Reflecting on Judaism

The History of the Ilford Jewish Primary School Part Two

The next five Committee meetings took place between 5th May and 19th October 1959. At the second meeting Sidney Lancet joined the Committee and Mr. Nat Rubin was in attendance in his capacity as Secretary of the London Board of Jewish Religious Education, honorary correspondent of the Jews’ Free School and honorary advisor to the Chief Rabbi’s Council. Mr. Nat Rubin’s advice is set out below. During the course of these five meetings the Committee was told that the Essex Education Committee, to whom the Ilford Borough Council had referred our request for the purchase of the site at Barkingside, had approved our application. The next step was to agree a price for the required land with the County Land Agent and Valuer who was still awaiting detailed plans. The Local Authority stated that they would provide the school with playing fields but they would not necessarily be for the exclusive use of the school.

          Other matters discussed were; the provision of facilities to provide additional kosher meals for those children who attended other schools; whether there should be a separate dining hall with the main hall being left for other school purposes; the question of a centre for extra mural activities for use by the community at large; the place in the curriculum for religious and Hebrew education. It was generally felt that this should form part of the normal daily timetable and be taught by the class teacher in preference to special teachers of Hebrew; the advantages of a One Form Entry and of Streaming. On all these matters it was agreed that the Education Committee would seek guidance and further information from the Authorities.

          It was reported that someone had leaked information to the local press and that they were printing incorrect information which might prove harmful to the project. It was felt, generally, that it would be preferable for the committee not to engage in public discussion and debate for the time being. The local press was contacted and was told that the information which they had printed was uninformed and incorrect and they were promised that as soon as there was substantial news to report they would be contacted. This informal arrangement was honoured by both parties throughout the course of the project’s development.

Reverting to Mr. Rubin’s advice, he mentioned the following points;

1. The paramount importance of obtaining aided status ab initio. An immediate approach should be made to the Educational Authorities so that formal procedure could commence, including publication of Section 13 Notices. It was likely that the Ministry of Education would require proof of a bona fide demand in the area for a Jewish primary school and we must be prepared to furnish definite evidence of such a demand.
2. When the land is acquired the architect should be asked to attend all meetings.
3. Essex Council approval should be sought at every successive stage.
4. Immediate application should be made to the Ministry of Education for inclusion in the yearly building programme.
5. An outline plan of the project should be submitted to the Local Authorities as soon as possible.
6. It is advisable, even at this early stage, to try to buy an adjoining site earmarked for a Jewish secondary school so as to ensure continuity of Jewish education.
7. In order to avoid unnecessary delay it is advisable to press forward on several stages of procedure simultaneously. He also stressed the importance of a good choice of architect and strongly recommended that he should have a wide experience of building new schools and be thoroughly accustomed to dealing with the Ministry of Education and the Local Authorities.

          If only our subsequent negotiations with the Zionist Federation, on which the Committee had just embarked, had proceeded as smoothly as those with the Local Authority, but more of this later. The Committee was introduced to a Mr. Duncan, Scott an architect with unrivalled experience in building schools and knowledge of Ministry procedure. They had full confidence that he would produce a first class school at the most reasonable cost. His C.V. exactly matched the standards recommended by Mr. Rubin. The Zionist Federation, through its general secretary Mr. Bakstansky, wished to appoint its own architect who had little experience in this field but they were adamant. They insisted that since they were investing a large proportion of the initial costs they were entitled to appoint the architect and have control of the building operation. They were prepared to consult with the local Committee but the final decision must rest with them. They advised the local Committee to make up their minds by the middle of October and confirm to Mr. Bakstansky that they were prepared to co-operate along the lines indicated otherwise the Zionist Federation would divert their money elsewhere.

          The local committee discussed the matter at length and it agreed that it did not have faith in the Zionist Federation’s recommended architect and unless we were told why they had such confidence in him we could not work in this atmosphere. An aide memoire was drafted and, after discussion and some amendments, it was agreed that members of the Committee would meet again with the Zionist Federation to discuss its position as set out in the aide memoire. The further meeting was arranged; it lasted one and a half hours, but the differences remained unresolved. There were further exchanges of correspondence and David Kramer suggested that a fresh approach to the Zionist Federation on a less formal basis might have a better chance of success and he offered to see Mr. Bakstansky, tete-a-tete, with the view to resolving the difficulties. The committee welcomed this idea and David Kramer was asked to contact Mr. Bakstansky and report back.

Woolf Abrahams.

September 2003.