850 REPORT—1904. 
authorities in forming their schemes of higher instruction to enter into ‘ consulta- 
tion’ with the Board of Education. 
But the most serious difficulty of all lies in what may be called the ‘ localisa~ 
tion’ of the individual teacher. The ratepayers who naturally wish to see their 
money’s worth will put this question to their county councillor: ‘If you rate me 
for sending teachers to a training college, what guarantee can you give me that 
they will return to teach in our schools, or that an equivalent number of teachers 
trained by other councils will do so?’ This question can probably be answered 
with satisfaction to the ratepayer in the case of the metropolis and some other 
large towns and counties, where the salaries of the teachers and the conditions of 
their employment are all that they can desire. But it is different in the rural 
counties, where plenty of good material for training is to be found, but where the 
schools are small and salaries, even under the new conditions, are likely to be 
moderate. There is also some danger that certain local authorities may prefer to 
secure teachers trained elsewhere by the offer of high salaries rather than train 
them themselves. Unless, therefore, some State machinery is devised for requiring 
each local authority to contribute its proper quota towards such training—a 
course which at present seems impracticable—the local authorities, either indi- 
vidually or in combination, will have to bind each teacher they train to serve 
exclusively in their schools for a reasonable number of years. Such a system of 
indenture may be found financially necessary, but it does not seem educationally 
desirable, and its result must be seriously prejudicial both to the free circulation 
of educational energy and to the interests of the weaker counties and boroughs. 
I have hitherto had in mind the training of teachers in training colleges from 
the age of eighteen and upwards; but it must be remembered that for a long time 
to come many of our elementary teachers, at all events, will require liberal 
facilities for training in special subjects elsewhere than at training colleges, and 
that the local authorities will be required to find funds both for this purpose and 
to supplement the Government grants for training pupil-teachers. This strengthens 
the case for throwing the cost of training colleges upon the national exchequer 
rather than on local rates. 
There is one argument against centralisation which deservedly has some 
weight—viz., the desirability of encouraging local experiments and variety of 
curricula in the training colleges. But there seems no good reason why this 
object should not be secured by widening the field of Government grants and 
aiding equally various types of training courses, as was recommended to the 
Board by the Departmental Committee which sat in 1901. Equality of standard 
may be maintained through the Government inspectorate without imposing 
uniformity of teaching on institutions that ought to suit the different needs of 
town and country, of large and small schools. 
In short, the present problem seems to be how to encourage and impel our 
local education authorities each to bear its fair share in the task of increasing the 
supply of competent teachers without forcing them all into one groove and 
depriving them of all initiative and independence. 
Mr. H. Macan suggested that there should be two classes of teachers—one 
highly trained, for the permanent work and higher posts corresponding to the 
manager or foreman of a business, and other persons of good general education, 
without pretensions to training, but sufficiently qualified for the temporary work 
of teaching in the lower grades. Such a division would be consonant with a 
state of things in which such a large number of teachers left the profession at a 
comparatively early age and took up other employments. This was an economic 
necessity, and the number of assistants was out of all proportion to the number 
of well-paid higher posts to which they might aspire. All these lower-grade 
teachers should have another trade or profession at their back. 
Mr. G. F. Daniell said that Mr. Hobhouse’s paper was very comprehensive. 
There was need of better provision of men to teach in secondary schools, and 
such teachers must be trained. The number of secondary teachers required was 
relatively small, and if adequate salaries were offered the supply would respond 
to the demand. But the demand now was for good athletes, who are sure 
