Day Continuation Schools.

Oral Answers to Questions — Education. – in the House of Commons on 17th May 1922.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Mr Thomas Myers Mr Thomas Myers , Spen Valley

80.

asked the President of the Board of Education whether he has sanctioned arrangements under Sections 6 and 13 or any other Section of the Education Act, 1921, whereby students residing in one area, but employed in another, are required or empowered to attend day continuation schools provided by the local education authority in whose area, they are employed; whether these arrangements have met with local support, including that of associations of employers and employés; and whether he

Photo of Mr Herbert Fisher Mr Herbert Fisher , Combined English Universities

As the answer is somewhat long and contains a number of figures, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The total estimated expenditure from rates and taxes for the year 1922–23 in respect of services in England and Wales which fall within the purview of the Board of Education was given by the Geddes Committee as £89,850,000—to which were added further sums of £12,910,000 for expenditure from Scottish rates and from taxes, and £1,120,000 for Treasury grants to Universities and colleges, bringing the total up to £103,880,000. The figure of £89,850,000, based upon conjectural forecasts, was made up as follows:

on the latest returns from local education authorities in England and Wales, are as follows:

will examine, by conference with the local education authorities concerned or otherwise, the possibility of making similar arrangements for Greater London?

Photo of Mr Herbert Fisher Mr Herbert Fisher , Combined English Universities

An appointed day for the purpose of Section 10 of the Education Act, 1918, has been fixed as respects young persons resident in Kent but employed in London under which those young persons are under obligation to attend day continuation schools in London. I have no specific information as to the attitude, of the employers in London and of young persons resident in Kent but employed in London towards this arrangement. I believe that the authorities of other areas contiguous to London, with possible exception of Middlesex, do not desire to adopt a similar arrangement; and in present circumstances no useful purpose would be served by holding the conference which the hon. Member suggests.