SCHOOL BUILDINGS.

Press, Volume LIV, Issue 16165, 20 March 1918, Page 2

SCHOOL BUILDINGS.

EDUCATION BOARD AND DEPARTMENT. AN IMPORTANT QUESTION. "Members of School Committees are vcrv much agitated by the Minister s statement that for years the Education Department has allotted and paid over to the Boards sufficient money to rebuild schools whose period of usefulness has nassed. The Canterbury Board says that it has not received this money. ' We want to know who is making the misstatement —the Minister or the Board." The member of a School Committee who made, these remarks was assured by the representative of "The Press" to whom they were addressed, that an endeavour would be made to fathom the mystery. The sequel shows, paradoxical though it appears, that neithei Minister nor Board made a misstatement, and that both were right in their statements —so far as those statements went. The remark of tho Minister of Education, to which reference was made bv the School Committeeman, fell from the Minister's lips recently when speaking at the opening of an addj? 1011 to the Karori School (near Wellington). The Minister was reported to have said on the occasion mentioned■ "Domands were being made for new schools, and blame was being attached to the Education Department for not providing money to enable old, out-of-date buildings 'to be replaced. The duty of replacing "worn-out bchools "was not an obligation on the Department, as the Department, since 1903, had provided an annual vote for that, based on the number of years allowed for the life of a wooden building, and a percentage of the capital value, and the Boards had substantial balances in hand for replacements.'' It is suggested that there has been a slip on someone's part, and that the statement- that "the Boards 'had' substatial balances in hand," should read, "tho Boards 'should have' substantial balances in hand." At any rate, so far as the Canterbury Education Board is concerned, there is no substantial balancc in hand for replacements.

The Select Committee of the House of Representatives in 1903 recommended, in respect of grants to Education Boards for school buildings, (1) that an annual giant at the rate of 3J per cent, on the cost of construction should be made for the maintenance of wooden buildings, and at the rate of 2 por cent, for brick and stone buildings, and (2) that a rebuilding grant be made at the rates of 10 per cent., o per cent., or 2 per cent., according to the age of tho buildings. The Select Committee expressed tho opinion that the sum granted for rebuilding schools and residences should be l ept by the Boards in a sepante account and used for re-building purposes only. Unfortunately this suggestion was not put into effect until towards the end of last year, and neither the Canterbury Board, nor any of the other Boards, knew from year to year how much of the grant was to be earmarked for re-building o"r----poses. Each year since 1903 the Department has notified tho total amount allocated each education district, the purposes of the grant being stated generally, as (1) to provide for the maintenance and repair of school buildings, furniture, fittings, and so forth; and (2) to meet the cost of lebuilding worn-out schools and replacing worn-out furniture. . Iri addition the Department expressly stated that after making due provision for the requirements above-mentioned the Boards, at their discretion. might devote the whole of the balance, or part of it, to other purposes named in the vote, the only restriction beins that the amount expended on additions should not .exceed 7 per cent, of the grant. In view of the limited funds at the disposal of the Department for 1903-4, the grant for maintenance was rcduccd to 3 per cent., and on basis the grant has been made since. This has meant, in tho case of tho Canterbury Board, that in thirtetn years (1903 to 1916) a loss of £811:3 owing to the grant being made on the 3 per cent., instead of the 3J per cent., basis. Up to the present, the requirements of the Board in respect of maintenance, have been in excess ot the amount granted in respect of maintenance and re-building, and consequently tho Board has no "substantial balance" available for re-building purposes. It is possible that if tho Department were now to make good to the Board the amount short-paid sinoe 1903, the Board might be in a position to re-build, if not all the out-of-date schools, at least many of them. But another element has intruded itself in the meantime, and that is the greatly "ncrc-ased cost of construction. The re-building grant, it is understood, was based on each foot of flojv space in wooden buildings costing 10s; the present cost is estimated to Ue nearer 15s; the present cost of reinstating brick buildings is estimated at 20s per foot of floor space. It must, also be borne ill mind that the Board's policy is to re-build in brick whenever possible. In view of these facts it seems clear that the question of the basis on which the re-building •.•.nni is made requires to be revised. In the North Canterbury district, in spite of the large sums spent by the old North Canterbury Education Board on the maintenance of school-

buildings, there are still many cases •whore teachers occupying school residences lack such conveniences as waUihouses and bath-rooms, which it lias be >n miDossibie to provide because sufficient funds were not avnilab.e. In addition, there are instances ot' overcrowding in some of the city «inu suburban schools—instances where <ne large room is curtained off so ttiatthree classes can be taught at *,ie same time. Such conditions arc lot conducive to good teaching or to moting the good health ot citner teachers or taught. t Front remarks made by the Scliom Committeeman who drew the reporter s attention to the Minister's Statement, it is highly probable that these questions of re-building old schools- and or providing sufficient accommodation in city and suburban schools are likely to be live ones at the annual meetings of householders to be held on the evening of April 22nd.