Primary Schools

Press, Volume CII, Issue 30156, 13 June 1963, Page 3

Primary Schools

Sir, —My thanks to “Practitioner's Mate” and others for their supporting criticisms and suggestions. Few intelligent primary teachers view their classrooms with complacency, but as the comment. “He thinks too much,” will damn a primary teacher as surely as it did Cassius, most find it politic to keep their thoughts to themselves. The fact that the Education Board has increased the number of lights in most new rooms to two and in some reconstructed ones to four must indicate that members are now well aware that the lighting in their schools has fallen behind the advancing standard of illumination in offices, factories and homes and are beginning to work for its betterment. “Parent’s” suggestion for a survey of physical conditions in schools has much merit and one hopes that the local inspectors of schools would assist such a survey and press for improvements.—Yours, etc., PRACTITIONER. June 11, 1963.

Sir,—Correspondents replying to my tetter have missed the mark. My reference to cheese-paring education boards was unfortunate. I was trying to emphasise that education boards have to be extremely canny with the grants they get; whereas it seems that the Ministry of Works in building postprimary schools is unrestricted, almost, as to how it may indulge its fancies. Who would hear of stainless steel shower cubicles, with hot and cold water, no doubt, being provided for the staff of a primary school? How many primary or intermediate schools have rooms for their senior assistants? “Parent" suggested Cobham is a palace by comparison ■with other primary schools. Let him see the new schools like Isleworth. He will find in both the same treatment.

so much inferior to the facilities and amenities provided for post-primaries. No-one sensed that my criticism was directed at parents whose indifference is responsible for this iniquitous disparity.— Yours, etc., PRACTITIONERS MATE. June 12, 1963. Naming The Coinage Sir,—Why not call it (hopefully) a dinkum?—Yours, etc., J.H. June 10, 1963.

Sir.—We had Sid's quid, and that was a quick mover. Now we have Mr Menzies's royal and Robert should go places. The “Call me kiwi” cry seems to have faded; so let’s hope that's out. Our AngloAmerican, Churchill, with Irs “History of the English Speaking Peoples," showed us that in the past is the future. But dollar! Go-getting and work! And most of the Eng-lish-speaking world already using it. No, by jingo, we couldn’t stomach that. Let’s just stay cradled in quaintness and taxes and zither along in the £s.—Yours, etc., SILVER DOLLAR. June 10, 1963.

Sir, —Would it not be best, instead of searching for new names, to retain the penny, only of lower value and a smaller piece? Then we could have a halfpenny, penny, and fivepence of copper alloy. 10. 20, and 50 pence of nickel alloy, all much smaller than our present penny. The 100 pennies could be called a shilling. 200 a florin, 300 a thaler, 250 a half-crown, and 500 a crown, all of silver alloy. The 1000 pennies would be 10 shillings, 2000 a pound, of paper or gold alloy. The old notes beginning with 10 shillings could remain as they are; only they would be of minor value. Even the names in brackets would not be necessary. If preferred the penny could be called a cent, and the old notes retained could have an overprint.— Yours, etc.,

June 12, 1963. [This correspondence may now cease.—Ed., “The Press.”]