WEST SCHOOL.

Waikato Times, Volume 105, Issue 17687, 16 April 1929, Page 8

WEST SCHOOL.

PROPOSED REMOVAL. PARENTS' STRONG PROTEST. PETITION TO THE MINISTER. ■About 40 parents of Hamilton West School pupils attended a meeting at the school last evening, chiefly for the purpose of considering the proposal to move the school to another site. A strong resolution of protest against the proposal was passed, and it was resolved to send a petition on the subject to the .Minister of Education. Mrs Ws F. Kcnt-Johnston, president of the Parents’ Association of the school, was in the chair. She explained the objects of the association in improving school conditions and in bringing about co-operation between parents, committee and the school staff. She added that in the short period of .its existence 'he association had bought a gramophone for the'school, had paid for a thorough overhaul of the infants’ shelter-shed, had provided lighting for the primer department, and had made a donation of £5 to the dental clinic. Much work needed to be done to the school grounds Considerable funds would have to be raised, and she suggested that an AllNations’ Fair should be held. Representatives of the association had waited on the Minister (Hon. H. Atrnore) cn his recent visit to Hamilton, but had not yet received any ofllcial reply to the requests they had placed before him. She asked Mr D. G. Cook, secretary of the committee, to tell the meeting what information had been received regarding the proposed removal of the school.

Mr Cook said a letter had been received stating that the Education Board had considered the question of handing the present site to Hie Technical School and building a new school on the Palmerston Estate. The opinion of the committee was asked, but he thought the inference to be drawn was that the board intended to take the site whether the committee consented or not. > Reasons Against Removal.

Mrs Kent-Johnston said they should not take a selfish view in their discussion of the subject. She had not met one parent who would support the board’s proposal to move the school to another site. There were i7O pupils on the roll of the school at present. Many of the children would have further to walk and greater dangers tu avoid if the school were moved. She considered the site on Palmerston Estate was out of the question. Many of the children would have to go by Lake Road —a stock route. The proposed site seemed to her very unhealthy—she had wondered whether the board had considered the health of the pupils at alt. Drainage from roads and dwellings ran on to the property. Only about 50 children at present came from beyond that site. The school, if moved, would probably have a smaller attendance, and it would in that case lose some of its high-grade • "ichors. She urged the parents to protest. They would have an opportunity of recording their opinions when the householders’ meeting was held next Monday. Mr A. H. Burn, a member of the committee, said the suggestion for removal had come, not from the board but from the department. He considered they should not put forward the claims of pupils from one section of the town, but should rather emphasise that the proposed siie was unhealthy. Claims of Technical School.

Mr 11. C. Morrison said he had three | children at the school. He had an open mind but he felt that the Technical School was bound to expand, and that parents present were over-stressing their sentiment in favour of the present site for the primary school. _ Mrs Kent-Johnston said sue must rule out of order any reference to the claims of the Technical School. Mr Morrison thought they were bound to consider the claims' of the Technical School. He asked how many of the West pupils came from north of the present site. • Mrs Kent-Johnston said there were 972 —the majority of the children. Mr A M Bislcv considered the present site should be kept The department said it was not desirable to have a primary school in the centre of the town; yet in Auckland one of thlargest schools —the Normal —was in Wellesley Street. He moved that a protest should be sent to the department and the board against the removal of the school. Air G.. Hovey agreed with the resolution and suggested that a petition should be circulated. He thought they ehould stress the plea for consideration of the children’s health. Mr. added the proposal for a petition to his motion. Mr. C. C. Hunter said the grade of the school would be lowered if i were moved to the Paimefslon restate. The teaching would not then be up to the present high standard. The committee had protested against the proposal and had suggested that one acre of th-' present site of five acres should he handed to the Technical School. He pointed out further that it had been practically decided that a dental clinic should be built on the present school site; this was another reason for retaining tlie site. . The resolution was earned, no dissentient voice being heard. Petition to the Minister. The meeting resolved to forward the following petition to the Minister ot Education: — • ■Sir, On the occasion of your itcent visit to Hamilton a deputation waited upen you representing Ihe parents of children attending),he Hamilton West School. •• one of the chief points which the deputation was instructed to urge was the desirability of retaining the present site of the school in the event of re-building. It was pointed out that ihis view was very unanimously expressed at a meeting of parents. “ We now learn that departmental action is contemplated in opposilion to our views. “We the undersigned parems, feci that we have a right to greater consideration in the matter. \Vc desire again to urge upon you that the retention of the present site is not only desirable in itself, but is vitally necesar - for the well-being of our children. “We do not cfesire to repeat all the very good reasons, in support oT our contention, but these are available if required. We wish, however, to place on record our conviction that draslic depart.cental action, affecting existing rights and interests, should be undertaken only after consultation and frank discussion with those concerned, and to protest that, in this case, no aflirnr.ative case for removal has either been supplied for our consideration or suggested. “We trust that our rights, the rights of electors, citizens, , and parents of the children concerned will net be overlooked, and we believe that,, when you have looked into the matter, you will not stand for a policy which is at once unjust, bureaucratic and un- . democratic,” , T" Y I Y rr