THE EDUCATION BILL

Press, Volume LXXII, Issue 21708, 15 February 1936, Page 15

THE EDUCATION BILL

PROPOSED EXTENSIONS ; TO COST £2.000.000

Il opposition by labour

jir orwuL wi^Rtess,^. February 14, 9.2 p.m.) ( .RUGBY, February 13, ,f In the House of Commons this afternoon the president of the Bpard of Education, Mr Oliver Stanley, moved the second reading of the Education. Bill, the principal object of which is the raising of the school leaving age. from 14 to 15. The measure also provides for the expenditure on buildings and for financial aid tp voluntary schools. The estimated cost of the proposed ex.ension of the-,educational services m £2,100*000 a year, of which £1,485,000 will be a charge on the Exchequer and £635,000 will tail , on local rates. The raising of the school leaving Jge will take effect from September, 1939. The Minister explained that the reason for the delay was that it would not be possible for the vast majority of educational authorities w be ready earlier. Some 2500 additional teachers would have to be trained, buildings would have to be j®larged and schools would have to he reorganised. Dealing with the clauses providing for exemptions where beneficial ®tojPJoyn;ent is available, which he “to was. H l6 most contentious part bill, Mr Stanley explained Exemption was intended to W»c t ular, and hot general. It ♦i.t exemption of a parhcifcrtfiiM for a particular job, and jne oil] gave local authorities power pmu* ■ no trade into which a en tered was an unregulated ha* 1 * Muster added that they still ato convince parents that an £?**** at school for their chff2/as really worth while and thJiii- - e a Permanent effect on Thifiviu 68 ’ Projects and happiness, y - marked a real and sub--Btep educational progress, that a r ?ther, wonderful thing wopwlt 1 6 circumstances ,of the thin» were Proposing any such Wm-I* > ben eisewhere Governments rumours of wars « revolutions, repression, crises toto censorship. aiovwi r^ ec i ion of the bill was H ftV° r the Labour party by Mr the hui * s ® m i.th. who claimed that loolcp*V to w bich educationists had wS a i- gerly ’ had b £® n re ’ to av ea u hj disillusionment ahd dis- . P ovisin«. C < ltlcised in particular the daimp<? nS for , exemption which, he ag e ,it!r; f Wo . u ld render the higher - Sir pit BU bstantially inoperative. Wel(yimo* C *u^ r . r * s ’ l° r the Liberals, tbe as a great edupar eised th^ Vance ’ b ut he also critihi neexemption clauses.