Teachers’ College Fittings Dispute

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31322, 18 March 1967, Page 14

Teachers’ College Fittings Dispute

Mr A. S. Murray, chairman of the Canterbury Education Board, yesterday objected to strictures on the Education Department being included in the public report from the Christchurch Teachers’ College: but two committee chairmen—Mr R. K. White (Teachers’ College) and Mr A. Manning (buildings)—and the full board agreed that the comments were justified. The item at issue appeared over the name of Mr D. B. Wilkie, a principal lecturer with oversight of development, who reported:— “Progress with college buildings is very satisfactory. This week sees the completion of the gymnasium, except for several fittings and the landscaping of the surrounding area. Of the alterations begun at the end of last year, the cafeteria, office, principal’s study, and central storage area, are completed and only the staff room and science store remain to be finished. "What is far from satisfactory however, is the delay in equipping and furnishing these alterations. Having provided, after endless delays, these essential allocations, the Education Department is proving very loath to provide fhe equally-essential furniture and equipment designed to go with them. Only one-third of the value of the original grant application has been approved and this is virtually floor coverings only, very little else being agreed to. “For the rest, further justification is required. This Is rejustification—a frustrating and time-consuming process Involving reiteration of Ideas and needs already communicated, an activity conducive to further delay, and undertaken with only partial hope of success.

"Particularly galling this time has been the refusal, in the first instance, to approve the modest request for new furniture to go with the principal’s new study, leaving the present furniture and study for the vice-principal who has no furniture worth moving or mentioning.”

After Mr Murray said he did not think the Teachers’ College committee should have reported this in open meeting, Mr Milne said he did not agree. Substantial improvements had been made and his committee did not expect to have to put up with old, used furniture. Equipment should be in keeping with the improvements. Mr Manning said he had moved that the matter be reported. “I see no objection to letting people know what is going on,” he said. As building chairman be knew that economies must be made but in this case he did not think the board or the college was “being treated decently.” The board accepted the report.