Cloudy thinking on decapitation

Press, 15 October 1976, Page 17

Cloudy thinking on decapitation

By

BRIAR CAMBOURN

There has been a lot of confused talk abo ; i forced decapitation of Forms I and II at primary schools.

Parents have probably gained an idea that whether they like it or not, the school where they send their children may be one of the ones affected, and that, if it is, they will have no choice but to bundle their children off to a new intermediate school several miles away.

Somewhere the Canterbury Education Board will have materialised as the villain, the Department of Education the archvillian, and parents and schools, the victims and pawns. Typically, the arguments against the board and department will claim preemptive decisions by the board (inadequate say from parents and householders), the loss of teachers and even headmasters from primary schools, the cost of new school uniforms and transport, setbacks to the school spirit, and even dangerous intersections. What is it all about? It is all about State policy, which is more than 50 years old, to establish intermediate schools through New Zealand and to reorganise rural schooling so that Form I and II pupils can receive the benefits of facilities superior to those in their small country primaries — not that the point of the exercise is to start an argument about whose facilities are best. Tn all cases where intermediate schools or area schools. (their rural counterparts) are planned, the ideal pattern is that district primary schools contribute their Form 1 and II pupils to the new school. Generally, this means a loss of about one quarter of the primary-school roll, and with it, a loss of staff consistent with the scheduled 1:35 teacher-pupil ratio.

It can also mean extra spending on new uniforms and transport, new routes with dangerous intersections, and a weakened school spirit.

But it does not mean that the Education Board is unreasonable.

The board goes out of its way to give householders'weeks to consider the pros and cons. It sends out circulars to householders detailing effects on schools, meets principals and school com-

mittees, and advertises in metropolitan and suburban newspapers. When meetings are finally held, the matter is put to the vote. The irony is that parents stay away in droves. “This is why the voting returns are so difficult to use well,” said the genera) manager of the Canterbury Education Board (Mr D. Wilson).” After weeks of advertising and preparation, we might muster 6 per cent of the locality’s families. We might get 20 per cent if we are lucky. “We are always left asking ourselves: what did the silent majority want? I am fairly sure that if the silent majority voted, there would be a majority vote in favour in every case.”

But the majority vote, if all had voted, can only be guessed. The voting figures are the formal guid, and the board honours them, even if it means that an intermediate school cannot go ahead as a result.

This has happened in several cases. In spite of an instinctive feeling that most householders in the areas want intermediate schools, the board has deferred to the vote taken at special meetings which represented a fraction of eligble voters and opposed the new schools.

The Darfield case has probably generated more heat against the Education Board than any. Householders havd changed .’heir mind on the translation of Darfield High School to a Form I to 7. They originally voted in 1971 in favour of translation, but want officially to reverse their vote. Meetings, and deputations to the Minister this year, have not gained them their end, and they are feeling sore at the department. the Minister, and the Education Board — and asserting neglect. The Darfield community was given weeks of grace An apprach by the board was made first to principals and school committees. Then the district was circularised (effects on all schools were detailed) and householders were given a chance to vote at scheduled meetings, and later at special meetings. The time given contrary opinion to form was about four months. All schools, with the exception of one which returned a 50-50 vote, were in favour of contributing Form I and II pupils to Darfield. The Education Board duly advised the Minister that there were no hitches, and he named the contributing schools, 10 of them.

Only after four years had passed, and the conversion of the school seemed suddenly upon them, did parents choose to reconsider. Nothing wrong with reconsidering — but by this time planning was well on the way, finance had been committed (SIM has already been spent) and the matter was in the pipeline and best left there The contributing schools had been named officially. It was really too late to reconsider. Schools contributing to new intermediate or area schools do stand to lose, but not badly. A school may lose five teachers, but is has also lost about a quarter of its roll. It may lose a deputy principal or even a principal, but he will be replaced by another. The grading will be lower, but most principals are on the way up the scale. Lower grading does not necessarily denote lesser quality. The loss of staff is compulsory; staff are not resigning in protest. Staffing schedules are set by the department. A drop in roll means an automatic but complicated adjustment not only in staff numbers but also in the kind of teacher who can remain in

the school. A school may lose a senior teacher of junior classes. Each school is considered on its merits. There is no general rule. These are not the things on which parents put premiums. however. The academic advantages of an intermediate school over a primary school take second place to new school uniforms, longer cycling distances, and general contentment with the status quo. It is the Education Board’s firm conviction that intermediate schools and reorganised district high schools are such a good proposition that, given time, parents who formerly resisted decapitation of primary schools will reopen discussions with hoards themselves, with a view to getting their children into intermediate schools somehow. Intermediate schools have better library facilities; an assembly hall provided by the department (primary schools have to provide their own using a one-third Government subsidy;) and cialist rooms for woodwork, metalwork, cooking, sewing. art and craft, and scie n c e . Primary-school pupils have to travel to manual centres for many of these subjects. Area schools with a roll of more than 200 are entitled to a gymnasium, music room, a bigger library, more staff, and generally improved facilities. A better teacher-pupil ratio also exists at an area school (1:20 from Form I upwards) than at a primary school (1:31 at the beginning of 1977). Form I and II pupils at area schools also stand to benefit from teaching by teachers in the secondary section of the school redeployed to lower forms. This could not occur in primary schools. The Education Board is in no hurry to convince householders in any locality that they should have an intermediate school. At SIM each, the Government is not supplying them thick and fast, and if one area does not want one. another will. When a locality has recorded opposition to a new school, the board defers the matter or looks at a different area, confident that at least some of the future approaches will come from local communities already canvassed but undergoing a change of heart.