Reflecting on Judaism

In the first part of this history I mentioned that the concept for the school was raised at a meeting of the Ilford Zionist Society which was being held in the home of Dr. Solly and Mrs. Margy Samuels in the summer of 1956. Almost eleven years later, on the 4th April 1967 we learned that the application by the Managers of the Stepney Jewish School, to transfer to Ilford, had been approved. It had been a long haul by a small, but devoted band of determined people that brought it about, their efforts known only to a few. It was known to Nat Rubin who made it his business to keep abreast of matters relating to Jewish education in London and he sent the local committee the following letter which was greatly appreciated.

London Board of Jewish Religious Education

Tel. EUSton -2681.3

WOBURN HOUSE, (6th Floor),

UPPER WOBURN PLACE,

LONDON, W.C.I

3rd May, 1967.

Dear Mr. Abrahams,

          I have now studied the official list of major school building projects confirmed by the Department of Education for 1968/69 and it is with a great deal of pleasure that I see the Jewish primary school at Redbridge included therein as a replacement of the present school in Stepney Green. The purpose in writing this letter is to convey to you and your colleagues my heartiest congratulations upon this achievement resulting from your untiring efforts over a period of many years.

          I well recall the many meetings in the Ilford area and the almost endless discussion and negotiations, during which time many of us felt despondent as one snag after another had to be dealt with. Other committees might well have given up the effort in the face of the many difficulties encountered but I know from personal participation how each such difficulty made you more determined than ever. I am convinced that our decision to encourage the transfer of the Stepney Jewish School has been the right one both in the interests of Jewish day school provision in general and in fulfillment of the needs of the Ilford area in particular.

          Please convey my congratulations to all your colleagues and do not hesitate to call upon me if at any time you feel I can still be of some assistance either during building stage or during the subsequent administration of the school.

Kindest regards.                                                       

Yours Sincerely,

                                                                      

N. Rubin

Secretary

Mr. W.Abrahams,

192, Cranbrook Road,

Ilford,

Essex.

          Work on the actual building of the school now began in earnest. The architect wrote, on 26th July 1967, that the appointment of the quantity surveyor at this stage was extremely desirable and asked whether our original suggestion of V. G. Mendoza still stands. He also suggested that no nomination should yet be made for the M&E consultant and structural engineers. It might well be, he wrote, that a system building could be used which would avoid the employment of a structural engineer and there was the possibility of obtaining a design service from a contracting firm in respect of the M&E work. In the course of correspondence these suggestions were accepted by the committee and it was also agreed that Messrs. Zukas & Magaziner be appointed as structural engineers. It so happened that Bernard Pearlstone, one of its partners was a local man and interested in the project. Mr. Sidney Kaye, who designed the J.F.S., was appointed as a consultant at an agreed fee of 250 guineas. Raymond Rudie inquired whether, when planning the school, we could make provision for expansion into a two-form entry at some future date but this idea was not accepted because of the constraint on building costs set by the Authorities.

          Another small problem arose when it was advised that a right of way be acquired so that the children could enter the school from Heybridge Drive. The owner of the piece of land was reluctant to sell and so eventually, but reluctantly and after some convincing, the Local Authority considered proceeding by way of a compulsory purchase order.

          At the next meeting of the Managers of the Stepney Jewish School on 24th October 1967 a letter from De Groot Collis and Co. was produced indicating that the Greater London Council were willing to pay £42,000 for the present school premises but would not pay the school’s valuers and solicitors fees. De Groot was authorised to agree this figure or such higher figure they could negotiate.  The total roll of children at that time was 228 of whom 90 where Christian. The Minutes also mentioned that teachers Doreen Cohen, Kenneth Black and Norma Levenstein, well known names locally even today, were attending special educational courses.

          In order to indicate some of the building problems which needed to be overcome I set out below a copy of letter from the architect to Raymond Rudie dated 21st November 1967.

Scott, Brownrigg and Turner

Your ref

Our ref

R Duncan Scoll AA 0'1'1 FRIDA

J ,\ Brownrigg IIA (Lond) ARIDA

N 0 E Turncr ARIlIA

S Cruichhank AA Hon. Dil'l ARIDA

F C'kplon MA (Can tab) ARIDA

K E Gilham ARIlIA

0 F Tandy AA Hans Dil'l ARIBA AMTPI A E Murray AA Dil'l ARIBA

F P Black ARIBA MSIA

Architects and Planning Consultants

32 London Road. Guildford. Surrey

R. Rudie, Esq.,

Franks, Charlesly & Co.,

21 E1y Place,

Holborn Circus, LONDON, E.C.l.

21st November,

Dear Mr. Rudie,

Proposed Jewish Primary School

           Further to your 1etter to me of 15th November enclosing a copy of a letter from the Redbridge Town Clerk, 1 now enclose a copy of a letter dated 17th November from the Town Clerk confirming that he has asked the Chief Estates Surveyor and Valuer to proceed further with the negotiations for the acquisition of the land for the access.

          With further reference to my letter of 17th November, I have had a meeting with Mr. Miles and Mr. Holden regarding the line of the proposed new storm water sewer across the site.

          They were not aware of the exact position of this sewer, nor were they aware of the fact that in recent years the high voltage electricity cable has been installed by the Electricity Board along the east side of the ditch, this cable apparently making it necessary for the storm water sewer to be placed even further west of the cable.

          My main point of having a meeting with Mr. Miles was to point out to him that the siting of the storm water sewer does restrict the positioning of the buildings to be placed on the site, and might even involve a slight extension of the site towards the north west.

