SCHOOL CONSOLIDATION

Te Awamutu Courier, Volume 53, Issue 3800, 26 August 1936, Page 5

SCHOOL CONSOLIDATION

MANGAPIKO HOUSEHOLDERS MEETING. RE-AFFIRMS ITS DECISION AGAINST CONSOLIDATION. Responding to a published invitation to attend a special meeting of householders in the Mangapiko school district, there was a large and representative attendance at the Mangapiko Hall on Tuesday evening. The convenors were Messrs C. Woolly, L. Day, H. Bent, E. R. Johnson and E. W. Clarke. Mr E. W. Clarke said the meeting had been called to consider the action oi the Education Board in circularising parents without householders’ consent or approval. He hoped the meeting would consider matters in a friendly spirit. He nominated Mr C. M. Alexander as chairman, that gentleman being the oldest and most respected settler in the district. A counting of heads showed 51 householders present. Mr Alexander, in taking the chair, said it would be advisable to appoint a secretary for the meeting, so that a correct minute ot the proceedings could be recorded.

Mr R. Callis was appointed for the purpose, after Mr Dudley had raised a point ot order. The chairman said he would not obtrude his own personal views, but would endeavour to be quite fair and Impartial in conducting the meeting. He urged all to remember that they are neighbours, and that there was no need for acrimonious remarks. After the meeting they should all be just as good friends as hitherto. (Hear, hear.)

The notice convening the meeting was read, and Mr Alexander outlined procedure; then he asked the convenors to explain their reason for calling the meeting, adding that at a previous meeting ot householders a majority had opposed consolidation, after the pros and cons of the subject had been gone into fairly fully. There was no need to repeat the statements and arguments then made. Mr Clarke, reading from notes, asked: (1) Why, after such a definite decision (39 votes to 25) against consolidation, the Education Board sent round voting papers to certain parents, and left others without papers, seeking an opinion? (2) Did the School Committee advise the Board of the result of the last meeting of householders? (3) Were all members of the School Committee consulted before the postal voting papers and explanatory circular were sent out, in direct opposition to a decision reached at a purely householders’ meeting? Continuing, Mr Clarke stated that if the Committee, or a part of it, has acted against the decision of the householders’ meeting, it has not done its duty to the district. If the Board alone has acted, in seeking a postal vote of parents only, then the householders should protest to the Minister.

Mr Clarke then moved that Messrs Dudley (chairman), and Signal (secfetary) be asked to answer the questions he had read to the meeting.—Mr C. Woolly seconded. Mr Dudley, responding, said all would remember well that the Board had asked for the parents’ views. At the meeting on July 27th he had asked the parents to remain behind to give an expression of opinion, but that had been objected to by the general body of householders, and the parents did not remain behind. The secretary of the School Committee then, with his full approval, • advised the Board ot the meeting’s decision, and asked if the Board still wanted the views of parents? If so, it was suggested that a postal vote be taken, as preferable to calling another meeting. Hence the postal vote. Continuing, he mentioned that there are no bouquets attached to school committee work; a member gets many more knocks than bouquets. Then he proceeded to read the minutes of the School Committee meeting held on August 17th; all members (Messrs H. W. Dudley, L. Day, H. Bent, E. R. Johnson and A. W. Signal) were present, and the correspondence was read and received. Part of the correspondence at that meeting referred to the postal voting. Instead of writing to the Board he could perhaps have induced the Board’s secretary, Mr Dunlop, to come to a Mangapiko meeting. If he (the speaker) had erred in his conception of a chairman’s duties and privileges, lie would ask his auditors to remember that he was only human. Mr Dunlop had told him per telephone that the Board wanted the parents’ views. Regarding consolidation with Tc Awamutu, Mr Dunlop wrote that it was desired to obtain the wishes ot parents of children attending school. A reply had been sent that the householders of Mangapiko do not desire the -views only of parents expressed. Therefore if the Board wanted the parents views only it would be advisable to circularise the parents. Two lists were supplied—one of parents of children attending school at Mangapiko, and the other of children in Mangapiko going to Te Awamutu. A communication was sent from the Board to parents of children of school age wanting to know their wishes on the subject of consolidation. As there was some doubt, added Mr Dudley, as to who should have voting papers, inquiry was made, and a reply had come only that day explaining that voting is restricted to parents ot children of school age, other than those attending private schools. Therefore papers were not available for certain parents whose children do not attend the State school.

Mr R. A. Grace said that in view of the fact that his vote was accepted at a previous meeting, why was he not informed then that his vote was useless.

The chairman: Because you actually were eligible to vote at a householders’ meeting. Mr Dudley stated that the Board wrote that the views of parents of children of school age only were wanted. Mr L. Young doubted whether the Education Act differentiates as between householder and parent of children of school age. The chairman said that the Board may have regulations, adding that it was a great pity the problem of consolidation could not have been settled nt the one meeting. He held that the Board itself should decide the matter. If there is to be any “shall” about the matter, the Board should say so, and not leave the decision to householders or committee, which may be divided on the question. Mr L, Day, explaining his attitude

as a committeeman, said he knew nothing about the voting paper idea until one reached him. He claimed that the Board and Committee should both have accepted the decision of the householders’ meeting. Actually three ot the five committeemen were opposed to consolidation, and they had not been consulted about the postal vote, the chairman and secretary putting forward that suggestion without the knowledge of the other three members.

