CO129-603-3 Education Department- revised grant code 24-1-1949 - 28-12-1949 — Page 34

3

member told me that were his advise to be sought by an able young master in an English public school as to whether he should accept a Lead-Ship in Hong Kong under this Grant Code, he would advise him not to do so.

33

You will I hope understand my difficulty: I cannot put before the Anglican School Councils a proposal which contra- vene the principle to which I understood you to agree in London, and which seems to conflict with Colonial Office policy. (See the Anglican School Managers' letter attached of March 31st, 1948 paragraph 2 (b) quoting from the Colonial Office directive. "This statement of policy does not necessary imply a close or detailed control of aided educational insti- tutions by Government". )

v.

I venture now to make one more proposal which if you can accept it will I believe be acceptable to the Angli- can School Councils and will I know be regarded in London as complying with the principles there agreed on. I most earnestly hope this will prove acceptable to you, so that I can put before our School Councils the option of chosing between the original Code and the alternative.

The proposal is to add to the three proposals of my letter of June 29th the following as the first clause.

"Grant Schools whose additional school charges are considered excessive by the Director shall be subject to an automatic reduction of 10% on their recurrent Grant."

You will, I believe understand that a fixed reduction like this, leaves freedom to managers, whereas a reduction proportionate to what the Director decides is adequate, puts all financial decisions in his hands and does in fact destroy the initiative and freedom of managers.

May I repeat that the clauses numbered (1) (2) and (3) in my letter of June 29th remain, though becoming (2) (3) and (4) the new clause being No. (1). The Director would also be protected by the conditions of these original clauses.

V1. We welcome the renewal of the Board of Education. But I am not quite clear from your letter whether you mean you will report to the Board the agreement reached in London, or whether your intention is that these matters are to be dis- cussed again and decided by the Board. I am afraid I can only agree with the former interpretation of your letter.

We reached an impasse in 1948 over the question of additional School charges. It was agreed to refer it to London and abide by the decision. Unless I entirely misunder- stood what took place in London the decision was in our favour. My understanding was that you would take steps to drop Clause 34 as well as to secure, as your Block Grant proposal does sécure, the mitigation of the nuisance of constant reference of the detailed estimates from the Schools to the Department and the P.W.D.

Similarly you agreed in London to delete from the Code the phrase in Section 3. "who shall be deemed to be the manager". You said that this phrase had been inserted since