          Prior to meeting Mr. Miles, we tried out various alternative sitings for the School and the future Nursery Block, bearing in mind the position of the Youth Club, and the necessity to have some form of roundabout to the access road. It appeared obvious to us that there was only one answer to the problem, and this is shown on our drawing no. 3739/27, a copy of which I enclose. The Youth Club is drawn entirely diagramatically at the moment and could obviously be of a different shape. The scheme does allow of car parking in the south west corner between the Junior Playground and the Youth Club.

          Mr. Miles was very much in favour of the proposed siting and, subject to the Playing Fields not being affected by an extension of the site northwards, would be quite prepared to extend the site in that direction. Mr. Rosslyn came in towards the end of my discussion with Mr. Miles and could give you further information. ­

          We brought into the meeting the P.E. Advisor to the Education Committee to discuss the whole question of physical education in respect of the new building. It was generally felt that the physical education use of the Central Hall Area was the "odd man out" in so far as ideally this required a very large space of a height preferably of 14ft. capable of being used for the whole of the school day. It followed from this that, ideally, the P.E. Area should be separated from the rest of the School teaching area but, obviously, this is not possible with the present restriction on cost.

          It was further felt that if in the foreseeable future, viz. 5-10 years maximum, there was a possibility of a P.E. Hall being erected, then both Mr. Miles and the P.E. Advisor would accept quite happily, in the interim period, a space of the size shown on our drawing no. 3739125 A, with a height restricted to approximately 12ft.

          If however, there was little prospect of a P.E. Hall being erected inside that period, then it was felt by everybody that the central space should be enlarged to an area of approximately 60ft. X 30 ft. with a height of 14ft.

This would mean in fact that the Hall could not be sub-divided economically for other purposes, and would also involve the raising of the roof over this area as being a more economical method than sinking the floor, both from the point of view of cost and of loss of area involved by steps down to the sunken area. .

          However, when we suggested that there was a possibility that we might be able to keep the cost of the building down to £2,000-£3,000 below the cost of the limit on the scheme shown on our drawing no. 3739/25A, Mr. Miles suggested that, if the clients could produce the balance of the money required for the P.E. Hall, he and his Committee would probably strongly support a scheme showing the separate P.E. Hall.

The Committee wish to consider this as a proposition, bearing in mind that they have asked us to investigate alternative propositions of having a separate Dining Room which in itself involves the building out of the Kitchen on the east side.

          By having a separate P.E. Hall, the central space could then be built as shown on our revised drawing, the space of 30ft. X 42ft. being used for Dining, and for other educational purposes outside Dining hours, yet being capable of opening up for large gatherings. The sunken floor would form the main part of the auditorium and either end could be used as a stage or platform, the opposite end being used for seating at a higher level than the auditorium. If you agree that this idea wants to be looked into further, perhaps you would let me know whether you would then like additional copies of the plan to distribute to your Committee Members prior to our next meeting.

          The above is an explanation of the annexe we have shown on the site plan labelled P.E., as we have in mind that the P.E. Hall should be in this position.

          As I explained to Mr. Miles that the Committee had asked me to arrange a meeting at the Ministry with their P.E. Advisor, I should report to you that he was very much against this idea. He feels very strongly that his department is, in most ways, well ahead of the Ministry in their thinking and in any case the Ministry would take the view that the direction of the physical education training should be determined by the Local Education Authority and not by the Ministry. Mr. Rosslyn will report further on this matter.

R. Duncan Scott.

Enc:

Copy drawings no. 3739/25A and 27

           

The above letter from the architect was one of several similar letters we were to receive over the next

few months dealing with such matters as minimum daylight factor, space for music and physical recreation, space for dining and drama, kitchen requirements,etc. All of this needed consideration by the committee some of whom had little experience in such matters and required guidance.

            The committee members were also invited to visit other newly constructed schools so that they might be inspired but nothing very exciting emerged. One meeting with the G.L.C. did provide some excitement for they wanted us to build a circular school with no windows at low level so as not to allow the children to become distracted by looking out of them. In addition there was to be no interior walls, only partitions, and in order to overcome the noise which having no walls would generate, they suggested having air conditioning at a high noise level to drown out the children’s noise. They also recommended a special carpet which they claimed was particularly stain and dirt resistant.  I asked for a bottle of ink so that I could put it to the test. The ink was not forthcoming.  The committee quickly squashed these concepts to the disappointment of the Education Officers involved.

            The need for fundraising now became a priority. On 26th April 1967 I had lunch with Bobby Burns and Sam Stone. Mr. Burns was the Hon. Treasurer of the Stepney Jewish School and Sam Stone had been very active in the Ilford Jewish community but for the past few years had been in hibernation. We persuaded Sam to become Chairman of ‘Friends of the Ilford Jewish Day School’ and his enthusiasm increased with the passage of time. He undertook to raise at least 200 ‘Seven Year Covenants’ from the Ilford Community in the sum of £5.5.0d each per year. He immediately arranged a meeting, mainly comprising parents with children eligible for entry to the school, and was able to organise the Covenant drive.

            On 30th January 1968 Raymond Rudie met with Mr. Uveeler, representative of the Claims Conference. He made it clear to Raymond that none of their funds could be used towards funding the school but might be able to be used for the nursery block subject to certain conditions. If, however, substantial development has not commenced by September 1969 the proposed allocation may no longer be available. In any event the grant would be for £10,000 or one third of the actual cost of the nursery block whichever should be the less. In the event we were able to obtain the grant in due course.

Woolf Abrahams.

November 2003.