Port Ahuriri School

Hawke's Bay Herald-Tribune, Issue 165, 30 July 1937, Page 6

Port Ahuriri School

J. W. '

TAIT,

J. W.

TAIT

Sir,— Recently you published, a reporf where the Port Ahuriri. School Conn mittee is accused of addressing the Hawke's * Bay Education Board ia » abusive language. We have aeked Mr G. A. Maddison, the chairman, to publish the whole of the .letter, and t« state definitely what is inaecurate or abusive. He has made no response, soi we hope in fairness to ourselves, you will publish in full the enclosed copy of the much-discussed letter. Concisely the case may be summedup as follows: Much to the annoyanc© of the Education Board, the Minister has decided that Standards 5 and 6 instruction shall be continued at th© Port*" School, and the board is menacing this decision by endeavouring to re« strict accominodataon so as to exclud© these standards. This is not denied, and we confidently reave it' to public opinion as to whether, in such circumstances, our letter to the. board was fully warranted. Later it may be necessary for us to make publio further details. On behalf of the committee. — Youra

etc.,

Chairman.

Port Ahuriri, July 29, 1937» The Secretary, ' Education Board, Napier. , ■' Dear Sir, — Our schiool committee de« sires to make the following reply t Q your letter written subsequent to the board's May meeting and conceming our • appiication for additional accom* modation. Your letter states that our applica^ tion in February for one additional room-was "declined, and that we wero notified accordingly. Such is not thq case. The reply you fefer to makeq a further request that we reconsider our attitude towards tlie Intermediat© School. As our reply at the time indicated, the purport of your letter was misleading, being constructed to infer that the number of pupils attending our school who were eligible for the! Intermediate School had considerablyi dwindled, instead of which, as you were aware, the 1937 figures are 50 per oenij • in excess of those of 1936. We naturally object to such evasion of facts on the part of your board. To reiterate, then, those parents who desire that their children attend the ' intermediate School are at liberty toi send them there, and, as the Minister has indicated, no regulation will be mad© to compel parents to remove theiri children from Standards 5 and 6 at the Port School, or to close instruction ira these standards. As a sqhool committee in part res* ponsible for your personnel as an ad ^ ministrative board, we are justly dntitled to expect that you carry out the wishes of the residents of the Port, and of the school committee, and to respeclj the decision of the Minister of Educa* tion in this matter. Your letter also states that the ao-> commodation is adequate. Again, in making such a statement, you are eva* sive and misleading. When the Educ» tion Department agreed to establisb - a new school on a new site (provided by the residents of the Port) to replacq a much vdilapidated building over sixtjJ years old, su'rely you will not argu® that the new school was to be builtj for only a portion of the pupils. - Yoi| know that it is the present Minister' 4 mtention that the whole of the pupil* shall be housed in the new building. The i'act that a considerable numbet) should still be taught in the old condemned school building two years afte« the erection of a new school buiit to serve the whole qf the primary pupils of the district is a reflection upon your administrative intentions. and you cannot escape responsibility. In February the Minister informed you that he would assure himself that the accommodation at the new school was adequate. Obviously you did not inform him of such inadequacy. Last year, despite your opposition, one new room was added to the new; school, yet before the alteration wa* , commenced yon knew that one rooin would not suffic6, but that two rooms were required. Consequently, over forty cliildren are being taught in the condemned building. True, there is ampla accommodation in this dilapidated structure, but surely it should be beneath your dignity as a board, in vietr, of the full circumstances of the case, to maintain that accommodation of this type is adequate. Our appiication in February was for, one room, and on this matter, as previously stated, you made no directi reply. Now you definitely decline to increase the accommodation wbatsoever. Indications are that not ohe moro room, but two, wiil ultimately be required. That you are aware that such is the case is evidenced in the architectural lopsidedness of the apparently incompleted building. For this reason we suggest that it is absurd again to tear off the end of the building to erect oue more room (as our present roll number demands) when local evidence conlirms the opinion that two more will be required. The obvious proce.dur© for you is to seek deparbmental sanction to carry out your original plan to complete the building, and not continuing to victimise tho Port because we do not concur with your Intermediate School proposals as they all'ect our own district. All we ask is that you function as a body assisting to administer educational facilities in tbe best interests of Port Ahuriri. Weight of evidence will show that in the matter of accommodation you have desiguedly declined to do so during the past few years. It is our intention, then, to coutinuo to press our legitimate claims, and wa certainly would welcome a change of attitude on your part when dealing wjth the affairs of Port Ahuriri School. On behalf of the school committee.— 1 am, Yours faitlifuily,

Chairman. '