FRESH AIR SCHOOLS

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17568, 19 June 1925, Page 12

FRESH AIR SCHOOLS

ATTITUDE of the board. “ WILLING TO HELP CRUSADE.” Matters relating to fresh air schools received a great deal of attention at to-day’s meeting of the C anterbury Education Board. A statement was submitted by tho chairman (Mr l’T. J. Bignoll) pointing out that the members of the board were quite desirous of helping tho open air crusade if there was any chance of doing so. In, addition the board received a deputation from tho Canterbury division of the British Medical Association v, u the subject of open air schools. I )E FEGTS PER PETI' ATED. “In view of statements recently made in local papers that members arc obstructing the erection uf openair schools, .1 should like to place the hoard’s viewpoint before yon,” said Mr .Bignoll in bis statement. It should be mentioned in the first place* that the Fendalton Open-Air School was designed by enthusiasts who had probably not had tho wide experience in school construction possessed by tho officers of tho Department and tho board. As a consequence ibo building perpetuated several of tho very defects that it was very desirable to overcome. The three main points that are now closely watched in modern school construction aro lighting, ventilation and heating, and it is in tho first of these that the open-air school particularly conflicts with requirements, seeing that tho lighting, instead of coming from one direction, comes from three. While there can be no complaint as -to the quantity of fresh air entering the building, in the open-air school there is, if sliding doors are wide open, no protection against tho wind; and, if they are closed, there is no cross ventilation above the heads of tho pu~ Us's. A PLAN REJECTED. “The hoard is just as anxious for tho health and comfort of tho children as the advocates of open-air schools, but it must be satisfied that the best method of attaining these ends is being adopted. Eor tho smaller single-roomed units tho board had submitted to the Department a plan <of an open-air school, but this was turned down on tho following grounds:- - (1) While detached units providing the same accommodation are obviously dearer than a range of classrooms of the usual type providing the same accommodation, they possess no compensating advantages. (2) The rooms proposed will receive far less direct sunlight than those with the usual orientation. Little direct sunlight will enter the room from above the verandah, and none from under the verandah. Only in mid-summer will a little get in from the south-east, and that when the sun is low. (3) The officer of the Health Department consulted is emphatic in stating that the aspect of the building as already approved is the best. “ Tho board could not contest this opinion with any force, but the point I wish to make is that the members are quite desirous of helping the openair crusade if there is any chance uf doing so. | UNFAIR COMPARISONS. I “I am sorry to say that some of the j advocates of open-air schools are hardly fair to the board when they discuss this matter. For instance, w hy do they compare the experimental open-air school built last year with buildings that were erected over fifty years ago? The board will readily admit that the latter are unsatisfactory from many points c.f view, but they cannot be replaced by merely waving a wand. They arc, however, being rebuilt as quickly as circumstances permit. And this brings me to the other point: Have tho advocates of open-air schools ever inspected a school like West Christchurch or Richmond and also the Fendalton school on a typically unpleasant morning, and noted the conditions under which the children are working in each? In not a single instance, as far a:; I am aware, has anybody been able to find fault with the conditions under which the pupils work in schools ouilt by the board during the last two vears. The teachers are certainly satisfied, and I believe the parents would be also if they were interested enough to study the matter for themselves.”

DEPUTATION FROM B.M.A.

BOARD GIVES A PROMISE. At a later stage the .board had before it a deputation from the British Medical Association, and after hearing the deputation, passed a motion pledging itself to erect fresh-air schools to the fullest extent permitted by the Education Department. The deputation consisted of Dr I'. F. Foster and Dr Be van Brown. Dr Foster said that the deputation did not approach the board'with any idea of teaching the board its business. The sole desire was to see that the best was done, for the children of Canterbur'. That was. the whole desire of the B.M.A. The B.M.A. was unanimous in its approval of the open-air schools, as opposed to the old mass type of school. As to the actual design, the B.M.A. had no plans of its own. The deputation intended to give the board, the views that they knew were held by the best experts to be best. Every doctor knew that the average health of the primary school children was not what it should be. That was the important thing that drove the B.M.A. to speak to the Education Board. They believed that the principle of open-air schools had been proved beyond any manner of doubt. By that he meant the single classrooms on the ground floor readily accessible from the outside —rooms that were separate, with the air all round them. They had rio bias of favour for anybody’s plans. They were not supporting Dr Phillipps s or anybody rise's plans, but they wanted to stress the point that something of openair schools was necessary. From the public statements of members of the board, lie was aware that they wore in favour of open-air schools, and that plans for open-air rooms were sent to the Department for the purpose of the Lyttelton Street School. For some reason or other those plans were turned down by the Department. Speaking ! with some knowledge of hospital plans j sent to heads of Departments, he could sympathise with the board in that. He believed that now, however, 1 he Department had expressed itself in favour of the open-air plan. The tragedy from the point of view of the B.M.A. was that, in unite of that fact, the old

