Sept.12th,1949.
72
1.
2.
3.
4.
Comments on Mr. Rowell's letter of 7th Sept.1949
to Bishop Hall for Mr. Cox's information
Copy to Mr. Rowell
The numbers refer to paragraphs in Mr Lowells letter-cily attached.
The Director is confused here between the two quite different issues in our London meeting. The "close scrutiny of items of expenditure on minor repairs" has, of course, nothing whatever to do with Clause 37. The issues in London were:-
a)
Definition of the Correspondent (arising from Clause 3).
b) Unnecessary work involved in obtaining approval for expenditure
on "Other Charges", which include Minor repairs (c.f.Clauses 32,33). All this unnecessary work was laid on the Heads, how- ever, not by Clauses 32 and 33 as they stand, but by Regula- tions for the Conduct of Grant-in-Aid Schools Section VIII. Freedom of Managers and consequent life or death for Anglican Schools depended on the removal of the limitation of additional School charges.
(૨
The proposal I made was that, in return for the restoration of the freedom of the Managers by the removal of Clause 37, the Anglican Schools were willing to receive less grant. But Mr. Rowell's pro- posal to reduce the grant automatically by the amount by which the Extra School Charges exceed 50% of the Tuition fees simply restores Clause 37 in another form. He says, in effect, "I will not now limit Subscriptions to 50% of the Tuition Fees; but any money you have from subscriptions greater than 50% of the Tuition Fee you must return to Government". In other words, Mr. Rowell's proposal leaves the position of the Managers exactly where it was when Clause 37 was part of the Code, a situation which recessitated our appeal titonton. The question therefore is, Did the London Meeting agree that the chaim of the Managers to more financial freedom was justified? If they did, then Mr. Rowell's proposals are not in accordance with the London decision, axsituati@axmKİCİXABEEN Zİtatgdxour xappaakxia kandan. By admitting that some change is necessary, he admits that he agreed in London to give freedom to Managers by removing this limitation. By reimposing the limitation he seems to me to have gone back on the Lond on agreement, a situation which necessitated qur appeal to London.
This paragraph is in our opinion totally misleading. The refusal to allow the Managers to determine building contracts, etc. was a question of competence rather than of freedom.
The "Financial Freedom" of the Managers which Mr. Rowell stresses is quite illusory.
a) Under the Block Grant proposal, the Heads and the Education
Department will indeed be freed of much tiresome and un- necessary work. But the Managers have no 'freedom' in the spending of this Grant as it is all earmarked for absolutely essential services without which no school can be run, e.g• minor repairs, postage, telephone, water, light, stationery, and so forth. The Managers are indeed freed from having to wait many weeks before they can repair a frew broken windows, and to spend, say, a little less on postage and a little more on stationery. But the freedom they claim is the freedom to initiate and to plan, and the Block Grant proposal, acceptable as it is on other grounds, contributes nothing to this freedom. The $77,445 spread over five schools, simply gives the Managers in each case the "freedom" to readjust expenditure on essential items, amounting to £1-5-0 per annum per child for this is what $77,445 means divided among 3800 children. b) I much regret that the Director has confused the issue by
lumping six independent and entirely autonomous Schools to- gether (except for the two St.Paul's Schools temporarily work- ing as one co-educational with a Joint Council). Let me translate it also into sterling. We have nearly 3800 children in the Anglican Schools referred to. The sum there- fore becomes £2-2-0 per annum per child; to cover medical in- spection, various out-of-school activities, such as Library and Reading Room, Games, Handicraft, Music, Dramatics, School
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.