II. SOME REASONS FOR THE SCHOOL BOARD RATE.

THE farewell speech of Lord George Hamilton to the members of the London School Board gave to them and to the public at large the exceedingly valuable criticism of an authority altogether above and beyond the strife of party feeling. From his position as Chairman Lord George had every opportunity of observing and judging the work, both internal and external, and the result of his observations has enabled him to point at once to the great obstacle to satisfactory results. "I will frankly tell the Board what I consider to be the strong and weak points of the system. Here you have to discharge the function not of one School Board, but practically of eleven School Boards, and the system of School Board administration is most centralized and concentrated." And he then goes on to mention the Board's custom of appointing large Committees and of insisting on placing before them an enormous mass of detail which party spirit demands shall be debated and fought over, instead of being disposed of. Lord George pays, indeed, a well-deserved tribute to those members whose individual work and devotion keep the unwieldy Educational machine going, but as he truly says: "London is growing; and as London grows, so the Board must grow and the work must increase, and if it increases beyond a certain point, such a strain will be put upon individual members as to prevent any except those who are able to give up the whole of their time to the duties, from taking part in School Board work." Again, he said on another occasion: "In my opinion, the cumulative vote tended to exceptionally heavy educational expenditure in London and elsewhere, inasmuch as it enabled any number of enthusiastic faddists in a particular locality, by working together, to secure the return of their own representative.' That such is the result, a glance at the composition of the first Board in 1870 and of the present one will conclusively show. In those early days many of the members were men of experience in Local Government (as it was then understood): Chairmen of Quarter Sessions, members of Vestries and of Boards of Guardians, who were habitually in touch with all sorts and conditions of men-the very essence of a good administrative Board. Now, after twenty-five years, each triennial election has resulted in the return of more and more "faddists," of men and women pledged on party platforms to promote as far as in them lies some special object or craze, the relation of which to Elementary Education, as understood by Mr. Forster, is very difficult to discover. To these enthusiasts the practical work of the Board and its Committees is only important in so far as it affords them a

peg on which to display their private banner; and, owing to a lamentable freedom of debate, a question of ordinary repairs to a school, or a new description of umbrella rack, or the size of a piece of linoleum for a teacher's room may develop into a disquisition on socialism, the union rate of wages, temperance teaching, and possibly even the ethics of Christianity! Doubtless, many valuable speeches are made on these occasions, many interesting opinions are advanced; but when the original question is put to the vote, it is apt to have become obscured, and is probably referred back for further discussion a week hence. In the same way, members who have been sent to the Board to push one of the many "fads" of the day are naturally too much occupied with their special hobby to give the business paper before them more than a glance, and having little interest in, and less knowledge of, the schemes proposed, are reduced to voting on merely party lines, thereby abrogating their right to a voice in the great questions of Expenditure and Administration. For practically it is only these two questions which really interest the London ratepayer; the religious discussions of the Board, their midnight sittings, even the popular piano or violin schemes do no more than arrest his attention for a moment: what comes home to him and remains an ever-present grievance is the Rate! Board succeeds Board, and each is more progressive in the matter of expense than the last-impelled thereto by the combined and increasing demands made by the Education Department, until it is impossible to separate extravagance from the natural growth of Elementary Education. As matters stand, therefore, the Rate asked for by the Board is applied to so many objects outside and beyond the original Elementary Education, that it seems only fair to point out to the ratepayer that his one shilling in the pound does purchase more than what was ever intended for the children of London, and that the Education Department and others are responsible for the "extras."

In the many criticisms which have been passed on the Board's expenditure great stress has always been laid on the excessive salaries paid to the teachers, and the extravagant nature of the school buildings. Little heed has been taken of the amount of extra work of which the School Board for London has gratuitously become possessed: gratuitously, because in no case (except in the case of the Joint Committee on Manual Training) has the Board ever considered the extra time and expense involved by the new duties of which the Education Department, the Home Office, and the Poor Law Board are only too glad to be relieved. Nor has there ever been a quid pro quo. More work, more responsibilities have been added: and all at the expense of the rates to a body which is practically under the control of no department of the State. It is interesting to investigate how this came about. In the early stages of the Board's work

·

great praise was justly bestowed on the work of its Statistical Committee," which made a careful census on the basis of the Government census of 1871." Having made for the first time a thorough educational census "they established an organization for carrying out their compulsory Bye-Laws;" and the increase in attendance in 1872-3, when compulsion had fairly got to work, was more than double the increase in 1871-72. So far, so good; the "man in the street" was quite satisfied that a good beginning had been made: more children were brought into school and he was not inclined to cavil at an expenditure which was on the whole very moderate. But surely now was the time for the Home Office to be approached or even to step in, and in acknowledgment of the excellent work done for them to ask each year for an estimate of the probable cost of this new expenditure, which should not fall on the ratepayer under the deceptive title of Elementary Education. In 1879, however, the Bye-Laws Committee in issuing its report took occasion (as a sort of excuse for the then rather large expenditure) to allude to the "Salaries of visitors (by far the heaviest item in the expenditure) being nearly three-quarters of the whole expenditure upon the Bye-Laws." It is true that in 1874 the Board of that time decided to apportion the number of children per visitor at about 3,000. But this was when the work was quite new, when there was a deficiency of School places, and when compulsion was difficult to enforce "in the huge complicated and migratory population of the metropolis." It was an Educational war that was to be waged against the poverty and ignorance of the parents. A strong army of visitors or "Boardmen" were engaged, not for all time, but to combat these at the outset, and skirmish in the hitherto unknown streets and dark alleys of bad neighbourhoods.

