Reflecting on Judaism

The London Board of Jewish Religious Education was a sub-committee of the United Synagogue responsible for supervising the standards of Religious Education of the part-time classes (cheder classes) attached to synagogues in and around the London area and also for the J.F.S, the successor to the old Jews’ Free School from East London. Although they had not, till this stage, shown any open interest in our local efforts to create a Jewish school they must have been keeping an eye on progress. At a meeting of ‘The London Board’ on 11th March 1965 Mr. S. S. Levin, Chairman of the Board, approached me to enquire why we have been making such slow progress. I was attending the meeting as representative of the Beehive Lane Synagogue. We discussed the problems.

          I learned from him that the London Board had acquired ‘transfer rights’ of Jewish Schools destroyed or abandoned during the Second World War which meant that they could, with the permission of the local council, establish new Jewish schools in areas which could show need. Ilford was just such an area. However, the school for which they had transfer rights was for a two-form entry i.e. two classes for each primary age year. They were not prepared to proceed on the basis of the Ilford Authority’s agreement for a one-form entry for this would mean them foregoing the educational capacity of some 40 children each year. The Local Authority had, however, given only grudging agreement for even a one-form entry school.

          To consider taking up the London Board suggestion of transfer would mean starting negotiations almost from square one. Another difficulty was that we, locally, had already entered into an agreement with the Jewish Agency (Torah Dept.). Following discussions with them they were prepared to rescind the agreement so long as they could remain involved in the Jewish and religious side of the school’s education programme, and they would still be prepared to invest £15,000 over three years. Mr. Rubin had already made contact with the Jewish Agency to try to sort out details should the London Board decide to become involved. I suggested that if they had not made satisfactory progress within three weeks of my discussion with Mr. Levin, I would raise the matter formally at the next meeting of the Board for general discussion. In reply Mr. Rubin requested that the matter be kept off the public arena for the time being as the Board’s Honorary Officers had not as yet discussed the matter.

          Meanwhile, the two Authorities from whom we had agreed to purchase the two smaller parcels of land were becoming impatient with the local Committee because negotiations had been dragging on for a number of years. There was a danger that they might withdraw their offer of sale. Raymond Rudie brought this danger to the attention of the Jewish Agency which expressed sympathy with our predicament and agreed that we should proceed with the purchase immediately. Raymond Rudie wrote to the Jewish Agency’s solicitors on 7th July 1965 requesting that we be put in funds to complete the purchase but in spite of several reminders the funds were not forthcoming. On 4th November 1965 Raymond received a letter from the Jewish Agency’s solicitors advising that there had been an internal rearrangement between the Jewish Agency and its partners. They wanted our agreements changed following which the funds to complete the purchase of the two small parcels of land would be forthcoming. The requested changes were made and submitted to the Jewish Agency but by the end of 1965 we had received neither funds nor a reply.

          The reason for the procrastination on the part of the Jewish Agency can only be surmised. They were working with several partners, Mizrachi and Yavneh to mention just two, and it could be that they could not decide which should put up what proportion of the funds. They were, perhaps, worried about what would happen to their funds if they invested and the school project did not go to completion. They also wished to secure their status in the event that the London Board proceeded with the proposed transfer school although this possibility did not arise until well after the funds were first promised by them. Or maybe they did not have the funds at all and were hoping to raise them.

          I think that it is only fair to put their promised £15,000 into context. Writing this history, as I am, in 2003 it seems a paltry amount, for today it represents only the price of a modest comfortable car whilst an average house in the South East of England costs approximately £250,000. I do not recall what the price of a modest comfortable car was in 1965 but a modern 3-bedroom house at that time cost some £3,500/£4000. In this context £15,000 was not a inconsiderable amount.

          Whilst there may have been a shortage of funds there was no shortage of meetings and discussions between the Jewish Agency, the local Committee and, latterly, the London Board. I have no doubt that all the participants were honourable gentlemen, some were my personal friends, and all wanted to see the establishment of the local school but somehow it didn’t gel. Although negotiations with the Jewish Agency continued for a little while longer they eventually petered out, somewhat acrimoniously, and certainly no funds were received from them to help us establish the school.

          Nat Rubin wished to learn what the Local Authority’s reaction would be if he made formal application to them to transfer the two-form entry school, for which the London Board had transfer rights, to Ilford and for this purpose he called on the services of Harry Goldner. Harry Goldner was an original member of the Day School committee, the local Jewish representative on the Ilford Council, financial representative of the Beehive Lane Synagogue and an Honorary Officer of the London Board; the ideal person to make the informal approach. Their reply dated 3rd December 1965 stated: -

          ‘Following our recent discussion on the possibility of transferring a school from the Hackney area to Redbridge, I have now had informal conversations with the Department on the matter and have been in correspondence with them. They are anxious to help and would like to see the matter brought to a decision as the discussions have now been going on for several years. If your committee is willing to go forward with this I shall be happy to let the Department know so that a meeting can be arranged.’ A copy of his letter was sent to Nat Rubin asking him for a draft of a letter to be sent in reply. Nat provided a draft in which he indicated he will treat the matter as urgent; that we would be willing to proceed; that the question of ‘transferred rights’ is a complicated one because it affects the needs for Jewish schools by other areas of London and implying that he was putting the matter on hold, hopefully for a short period, whilst he tried to resolve these problems. In his covering letter to me he said that he could understand the Local Authority’s frustration and the whole position must be watched very carefully indeed. If they feel that we are dragging our heels in this matter they will not treat our further negotiations seriously. He was, of course, quite right but what exactly did he want us to do that we were not already doing? He didn’t say.

Woolf Abrahams. October 2003.