Director Outlines Revised Policy On School Building

Press, Volume XCIII, Issue 27912, 8 March 1956, Page 15

Director Outlines Revised Policy On School Building

A new “white lines policy” for school building, which will fix minimum standards and maximum expenditure and then allow education boards autonomy in their plans, was announced to the Dominion School Committees’ Federation in Christchurch yesterday morning by the Director of Education (Mr C. E. Beeby) “I am convinced that we will get better and cheaper buildings.” he said. Work over the last four years on the scheme would be finished this month and then submitted for Government approval, but it was obvious that the scheme would not be introduced at the same time in all districts, as boards would wish .to determine their own prototypes. Mr Beeby implied that the flexibility of the scheme would possibly supplant both the Dominion basic plan and the new cluster plan in primary schools. The simple analogy to the new scheme was that a couple building a house had certain minimum requirements and certain maximum finances. Mr Beeby said. The Education Department was working out formulas according to enrolments. They made a thick volume because, from district to district, costs and requirements might vary, but there would be general equality. Canterbury favoured the open-air type of classrooms, with a linking veranda. The board might now revert to this plan within the limits of the “white lines.” In meeting the big increase in school rolls, speed, value, volume in building had been necessary, and the basic plan had to replace the previous system of boards making sketch plans, having them approved, then preparing working drawings and having them passed, and finally going to tender. Mr Beeby said. To borrow from Sir Winston Churchill, “we had to put originality in pawn.” There was also no incentive to economise and to improve. “The attitude of mind we now want is that of the prudent couple who know that what they save in one way they can spend in another,” he said. But any dropping below standards or exceeding finance limits would wreck the scheme as surely as it would lose the support of the couple’s bankers. Inevitably each board district would develop individuality in the form of its buildings. Mr Eeeby said. Another way to wreck the scheme was to accept the view so common in New Zealand that “they’ve got one, why can’t we?” A development committee was preparing schedules of suggestions for boards which should ensure some degree of uniformity. “Unless you understand the scheme, you may think we are lowering standards,” said Mr Beeby. “To say the Government is cutting standards would be unfair. The Minister has not yet even seen our minimum code, and the whole scheme has still to be approved. We are well on the way toward fixing the costs on the basis of each child, and we will be sending out the minimum code for comment. We are trying to allow the greatest freedom, but there is a fair amount yet to do.” The public could be assured that education boards were responsible bodies, and that they were being given opportunities to meet local needs, Mr Beeby said.

This year, it was hoped that the vote for school building would be £7,000.000. he said. In December,

boards had been asked to put in their programmes for the year from next April. A committee of the Education Boards’ Association had satisfied itself on equitable distribution within the primary system. The committee also worked out a priority list of (1) existing commitments, (2) new schools, (3) teachers’ housing, (4) land purchase. (5) site development, and (6) urgent replacements, with provision also for assembly halls, dental clinics, and other buildings. “This is the programme, but I can’t let you see it yet.” said Mr Beeby, waving a thick volume. It would go to the Treasury and the Cabinet Works Committee, and before the end of the month he hoped to have it approved. Then boards would be able to take projects right through to the tender stage. If they were below £50,000. only the consent of the Minister of Education would be needed, and if more than £50,000. the Minister would agree with the consent of the Minister of Finance (Mr J. T Watts).

The basis of funds might vary from district to district, Mr Beeby said. The South Island, for instance, would be allowed more replacements because it had more old schools, and South Auckland would get more new schools because of the tremendous growth in roll numbers there. But the Education Boards’ Association was satisfied that the distribution was reasonable, Mr Beeby concluded.