THE FALSEST OF FALSE ECONOMY. [To THE EDITOR OF THE
" SPECTATOR."] Sin,—With reference to the case mentioned by " A. B. C." in your issue of January 14th of a schoolmistress whose salary rises to £500, it is only fair to say that nowhere under the Burnham Scales can a mistress receive such a salary as this, except under Scale IV., application of which the Board of Education has restricted to areas in the Metropolitan Police District, and then only in the largest of schools, i.e., those with more than 500 children in average attendance. " A. B. C." does not say that the salary is a "Burnham " salary, but this is surely implied. If it is not, and if the school is not in the Metropolitan Police District, then the case must be unique, and it would be interesting to know whether the school is a public primary school at all. On April 1st, 1918, there were, according to the Board of Education (Cmd. 22), only 12 head mistresses in public primary schools in all England and Wales receiv- ing more than £310 per annum, and there cannot now be many anywhere near £500, for one thing because of the restricted operation of Scale IV., and, for another. because in many areas the scale will not be in full operation for some time to come. Of the latter circumstance " A. B. C." is evidently aware, because he is careful to say that the clergyman has a stipend of £200 whilst the schoolmistress rises to £500. It is, I think, fair to ask how far her present salary falls short of £500 and how long she has been receiving it. " A. B. C." apparently thinks that £500 is too much, but would it not be truer to say that the clergyman's £200 is much too littler—I am, Sir, &c., J. H. YOXALL (General Secretary). Hamilton House, Afabledon Place, London, TV.C.1.
Previous page
