734 TRANSACTIONS OF SECTION L, 
16. ‘I doubt if any other civilised country enforces admission at the age of 
five.’ 
17. ‘The qualification of the Inspecting Staff and of the chief officials of the 
L.E.A. should be defined by statute.’ 
18. ‘The abolition of autonomous areas. County Authorities would then be 
masters in their own house, and would be able to co-ordinate different grades 
of education. Some of these are parochial in the extreme.’ 
19. ‘The provision of share of cost of erection and enlargement of schools 
should be by the Imperial Exchequer.’ 
20. ‘Small authorities should be grouped, and the number of L.E.A.s would 
then be reduced; the level of both elected and paid administrators would then 
be higher.’ 
21. The necessity for smaller classes is insisted upon by nearly every writer. 
22. The last reply which I shall quote is an exceptional one: ‘ Kducationally 
the Act is a success.’ 
I may sum up as follows the impression left on my mind by the study of all 
the replies, of which I have given only a few examples. 
1. The Act appears to give greater satisfaction in the Counties than in the 
County Boroughs and Boroughs and Urban Districts, although even in the 
Counties the position of the smaller rural schools is a cause of dissatisfaction. 
2. That in the Boroughs there is, on the whole, a preponderance of opinion in 
favour either of an Authority elected ad hoc, or a more liberal exercise of the 
‘ power of co-option. 
3. That there is a preponderance of opinion that the appointments of the 
school teachers should in all cases rest in the hands of the L.E.A. 
4. That there is a tendency under the present system, except in centres of 
large population, to restrict the choice of teachers to those who have received 
their education locally, and that the effect of such restriction is detrimental. 
5. That greater freedom in educational matters is advisable. The effect of 
the present system is to produce a dull uniformity, although it is doubtful 
whether the Head Teachers themselves or the Board of Education are most to 
blame. 
6. That an increase in the number of vocational schools is not desirable, 
unless great care is taken that only those scholars are admitted who have 
received a sound general education. 
7. That one of the greatest hindrances to progress is the large size of the 
classes. 
8. That there should be greater delegation of powers to the Education Com- 
mittees, and that the L.E.A. should have complete control over all forms of 
education within its own area. 
9. That a Redistribution Bill in the matter of areas is desirable, especially 
in the relation of urban areas to the rural districts connected with them. 
10. That the dearth of fully qualified teachers cannot be remedied until the 
profession is made sufficiently attractive by increased emoluments and more 
rapid promotion. Mere increase in the number of Training Colleges is no 
remedy. 
11. And, lastly, there is a consensus of opinion that a greater proportion of 
the cost of education should be borne by the Treasury, and that the danger to 
education arising from the rapid rate of increase in the Education Rate is a very 
real one. If education in this country is to be successful it must be made 
popular. This is impossible when every step in advance means an addition to the 
local burdens. 
I am afraid that the tenor of this correspondence does little to modify the 
pessimistic views to which I have previously called attention. Regarded in bulk 
it conveys the idea that the writers are endeavouring to make the best of a bad 
case, although, as shown by the last reply quoted (swpra), the race of Mark 
Tapleys does not appear to be entirely extinct. 
I wish it had been possible to obtain the confidential opinions of H.M.I.s, 
but I, at all events, am not one who would dare to question the gods, the dis- 
tinguishing characteristic of those admirable officials being a cold infallibility 
which renders approach inadvisable. It must be remembered, however, that 
