Schools : eighth report from the Select Committee on Estimates together with the Minutes of Evidence taken before Sub-Committee E and Appendices, Session 1952-1953.

  • Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons. Select Committee on Estimates
Date:
1953
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Schools : eighth report from the Select Committee on Estimates together with the Minutes of Evidence taken before Sub-Committee E and Appendices, Session 1952-1953. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    73/256 (page 53)
    18 February, 1953.] [Continued. you prefer the traditional types?—Yes. (Mr. Griffith.) Could we put it like this. We recognise that extraordinary measures are required to build the schools because children grow up quickly. But we would want to return, not just return but go forward, to more substantial and even better buildings. Brigadier Peto. 545. I was going to clear up one point if I could. I was informed that the tradi- tional type of building was probably the cheapest type to put up, as bricks are probably cheaper than anything else in the way of jbuilding material, ‘but that the traditional type did require more upkeep and maintenance than the prefabricated build- ing?—We have some experience of that. Before the war there were many what we call light buildings put up, lightweight buildings. The maintenance cost of those, repairs and maintenance and that kind of thing, we can prove was higher. I listened to the Architect for Middlesex giving a lecture some years ago, and he pointed out that although the initial cost was less, when you take the cost of repairs it was more expensive; those were the words he used. There was quite a number of those schools put up in pre-war days. 546. Non-traditional?—Yes, some wooden ones. 547. I was surprised by the architect who told me this, that the traditional building is in fact a cheaper building to put up in material, cubic space for cubic space, than a prefabricated building, which has the more expensive original cost in material than the brick building?—(Mr. Britton.) That is completely contrary to the views of the architect with whom I am _ most familiar. The Surrey authority’s architect takes a completely opposite point of view, and I have discussed this with him in some detail, namely, that the traditional building is not cheaper in original cost, but is much cheaper in the long run. (Mr. Griffith.) The traditional way of building was in force in very many areas before this reduction to £140 per place, and it is by doing away with a lot of that and putting some prefabrication in that they were able to come down to £140 per place. Mr. JT. W. Jones. 548. What are your views on the central hall system in the construction of a school? On the face of it, it would appear that would be the cheapest building that could be put up. In any case, is not this question of noise over-exaggerated?—In 1907 there was a central hall type of school with win- dows in the hall, where the headmaster could sit in the central hall at a big desk and see what was going on. I have had experience of that kind of school, and a central hall of that kind is no use at all. It is only a corridor. You want a central hall where the school meets as a com- munity, and it cannot meet as a community if any of the classrooms are in use. It is really a wide corridor, and a recurrence of the old days, where the headmaster used ta sit at a big desk. Miss Ward. 549. Now you are talking about a central hall where the classrooms were off the central hall and there were glass panels in the doors, but that is not the present arrangement?—I thought that was what you were asking. Mr. T. W. Jones. 550. I was asking whether you could go back to that type or whether they con- demned jt?—You have got to have a stage and platform and everything now. Chairman. 551. Where you have a central half through which children have to go to their various classes and come from the classes through the central hall, how far does that affect teaching efficiency by work having to be interrupted?—(Mr. Britton.) I think it does affect it very considerably. (Mr. Hickman.) It is a sort of dilemma really. If you are using that space efficiently, then it affects it. If you are not using it efficiently you are paying very dearly for circulation space. (Mr. Britton.) I think that sums it up. 552. We are not getting value for the money we spend in education if in fact it is not being done efficiently? —(Mr. Hickman.) If you are using that big space efficiently you cannot circulate through it, because you would upset the efficiency of the use. If you are not using it efficiently you are paying very dearly for circulating space. I believe, as regards the suggestion of dual use of halls, they were some of the most interesting and quite fruitful suggestions and quite proper ones, because if you have big spaces you should use them as much as possible. (Mr. Griffith.) I actually taught for some years before the first war in one of these halls, and there was constant fric- tion. I had a class there because it was the only space. The South Wales valleys were expanding in population. I used to say: ‘** Nobody is to come through here because I am talking for the next ten minutes or so.” The other teachers would say they want that boy and that boy and there were constant interruptions. Miss Ward. 553. That is a very very old type. You cannot compare that type of school with the new modern school with the big central hall?—I am not against the central hall, but if it is used for the purpose of circula- tion it is valueless really.