The act of 1870 aroused the most intense opposition at once from the Church party and the extreme Nonconformists. The latter were disappointed of their hopes of a uniform na tional system, the former found themselves in competition with a rival subsidized by the State. The greatest activity prevailed on both sides in providing additional schools. Between 1869 and 1876 provision was made in elementary schools for 1,600,000 additional children, and of these two-thirds were in voluntary schools, to ward the cost of which only one-fifteenth was paid in government building grants. Educational enthusiasm was not, however, the sole factor; in many cases the chief ratepayers realized that they could build and maintain the schools far more cheaply by voluntary subscriptions than under the administration of a school board, and large corporations such as railway com panies, were willing to contribute to voluntary schools for similar reasons. The voluntary sys tem had proved wholly inadequate in the large centres of population, but still prevailed in majority of country villages.
By the end of the century the time was ripe for further legislation. Secondary education was in chaos, and it was imperative that it should be co-ordinated with the elementary sys tem. The development of the latter moreover was in many places completely at a standstill and unlikely to he further improved under exist ing conditions. The tendency to local self gov ernment had rapidly increased during the past few years. In the Local Government Act established county councils, and in 1894, by another act, district and parish councils were constituted. In 1889 the Technical Instruction Acts had authorized the county and borough councils to supply technical instruction, and the vast majority of them were spending for this purpose the large sums of money handed over to them in 1890 by the Local Taxation (Cus toms and Excise) Act. They had thus already some experience as education authorities. On the other hand, the requirements of the educa tion department (which in 1899 had been reor ganized as the board of education) had been steadily growing, in accordance with modem ideas of education, so that the voluntary schools began to find it impossible in most cases to ob tain the money requisite to keep them efficient.
Accordingly in 1902 a fresh Education Act was passed. By this every county, every county borough (i.e., to speak roughly, city of more than 50,000 inhabitants), and (for elementary education) every urban district of over 20,000 inhabitants and every non-county borough of over 10,000 became local education authorities, and all school boards were abolished. Each
new authority must appoint, according to a scheme approved by the board of education, an education committee, which they are bound to consult, and to which they may delegate all powers for education except that of raising money. The voluntary schools must give their religious teaching in accordance with the terms of their trust deed (if any), and it is under the control of their managers. They appoint and dismiss their own teachers, subject to the con sent of the local authority which pays them. The voluntary managers are responsible for the upkeep of their buildings, subject to an allow ance from the authority for internal fair wear and tear, but the local authority is bound to maintain and keep the schools efficient other wise, at its own expense. Each voluntary school is managed by a body of managers, usually six, of whom two-thirds are appointed under the trust deed, amended by Order if necessary, and one-third by the local authorities. Board schools are now known as council schools. The managers are appointed by the local authorities. In counties two-thirds are appointed by the county council, and one-third by the local dis trict or parish council. To the managers such powers are at present delegated as the central local authority thinks fit. London -was excepted from this measure but received an analogous act in the following year.
Unsatisfactory as many of the provisions of this act were to the politician and to the re ligious controversialist, there can be no doubt that from the point of educational administra tion over the country as a whole, it has brought about great progress, an advance proportion ately almost as great as the act of 1870. Even in those cities where there was already a strong progressive school board, it has concentrated the powers for higher as well as for elementary education in the hands of one authority, has materially increased the grant, and has given considerable powers over the standard of ac commodation and of staffing in the elementary schools. In the counties moreover it has abol ished the small rural school boards, whose sole object was to reduce expenditure, and has placed in charge an authority which can apply a rea sonably high and uniform standard of efficiency in staffing, in school accommodation, in hy giene, in school material, in school attendance, and even in the small, but important matters of school cleaning and offices.