Listen to thisWe have all met the statement that it costs more to send a boy to an approved school than to send a boy to Eton. It isn’t true but the kind of person who makes the statement isn’t usually the kind that will listen to a reasoned answer.
Isn’t it true, though, that somebody said quite plainly that there is nothing reprehensible in the fact that approved school children are expensive? A sick man costs a lot more than a healthy one. It would be a good deal cheaper to kill him off. We are committed as a matter of national policy to trying to reclaim anti-social children and it is utter folly to suggest that this job can be done adequately by short cut methods. We may indeed sympathise with the man who has his house broken into and then has to contribute towards the expensive education of the culprit. But that is a very superficial way of looking at things. It is sometimes claimed that cheaper methods would be more effective. This may be occasionally true, though I doubt it. It all depends on what you mean by “effective”.
The point, however, is that the means used for treatment are just as important as the need and that is a matter of principle. The treatment of the children must be right. And the word “right” is not the same as the word “effective”. Ideally (and indeed usually) the treatment is both right and effective. Approved School work is based on the belief that every child deserves a chance and on the faith that he will usually respond. Delinquent children need more patience, more persistence, and more skill to bring them to the point at which they can respond. I cannot imagine that this can be other than an expensive process.
This feature: Gittins, J.S. (1955). President's Notes. From: Evans, D. (Ed.) (1985). The Best of the Gazette. Surbiton: Social Care Association. p.21.
