LEESTON OR SOUTHBRIDGE?

Press, Volume LXI, Issue 18303, 10 February 1925, Page 10

LEESTON OR SOUTHBRIDGE?

SITE FOR HIGH SCHOOL. question for minister. Accompanied by the member for the district (the Hon. Sir Heaton Rhodes), the Hon. Sir James Parr (Minister of Education) yesterday afternoon visited Southbridge and Leeston to liear arguments for and against the proposal to shift the EllesmerelKstrict High School from Southbridge to Leeston. At Southbridge such was the interest taken m the matter that a large gathering of residents of the district assembled in the public hall, where the speeches were made. Position of Southbridge.

Mr R. J- -Bfirkin, chairman of the Southbridge Town Board and School Committee, referred to the meeting ot protest that had been held in Soutnbridge some time ago Against the proposal to remove the High School to Leoston. He stated that the expenditure involved in the shifting of tho school was not warranted. The Minister: Which is the larger centre? Mr Parkin: From a population point of*view, Leeston; from an educational point of view, Southbridge. The primary school at Leeston, ho added, had a roll number of from 104- to 109, whereas at Southbridge the number was close on 200. Thero was a Convent school at Leeston. however, whicn undoubtedly affected the attendance at the State school. Mr A. McPlierson, a member of the Southbridige School Committee, said that the school population at Southbridge was larger than at Leeston, Little E-ikaia, for instance now having a roll number of thirty. It would suit these scholars to attend the high school at Southbridge, but Leeston was not convenient for them. He also referred to other schools in the district which would be in a similar position regarding a high school. The Minister stated that he had been told by the Canterbury Education Board that their point of view was that Leeston was a larger and more central district for a high school than Southbridge. Mr Parkin pointed out that the train service which ram between Southbridge and Leeston wouldi mean that children going to <a school at Leeston would have to wait two hours before the school opened and would also have to wait some time after the school was let out. The Rev;. T. G. Butler said it would be admitted that Leeston was the geographical' centre of the Ellesmere district, but it was not. so convenient from the point of view of a high school. Tho high school was established 23 years at Southbridge because' that town was the. most conveniently situated for the purpose, and he maintained that it was just as conveniently situated to-day. If Leeston wanted their children to get a'secondary school education, why had they not sent them to Southbridge ? . The fact was that they preferred to send them to Christchurch, to the Technical College, eto. Another argument he would use was that it was not wise to convey children in motors in preference to the railways. He would like tho Minister. to. know that 90 per cent, of pupils in the sixth standard of the Leeston School went on to the high school. There were twelve district high schools in the Canterbury educa,tion district, and of these the two lowest were Oxford and Akaroa, each with a roll number of 138; The Leeston. School would not be as large a feeding school for a' high, school as Southbridge, and he stressed the point, that in the event- of it being decided to transfer the high school to Leeston thei'e were many parents who would prefer to send their children to Christchurch. . Southbridge people did not want to take the risk of. the district high school being closed up a« had happened at Lincoln, Darfield and Kaiapoi. He could assure the Minister that . the people of Southbridge were honestly afraid that the scfcpol would collapse; if shifted. Mr D. Ta.ylor, chairman of the Southbridge District Burgesses' Association, stated that, from an economic point of view, it would be bad to shift the school and it would nJso deal a blow to the civic pride of the town.