type of building was being erected there. j Members: No. ASSISTANCE OFFERED. I Dr Foster: I am quite willing to'ad-] mit that improvements have been I made. Dr Foster said he had inspected j some of the newest types of school. 11. [ seemed to him that the children, -which ■ should be the first consideration, were, in danger of falling between two stools, or between two schools ot thought. The B.M.A. -was not wedded to any particular type of school building provided they gut open-air rooms where there was access all round. The old type of room, where the children were shut in for one, two or three hours, was not. right, whatever the ventilation. Jt was essential that the children should be able to move freclv and move out quickly. The B.M.A. would be only too glad to help or co- j operate or give advice about plans if they could. QUESTION FOR THE BOARD. Dr Bcvan Brown said the. question the B.M.A. asked the board was: Why do not you build open-air schools? Presumably the board would answer that it. did. But tho most modern type of school building in Christchurch, as exemplified by the Phillipstown and West Christchurch Schools, did not conform to the medical idea of open-air schools bj* any means. They did not conform to the principles laid down by the highest authorities on school hygiene. The modern schools did not receive the maximum amount of sunlight. From the. LUM A, point of view, ventilation from the open-air on one side to a corridor on the otherside was not obtaining the maximum amount of .air movement. The deputation spoke only from the. health point, of view. The health of the school children was being seriously prejudiced under the present conditions. Even in the most modern types of school, the health of the children was being affected to a definite degree. What they stood for were the isolated classrooms that got the maximum amount of sun and air, and where the children had freedom, and could run out for exercise. There must be windows on the four sides. As regarded warmth, they contended that. the children xvero warm enough from tho medical point of view o. child should be kept warm by tho warmth of its own body. Children did not require artificial heating. So long as they were reasonably healthy they should keep warm -without artificial heat. DUTY TO PUBLIC. Tho deputation, said Dr Berau Brown, was authorised to ask the question : Did the board agree with tho principle of the single class rooms? I'he.y had been bitterly disappointed over tho Lyttelton Street school. They felt that the matter had got to a point where tho public should know of it. They felt that they had a, duty to tho public in this matter because they wore the guardians of tho public health and if they saw one phase that could bo set right and was not being act right they felt it tlicir duty to co mo forward and speak. Air W. A. Banks said tho members of tho board were absolutely in favour of opon'-air uehools. Tho Department bad turned down their proposals for open air schools time and again. The board was in favour of au open air school in Lyttelton Strqefc, but tho Department would not allow it. But when tho foundations had been put down and a great deal of money spent the Department turned round and said it would approve of the- open air class looms. Mr W. IT. AY ins or said he agreed with tho principle of open air schools. But they had to consider other things besides air. ’They had to consider the question of light. That was one point where Dr Phillipp’s plan erred. Tlio New Zealand school buildings were too expensive. The detached class rooms could bo provided for thirty per cent less than the present typo of building. AN SAVER. ASK ED FOII After other members of tho board had spoken Dr Bcvan Brown said ha wished to put tlio definite question—‘‘Aro you going to take practical steps to avoid the old class of school and really set about bidding tho open air typo of school?” Tho deputation wished to have that question answered. Or was tho answer of tho board merely that tbo Department stood in its way ? Dr Foster said that if the board set out on i Iris open air school principle it could, cunt on tho B.M.A. for its fullest support. Tlio difficulty might bo just a, matter of cross purposes between tho board and tho Department Thcro was a chance in Canterbury now to go ahead and ho strongly urged upon tho board to take the opportunity that was presented of leading New Zealand by getting in and building open air schools. Tiro board would not meet with the opposition from tho Department, that it had experienced in the past. Air M ild moved: - “That this board being strongly in favour of fresh oir schools will in all future buildings have* new schools erected in detached units as much in accordance with that principle as the Department will permit. Tho board accepts with appreciation tho offer oi tho B.M.A- to co-operato and niako suggestions on tho board’s plans, which offer will bo made use of by tlio board's arc-hi te ct. ” Tbo motion was seconded by Air Banks and carried unanimously.