1x in enclosur168
8
(5 of (a)
48 file
After going carefully through
it all my
to
go
views is that two short telegrams ought
roughly
the lines of the attached drafts (with
which Mr Robison agros).
Sarnigrams if they
agreement which
arrived in time would leave little time for the furtes attempt to arrive at an I hope will is made lo for the board's weeting 142.
and to
my
question of thought
year.
than
on
the
The point at issue is both tricky & important wind comes to being a good deal weaver a educational farinciple that it seem to cart Cast
According to one way of looking at the issue is whether schools receiving large gast grants should to allourd to charge high tees & thereby to cater only for the wealthy section of the community; from the otte's side it could is represented as being
it
acceptance of grants must wean
letta the
which
the levelling down of good schools for
satools for lack of ald-timal resources could easily tap.
Actually I agist with the
thy
substance of para. 5 of (7) that his Rowell's offer, i.c. that the "subscript ins" way allowed in the Code only if tanto, is not really
?
to increased beyond the Sop the grant is reduced kro compromise at all, and note that in pax. 7 of (8) Min howell says answer to this part of the Bishop's letter!
a
tter is vo
I am not
sumprised the latter rejects this, though I don't of carse suggest that he should to hold that is my veins.
will.
and if
A
it is
deadlock is clearly
It is most desirable that they should reach some
on this even now,
pur Paroll sees agrement pern. 2 of my draft message to him in time
But conceivable that they hobable. In that case I think the action, much as & regist it, ought to to that which I hoposed in the last para. but one of my minute of 12.8.48, namely reference to the ALEC Sub-Ca which was suspended
the when it was decided at the left. weeting that the trotagonists should return & try to reach agreement.
approved? regards these amendments to the Code as
fourstory of
If this wrocedunt is agroad, it cams important to let the gov. know Cafes the Ronell commits himself futter at the Board. You will notice that my Roll and fan already,
That is surely not The controversial clause is a new one, apparently fromed at the request of the local Board of Edeation, was first sent to the S. of S. in July 1948 with a number of other amendments to the Cade which hair likervise never been approved. In this respect the Bishop is right in
8(2) on
the case?
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.