But it was not only by the establishment of new Board Schools that the Bye-Law's work was helped. Already in the "Elementary Education Act, 1870," power was given to a School Board to appoint officers to bring children before two Justices or a Magistrate, in order that they might be sent to an Industrial School: and the first step taken by the School Board for London was to enter into arrangements with voluntary Industrial Schools throughout the country. When the Board found that the accommodation in existing Schools was not sufficient, the Board Industrial Schools at Brentwood and Upton House, and the ship Shaftesbury at Grays were started, "and an additional staff of Industrial Officers entertained." Their duties are so well described in the first Special Report of the Industrial Schools Committee that it is worth quoting in extenso.

"Since the appointment of these officers the magistrates have found it convenient to make use of their services to inquire into the great majority of cases of juvenile delinquency brought before them by the police-constable; and, in addition, private individuals largely avail themselves of the services of the

officers in cases which come under their notice. After the cases have been investigated by the officers they are brought weekly before a Sub-Committee of the Industrial Schools Committee. Every case is carefully read over, and considered, and a decision given. The general result is that the whole working of the Industrial Schools Act in London is now under the supervision of the School Board."

So that up to 1879 the School Board for London had not only formed a "Census Department," but also established an Educational Police and pari passú with the expenditure of the Statistical Committee went up year by year that of the Industrial Schools. So that if Lady Day, 1879, may be taken as a fair date when the work of the School Board for London may be said to have got into working order, and a comparison of expenditure made with Lady Day 1895, the two totals work out for Bye-Laws and Industrial Schools combined for 1879 £48,862, for 1895 £90,070.

But it must not be thought that the School Board for London has not occasionally "winced" at the increased demands it makes under this head on the ratepayers. In 1889 the then Chairman reported that "He was not prepared to say that judicious reforms might not be carried out in the Bye-Laws Department. He looked forward to their being able to do with fewer officers." Of course, too, there have been Special Committees appointed to consider the whole question of the Bye-Laws Administration, the last in 1891 which, recommending an increase in salaries all round, goes on to say: "With this increase in School population there has been a corresponding addition both as to the amount and the responsibility of a Superintendent's work. A Superintendent of visitors is practically the head of a large department having the control of a large number of visitors and office staff: besides which he is brought into contact with the members for his Division, who are subject to change every three years, and who, for their knowledge of Divisional work, must, in the first instance, to a great extent depend upon the experience and knowledge of the Superintendents." Here speaks the permanent official, whose idea of the greatest good to the greatest number is in annual increase of numbers and salary of his staff. In fact, let him speak for himself in a recent Memorial for a further increase of salary:

66

Practically, we are regarded as the Chief Official Representatives of the Board in our respective Divisions, not only by Magistrates, with whom we are in such constant intercourse, but by Local Authorities, Boards of Guardians, Rescue Societies, and other Philanthropic and Social Organizations having for their object the amelioration of the condition of the poor of London. Our position, necessarily of comparative isolation in the midst of our duties, renders it obligatory constantly to exercise independent, immediate and correct judgment in many matters of importance, rendering our position one of constant strain and anxiety."

On the other hand, only this year the National Association of

Voluntary Teachers in London regretted "the present unsatisfactory school attendance in the Metropolis, and believes much of the irregularity is owing to the School Board Superintendents devoting their energies to the multiplication of new schools rather than to the filling of old ones." What are the facts? Since 1891 and the "Free Education Act," regularity of attendance has crept up in London from 77-7 per cent. to 79.8 per cent.; but everyone admits this is not good enough. "The statistics of attendance and of regularity in the French schools are remarkable. . . . In December, 1894, there were 94 per cent. scholars present in the higher grade schools, 90 per cent. in the primary schools, and 80 per cent. in the infant schools." So that while in France the school attendance officers get the children to school, in London the School Board officers are constantly conferring with magistrates and exercising independent judgment on abstruse questions of philanthropy. Were the duties of these visitors or "Boardmen " better defined and limited to the work for which they were originally intended, an economy would be at once effected, and the more purely philanthropic objects might be safely left to the many charitable institutions which no body of officials has yet been able to render unnecessary. Such societies would do the work as well, and certainly cheaper.

But if duties that were originally not intended to fall to the School Board for London have been thus lightly undertaken, how has the legitimate work in the two great spending departments been carried out, viz., in the Works Department and in the School Management Committee?

In 1874 the first London School Board took steps to erect 99 schools. These are the schools which are now known as the old schools (as if they had been built in the last century), and which the ratepayers are now being taxed for rebuilding. The present Chairman of the Works Committee thus describes some of them. “Great difficulties have been met with in carrying out much needed improvements to a very large number of old (?) schools to bring them up to modern requirements. . . . Far more time and labour is spent both in preparing plans and in carrying out the work of enlarging an old school than in designing or building a new school." It is well that the Board have the ratepayers to fall back upon to provide this extra expenditure which is now so mixed up with the ordinary expenditure as to be difficult to estimate. But that the sum is very large goes without saying. But why was there such a hurry to build these 99 schools? As an experimental work and bristling with details, common-sense demanded extreme caution in fixing on a site, and in planning a new school; bat in the hurry there was bad planning, which has now to be corrected. In 1888 there was a special Committee of the Board to inquire into the