus become managers. 5- Immorality in the matter of School accounts is promoted. (See Blue Book, 1874-5, p. 209.) It remains only to answer the question — Will Clause 13 of Lord Sandon's ■' remedy. Lord Sandon's Bill remove the evils complained of? The proposal is to exempt certain districts from the operation of the Articles complained of. If the definition of poor districts were complete and exhaustive, it would be a very roundabout process to remove an injustice. But it is incomplete. Many schools for the poorest children are found in districts which would not come under the definition of a " poor district." For example, the schools in Ancoats, and Deansgate, and Angel Meadow, in Manchester, would not be relieved by this clause. The argument for the Clause taken from Clause 97 (latter part) of the Act of 1870 is misleading. There the question is one of giving additional grants to poor districts, apart from the earnings of the schools ; here it is simply a question of giving poor schools what they have earned. The only fair course is to give in all cases what is earned under the conditions prescribed, and if too much is earned to reduce the grant all round. Thus fair play will be given to the principle of "payment by results," which is intelligible and simple. The proposal contained in Clause 13 of Lord Sandon's Bill Conclusion. would only secure the unequal mitigation of an injustice which ought to be removed altogether. Relief from Local Rates. if the restrictions discussed above are not removed, it will be only fair that the whole question of the " compromise " should be re-opened, and aid be sought for Voluntary Schools from the rates. This would involve questions of much difficulty. There need be no difficulty, however, in giving relief to Elementary Schools in the matter of the payment of rates. Board Schools as well as Voluntary Schools are subjected to this payment of rates. 10 One of the worst features of the liability to rates on the part of Schools is that the Overseers and Assessment Committees adopt varying modes of action. In some districts Elementary Schools are illegally exempted. In others they are taxed very lightly, in others very heavily. The writer of this paper is interested in a School which, in 1873, pa-id no taxes, and in 1874, £$. 5s. In 1875 the overseers raised the amount to ^16, and the Assessment Committee after- wards to ^23. The School is threatened with a still higher rate next year. . Reasons for The reasons for exempting Voluntary Public Elementary exemption. Schools are : — 1. They cannot be carried on for the emolument of the persons responsible for the expenditure. 2. They are instrumental in relieving the rates, since the expense of providing school accommodation would fall on the rates, were such schools closed. 3. Sunday and Ragged Schools are at present exempted. A clause relieving all Public Elementary Schools from local rates ought to be embodied in the New Bill. Note. — Not only do the " Liberation Society " and the " Dissenting Deputes " speak of Lord Sandon's proposal in Sec. 13 as giving " additional grants," •'doubhng the grants," &c., but even the School Board Chronicle (June 17th), speaks of " double grants to schools in Shoreditch." This is sheer nonsense. What school ever had half its grant deducted under the restrictions sought to be removed .^ What school could Hve on the Government Grant and half as much again, except, possibly, a very large infants' school .'* When it becomes possible for schools generally to live on the Government Grant and half the amount in addition, it will be quite time for the grant to be reduced all round. 11 Meanwhile, such a prodigy of success and economy as might be found to hve on such an income, would deserve everything it could get. The fines are commonly amounts varying from a few shillings to ^30 or ^40. The loss of the amounts may not always ruin the schools, but they are discouraged and kept down by these petty hindrances. This may please the Liberation Society ; but all lovers of fair play would gladly see them removed. It may be remarked that no such conditions are attached to Science and Art r 1 <-. • -I * -r>. 1-1 Department. the grants from the Science and Art Department which are strictly regulated on the principle of " payment by results," ^ N ■1^ 6 ■/•^ 'if^o, .." ''^*, °^^^^ . ^T «as^ir' Q