School Inspector Ils 233 by E.L. Edmonds

Author:E.L. Edmonds [Edmonds, E.L.]
Language: eng
Format: epub
Tags: Reference, General, Social Science, Sociology
ISBN: 9780415868631
Google: gkDJAwAAQBAJ
Barnesnoble:
Goodreads: 58502180
Publisher: Routledge
Published: 2013-10-16T00:00:00+00:00

The Sub-Committee further recommend that a reference be forwarded to the Stock-taking and Requisition Sub-Committee, asking them if they could devise some means by which the Board inspectors could be relieved from the duty of examining and checking requisitions.

This plea still has relevance today for some local inspectors, though properly interpreted, it can be turned to mutual advantage of school and local authority.

The qualms of the Board inspectors, however, were hardly allayed in view of the steadily increasing number of schools to be visited, and a letter by one of them, R. McWilliam, to the Board touched off the whole question again, for, on 27th October, 1890, a special sub-committee met to consider his letter and its implications. For some six years past, from 1880 to 1886, the inspectors had shared responsibility for inspection of the Board’s industrial schools;2 then, at the end of 1886, G. Ricks had been requested by the Board to be solely responsible. Inevitably, he had to ask his four colleagues for some relief from his ordinary duties, and, though hurt by the lack of consultation beforehand, they had shared out his schools among them. Mc William now asked if the industrial schools could be shared among the five inspectors again, believing that these (relatively) country schools could be inspected at ‘slack times of the year… when no Committees are sitting and there are no references to attend to’. The duties of Board inspectors were, therefore, asked for under specific headings, the replies, perhaps, expressing silently the burden carried by them. Quite apart from the long hours worked, the five inspectors had an impossible task to examine effectively an average of 87 schools a year. For purposes of comparison, T. G. Wright, sole inspector to the Bristol School Board, had only 35 schools to inspect; W. Brook, Hull’s ‘organising teacher and inspector’, had the coverage of 25 schools: it is not surprising, therefore, that the London School Board appointed a sixth inspector.

It is important to realise that the Board inspector’s function stemmed from the School Management Committee’s duty to ‘consider and report’ upon matters referred to it by the Board. Unlike the London Technical Education Board, which could make its own executive decisions without first reporting back to the L.C.C., this School Board committee could not act of its own accord, emergencies excepted. What it wanted from its inspector(s) was not a treatise upon matters referred but a definite recommendation from which executive decision could flow when confirmed by the Board. In this context, some six phases of work undertaken by the Board inspectors may be discerned, all of which were likely to grow in size and importance.

The prime duty was that of visiting, inspecting or examining, and reporting on every school department under the Board at least once a year. It was largely objective in character at first; and the ‘periodical and systematic examination’ applied to the children: on their standards of attainment the class teachers were judged. Reports upon teachers individually, or departments and

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.