LOWER SHOTOVER

Southland Times, Issue 20939, 23 November 1929, Page 7

LOWER SHOTOVER

CONSOLIDATION OF SCHOOLS. EDUCATION BOARD’S ATTITUDE. For some time past the policy of the Southland Education Board has been to consolidate schools in its district wherever the interests of "the children concerned have warranted such an action. Recently negotiations were in progress between the board and residents of the Lower Shotover school district with a view to Conveying the pupils of the Lower Shotover School to Queenstown. Further details of the negotiations appear in a report by the chairman appearing elsewhere in this issue.' At the monthly meeting yesterday morning the following resolution from the executive committee was confirmed: “That the communication from the committee forwarding a petition from residents protesting against the proposed consolidation of the school in this district with Queenstown be received, the committee to be advised (1) that as the proposed new site is not considered suitable no further steps be taken to acquire such area; (2) that the school remain on the present site; (3) that the Department be approached with a view to approval being obtained for conveyance of children from the Frankton end of the district to Queenstown; (4) that Mr Lee be advised that the board cannot see its way to approve of the proposal to convey children from the eastern side of the district to Arrowtown and that the families residing near the north-western corner of the proposed route be advised of the allowance available from the Department for conveyance.”

It was also decided to call tenders for the conveyance of up to 15 children from Frankton to Queenstown.

A communication was read from the secretary (Mr C. Hansen) of the Lower Shotover School Committee, enclosing the petition from residents protesting against the proposed consolidation of the school in that district with Queenstown; and expressing the committee’s regret at the board's decision in condemning the site proposed for the school. The letter concluded with a request that the decision be reconsidered.

Mr Jones, in analysing the petition, said that the names on it included those of spinsters, bachelors and of parents with no children of school age. Although the petition looked formidable, he said, • uponanalysis it was found that a number of those who had signed it were— —•

Mr 8. Rice: Non-producers.—(Laughter.) Some discussion resulted, Mr Rice stating that in his opinion the board would not be warranted in changing the site.

It was decided to advise the edmmittee that the board adhered to its former decision.