Minister's Eeply. 9 The . Minister, in reply, said . that when the deputation from residents of Southbridge waited on him in October last he promised, them, that ho would send Mr John Caughley, Director of Education, to furnish, a report to.him. on the question. Since then the member for the district, the Hon. Sir Heaton Rhodes, had induced him to come to Southbridge and Leeston and judge the matter for himself. No doubt the Southbridge people wanted him to state at once what was in his mind, but he would not do so, for he had heard only one 6ide of) the question. He had yet to hear what the Leeston people had to say. He hoped that whatever his decision was, it would be taken in the right spirit. The Minister of Education, he reminded them, could not establish a district high school on his own account. He .could only act when the Education Board asked him to act in that direction. • It was always necessary, therefore, that the Board must first move in the matter. The people of Southbridge were up against the Canterbury Board had moved in the hiattor and had declared that, in its opinion, Leeston was, from, an educational point of view, a more suitable centre for a district high, school than •Southbridge. He had to support the Board unless, after going carefully into the whole question, he came to toe conclusion that the Board was wrong. It would be his job then to say whether the Board was right or wrong and whether it was to be overridden or not. But that was no reason why he should not express his sympathy with what the people of Southbridge ' had done for the cause of education. Their attitude was a finel estimony to their keenness to °iye their children a good education, which, after all, was better than wealth. Southbridge had a successful school, which had done excellent work, and it had some 23 years' of goodwill, as it were. It was a fact that should not be lost sight of, although it was not decisive. It was not a pleasant duty that had been, given to him to act as a Board of ApEeal against the Education Board, but e was sure that, no matter what decision he came to, it would be accepted by both towns concerned in the spirit in which - it was given. (Applause.) Sir Heaton Rhodes, in thanking the Minister for his attendance, said that he hoped the district would be given a grant for a new high school. Two members of the Education Board had told him that tfnorning that they were not' sure that Leeston was the beet centre for the school. In conclusion, Sir Heaton said that, the school had been conducted excellently at Southbridge, and he hoped the town would not lose it. (Applause.) Leeston's Case. The Minister then left for Leeston, where he was met by representatives of school committees, who put Leeston's claim for recognition before him. Mr A. J. Gray, chairman of the Leeston School Committee, said that, in asking that Leeston should'be the centre for the high school, the Leeston people disavowed any antagonism" towards Southbridge, and he would like it to be understood ■ that the • school was not for Leeston or Southbridge, but was for the Ellesmere district. He submitted that about two-thirds of the children vsio would attend tha school

would come from the vicinity of Leeston, which was the geographical centre of the district and community interest. The town was growing rapidly and was at the present time the centre of practically every county institution except the high school. In the last twelve month? new buildings to the value of £25,000, perhaps £30,000, had been erected in Leeston. The schools which would act as feeders to a high school at Leeston had 500 scholars on their rolls, as against 260 about Southbridge. In the Leeston school there were 54 scholars in Standard V. at the present time a-s against 22 in the Southbridge school. Mr TV. O. Rennie, chairman of the Doy lesion School Committee, said that although there were actually about 86 more scholars at the Southbridge school than at Leeston, it should not be overlooked that the Convent school at the latter place accounted for much of the difference. The Lakeside, Irwell. Kiillinchy, Doyleston, and Brookside sdhools, however, were all favourable to the school/ being at Leeston, and would act as feeders to it. Mr W, Brooks (Brookside) said the parents of the children in that district wanted tho school to be at Leeston, Southbridge being too far away to suit them. Mr G. Nairn (Lakeside) said that the residents of that district were unanimously favourable to Leeston being chosen, and Mr John Brooks (Irwell) expressed a similar view, as also did Mr H. McLenasrhen (Killinchy) and the Rev. A. O. Harris. The Minister, who replied on similar lines to those of his speech at Southbridge, said in addition that he was not at all in_ favour of shifting established institutions from one place to. another. He would have to consider whether the' children likely to attend a school at Leeston would outnumber those attending the school at Southbridge to any great extent. "I tell you frankly," he said, "that if it means a matter of only half a dozen or so, I won't do it." Southbridge, he continued, had looked after the school well in former vears. If it could be shown to him that a change to Leeston was likely to result in a big increase in the number of scholars to attend the school he would agree to the change. His mind was quite open on the matter, and be was only to consider the ohildren of the district. If He was assu,red_ that a shift to Leeston would result in a preponderance of numbers, it would enable him to make up his mind. He should be glad to. receive any information in this connexion.