Mr H. Bent said the Board seemed to demand a parents’ vote, and therefore committeemen should not oppose it.

Mr Johnson said his impression was that the Board would take a vote whether the Committee approved or not.

At Mr Clarke’s request, Mr Signal (Committee secretary), read his letter to the Board following the householders’ meeting on July 27th. Mr Young considered the letter was out of order, for the chairman on the 27th July had agreed that the householders should decide the issue, and leave it at that. But a little later he had taken further action.

Mr Dudley: But you should remember that Mr Dunlop had been in the district.

Mr Hey: Why was the household ers' meeting called? Mr Dudley: Because Messrs Day and Johnson objected to the parents’ meeting suggested. To another remark by Mr Young. Mr Dudley said he had remarked at the first meeting that so far as he knew that would be the end ot the matter for a couple of years. He did not know what attitude the Board would take as regards further action. But it was only fair to answer inquiries made by the Board. Mr Clarke said the letter outgoing should first have been approved by all committeemen. Mr Day said it he had read the letter ho would have objected to any reference to postal voting. Mr Dudley said notices had been sent out re the householders' meeting before Mr Dunlop said he only wanted parents’ views. Mr Day: But why a postal vote of parents when the householders had turned it down?

Mr H. Hey commented that it the householders’ vote had been favourable to consolidation, would the Board still have asked for a vote of parents? Mr Dudley: You ask the Board that yourself! To Mr Grace, Mr Dudley said the Education Board chairman, when in the district, would not indicate his own personal views on consolidation, saying he wanted the views of the parents. That official was very fair and circumspect. It seemed to him (the speaker) that much had been made of little. The Mangapiko School Committee has an annual revenue of £23, and it would take about 23 meeting to decide how to spend it! After some more desultory remarks, Mr L. Young moved: “That the School Committee resign as a body, and submit themselves for re-election, together with other nominations, it any.”—Mr Dudley offered to send it, “with very great pleasure,” if tho clause referring to offering themselves for re-election were deleted. Mr Clarke seconded.

An amendment was proposed, expressing confidence in the present committee, and approval of the work they had done to obtain consolidation. The chairman ruled that this was a direct negative. Mr Grace, as a former committee man for years, said the job was really no sinecure. But he for one wanted to see the old school retained. He suggested an amendment on the point whether the committee should be called upon to resign. The householders had not been treated fairly on the subject of consolidation and the postal vote. Mr Callis commented that at last meeting householders voted when the chairman apparently knew that only parents’ votes were required. Mr Dudley said he did not know till afterwards that Mr Dunlop wanted the parents’ views. The chairman said it was really a pity that there was no other way out of the mess. The motion was a very drastic one. As an old committeeman and associated with the district ever since its inception, he reviewed tho situation briefly, and added that he could not believe the Education Board had hard and fast views on the subject. In the early days of settlement, and when money was exceedingly scarce, children trudged even five miles to school, and home again, daily. Their education was hardwon, and he was sceptical of alleged hardships nowadays. Really sentiment for (their old school was probably the determining factor, and he confessed himself personally biassed in favour of retaining the school. That, however, was his own feeling, and everybody else was entitled to independent views. Perhaps some other methed of meeting the difficulty could be devised. He thought that if the meeting appointed three of its number to confer with the School Committee and draft a letter to the Board the situation would be met. The meeting could re-affirm its decision reached on July 27th. At this stage Mr Young withdrew his motion.

The chairman said that if, as had been stated, much of the trouble came from Te Awamutu, it would be pertinent to invite those responsible to meet in conference, and exchange views.

Mr Dudley said that the Central Executive in Te Awamutu representative of the town and a fairly wide neighbourhood, does not talk so much of consolidation as of the provision of an intermediate school. It was only fair to tell the meeting that. Mr Grace then moved that three be appointed to meet the School Committee and draft a letter to the Board disapproving of consolidation.—Mr C. Woolly seconded, and this was agreed to, Messrs E. W. Clarke, L. Young and C. Woolly being then appointed. Mr Clarke moved that a copy of the minutes of this meeting be sent to the Board of Education, as a protest against the postal voting and the ignoring of the householders’ decision re consolidation expressed at the representative meeting on July 27th.— Mr H. Hey seconded.—Carried unanimously. Mr Callis then read his draft of the minutes, and these were authorised to be signed by the chairman.' The chairman, commenting on the meeting, said it may be suggested that the Mangapiko district residents are Tories, but they really want to hold on to the school they have in preference to seeking something that they may be doubtful about. He could not conceive that the Education Board would oppose the will of the householders for the time being. There was nothing to prevent the question being reviewed in a year or two. By that time possibly the householders would see more clearly. (Hear, hear.) Tho usual compliment to the chair terminated the meeting.