Schools : eighth report from the Select Committee on Estimates together with the Minutes of Evidence taken before Sub-Committee E and Appendices, Session 1952-1953.

  • Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons. Select Committee on Estimates
Date:
1953
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Schools : eighth report from the Select Committee on Estimates together with the Minutes of Evidence taken before Sub-Committee E and Appendices, Session 1952-1953. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    39/256 (page 19)
    17 December, 1952.] [Continued. that be true also of some of these schools you have in mind in Scotland? It is not due entirely to the fact that the people have been removed, but that the children have been removed to other schools?—To some extent in the Highland areas that would be true, but only to a limited extent. Whereas formerly one school was dealing with all its pupils, now a certain measure of centrali- sation for secondary schools has_ been achieved. But in areas where transport is so difficult, as in the Highlands, even cen- tralisation of secondary schoolchildren presents difficulties, and therefore it has not been achieved everywhere. Chairman. 202. You have explained what you mean by surplus accommodation, but I would like to find out what you mean by crowding up. To what extent have you had to crowd children in order to provide these 22,000 places?—Where authorities have had classes much under the maximum permitted by the Code, they have sometimes allowed those classes to grow rather than build a new school. Sometimes these expedients are only temporary until such time as new schools can be built. 203. Does that mean you have got 60 in a class?—No. 204. What does it mean?—It means classes which were formerly beneath the maximum prescribed by the Code have gone up to the maximum and sometimes slightly beyond. 205. The maximum is what?—45 in the _ primary schools. 206. Is the surplus accommodation now all disposed of? Have you no surplus accommodation now in Scotland?—One would not say that there is no surplus accommodation. Unfortunately, part of the surplus accommodation that remains is of no use. For example, if there is still surplus accommodation in a Highland school and no children to use it, then that would just remain as surplus accommodation. Mr. Malcolm MacPherson. 207. Could I ask a question about para- graph 2 in general? I would gather from the figures given here that if you add 114,000, 21,000 and 4,000, you would get the total size of the problem so far as you see it as a problem existing at this particular moment—about 140,000 places. Would that be right? That is stating it rather differ- ently from the way you state it in the table?—Are you quoting from the second paragraph? 208. In the third sub-paragraph of para- graph 2 the increase necessary is 114,000 places; in the next sub-paragraph 21,000, and in the next 4,000?—Yes. 209. Your real problem would be the total of those three, so far as the building programme is concerned?—(Sir William Murrie.) Yes: these three, together with the existing deficiency, define approximately our requirements by 1957. There is a certain amount of difficulty in distinguishing pre- cisely between the high birth rate problem and the new housing area problem. 210. I was going to ask you whether you would elaborate a little more your statement about the high birth rate prob- lem. The second last sub-paragraph of paragraph 2 says: ‘“‘ The increased demand for school places due to the high post- war birth rate will be only temporary, and in many areas the need will be met either by using surplus places”, and so on. What is the general policy about this problem? You do not explain fully whether you are basing your attack on it on the notion that it is temporary and therefore perhaps you are going to strain existing accom- modation, or whether you are going to make a special attempt to settle it as a new problem?—We are trying to steer a middle course between doing nothing to meet the higher birth rate, and therefore having a very awkward situation during the next seven or eight years, and providing accom- modation simply to meet the higher. birth rate, which after that time would be com- pletely useless. We are neither going to one extreme nor the other. 211. When you look at your general problem of building in the future, the bulge occasioned by the higher birth rate is only temporary and incidental from your point of view?—Yes. 212. Your main problem would so far as possible take that in your stride?—Yes. Chairman. 213. In regard to the question of the number of places required as a result of the raising of the school leaving age, you say in the second sub-paragraph of para- graph 2: “About 41,000 of the 67,000 places required as a result of the raising of the school leaving age.” Then on the next page, in the table headed “The general building position”, you mention the number of places required as a result of raising the age is 44,700. I do not quite understand that. Ought not that to be 67,000, if you say in that sub-paragraph on the first page there are 67,000 places required? How does it come about that the figure quoted in the table is 44,700?— I think we were taking away the 22,000 places that had been found in surplus accommodation. We regard this table as a statement of the new building needed, and we therefore subtract the 22,000 from the 67,000. Chairman.|] Is there anything else any Member wants to ask on that first page? Miss Ward. 214. Could I ask one question on the last sub-paragraph of paragraph 2 with regard