The discussion by the Education Board was opened by the Chairman of the Board stating that while constructive criticism of the Council's education policy was to be welcomed, might be of assistance both 16 the Council and the Board, the criticism contained in this memorandum was of so" drastic a nature that {their national schools. On the other hand it was possible that many Japanese children oltonded their national schools whose parents made contribution towards the municipal rates. He suggested that this factor should be borne in mind when consideration was given to an inecease Jor otherwise im the grant to the Japanese schools. adoption of the proposals contained therein would result in a complete reversal of the existing policy. Although the Japanese schools had received substantial assistance from the Council by means of grants-in-aid, It was noteworthy that this memorandum did not dear specifically with the position and claim of these particular national schools, The memorandum, which could be regarded as a eritie-Jsm of the education policy as a whole, amounted to a proposal that the existing dual system of Council schools and making grants to private schools, specifically endorsed four years ago, and now challenged by the Corporation, should be abolished and that henceforth all educational appropriations should be devoted to the support of national schools.
The alternative of education being provided by national groups with assistance from the Council had been most carefully considered from the time the Council provided educational facilities; it became, however, fully apparent that this atone would not meet the needs of the community, was extremely doubtful whether each ational group would be able or willing to establish schools for their children, and even were this to be done a very considerable number of children from the smaller national groups would be left unprovided for. In this realization the Council found itself under the obligation to establish number of municipal schools. This policy was definitely afirmed by the General Education Commission of 1922, The Education Board at its inception, after very careful deliberation, also felt that the provision of educa~ tion could not be left entirely to national groups. The memorandum drew a "comparison between the Council's education policy and that adopted in other large cit He submitted that this comparison was unreasonable, having regard to the particular conditions which prevailed in Shanghai and to the variety of nationals whose interests demanded consideration. "He suggested that the Board should carefully study the views expressed in this memorandum, after which, if a continuation of the existing dual system were recommended, such recommendation would be put forward in the conviction that the alternative system suggested by the Corporation had received full consideration.
He considered that the comment furnished on this memorandum by the Superintendent of Education went to the root of this problem, inasmuch as there was no. evidence that the various national communities were able or' willing to assume liability for the provision of education facili les; unless this fundamental condition were assured the scheme advocated by the Corporation fell to the ground.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.