...
Named in honour of Prince Alfred’s visit to the district in 1867, Princes Hill was part of Victoria Ward in the City of Melbourne. Although the district was little more than a kilometre from the heart of Carlton, the Melbourne Cemetery and Princes Park had insulated Princes Hill from the rapid, dense urban development that had been occurring in Carlton since the 1850s and 1860s.2 Writing in 1888, ‘Garryowen’ described the area around Royal Park as having recently been ‘a vista of hill and dale, well-wooded and , grassed’.3 This situation changed rapidly in the late 1870s and 1880s. Settlers rushed to Melbourne, attracted by its reputation as the financial and industrial capital of the Australian colonies. By 1889, Carlton had 33,000 inhabitants, and many businesses and industries were located there. The laying of the cable tram along Lygon and Rathdowne Streets and the opening of the Inner Circle railway line with a Carlton station in 1888-9 added to the area’s appeal for city commuters. Although Melbourne as a whole lost population in the early 1890s as the result of a severe economic depression, Carlton continued to grow. By 1895, the population of Carlton’s two wards, Smith and Victoria, numbered 35,703.4
...
Under Duncan Gillies, and with the zealous Pearson as Minister, the Victorian government embarked on a major construction programme. The results were striking. In 1872, there had been 1048 schools and 135,962 new students, of whom 68,436 attended regularly. By 1891, the numbers had increased to 2233 schools, 253,469 enrolments, and 141,126 average attendance.13 In 1889, the total building program expenditure was £128,470, more than half the overall Education Department budget of £214,266. Sixteen Metropolitan schools were established to accommodate 4000 new enrolments. One of them ‘was was Princes Hill.
The constant pressure had eventually won out. A memo dated 25 October 1888 informed Gardiner that tenders would be called as soon as money became available. The contract to build a school of 2960 square feet for 300 students at the allocated space ratio of 10 square feet per child was signed on 23 February 1889. A week later the new school was officially listed on the roll as SS 2955.14
...
The third phase, first mooted in 1901-2, was built in 1906. It was designed by Samuel E. Bindley according to specifications determined at the 1904 Conference on Hygiene.47 The two-storey enlargement to the north wing provided an extra 6132 square feet, doubling the school’s space. Even at the new ratio of twelve square feet per student, the school could now accommodate 511 scholars. The additions cost £5327.6.ll11. Signed on February 1906, the contract was won by W. H. Deague and Sons of Albert Park. Work was to be completed by 29 September. Delays in June and a strike in early December delayed completion. The building was officially opened on 23 March 1907.48
The infants occupied the central hall (60 feet 6 inches by 24 feet) and four surrounding classrooms downstairs.49 The floor plan was repeated upstairs except that the northern corridor reduced the length of the central room above the 15 hall. The Head Teacher’s office was appended to the northern end. Internally, the floors were bare timber; the walls were drably painted in greenish grey and divided by dados painted a few shades lighter. Some ceilings were lined with pressed metal, others with white-painted, tongue-and groove lining boards. There were two staircases, one in the centre of the building and the other beside the Head Teacher’s office. The ‘dux’ honour board was at the head of the northern stairs.50
Reconstruction of the ground and first floor plans of Princes Hill School, c. 1906. The original architectural plans no longer exist. The plans were drawn by Mr Lawrence Burchell. KEY: A.‘ : General classrooms (1889); B .' : Infant classroom with gallery (1889), ’ G.‘ C: Gallery classroom (1889); the galleries were removed’ removed c. 1905, ‘ D: General classrooms (1891); E: Classrooms ‘ with dual desks on stepped floors (1906); F: F .' Head Teacher’s office (1906); G: Top-lit classrooms ([906); H: School hall (I9061906). 16
Six-foot-wide corridors lined with pressed tin directed movement within the school.5’ 51 Externally, the decorative features . that adorned the central upstairs windows of the 1889 building were not reproduced in the extension. It is clear that the Education Department responded belatedly to current community needs rather than planning so as to anticipate future growth. The first stage of Arnold Street was built to accommodate 300 scholars; 250 arrived on the first day. The second stage added another 200 places, when figures were already 500 plus. The third stage provided 502 seats, when the average attendance was 1000. It was to be another seventeen years before the students of ~ Princes Hill would have room to spare.
The ‘Little’ School
In February 1911, after the new enrolments for the year had stabilised, Head Teacher Skewes notified the Department that the junior school was again becoming overcrowded. The space for grades 1 and 2 had shrunk to only eight square feet per student and for grade 3 to six and a half square feet. As a temporary measure, Skewes recommended that St Michael’s Hall be leased to accommodate 100 students.52 This pressure on the junior classes heralded the beginning of the campaign that culminated in the building of the Pigdon Street school.
In the first decade of this century, the population of Princes Hill, North Carlton and Brunswick South continued to grow, and with it the pressure on the school’s accommodation. Attendances increased steadily: in June 1908 they averaged between 830 and 870; by 1912 they were in the mid-900s; by December 1913, 1100.53 From July 1912 the School Committee, the District Inspectors and the local politicians began again to lobby the Education Department for more accommodation. It would take twelve years to accomplish.
This phase of Princes Hill’s development also had its stalwart champions. Pre-eminent among them were Henry Sebire, Head Teacher from 1 September 1913, T. Fleming Cook and George Dore, Correspondents of the Carlton Board of Advice, Robert Solly, the Labor Member for Carlton, and George Prendergast, Labor Member for North 17 Melbourne and Leader of the Opposition. The obvious solution to Princes Hill’s accommodation problem, they argued, was to add another storey to the south wing. This proposal was first mooted in June 1912 by Dore in a letter to the Minister, Alfred Billson.54
The Department’s initial response in 1912 seemed promising: it investigated the feasibility of adding a storey to the south wing.55 But these measures appear to have been no more than an attempt by the Education Department to divert community pressure. The Department was’ was financially unable to help Princes Hill. Even the erection of a shelter pavilion had to wait until the next financial year.56
5" In October 1913, the newly arrived Head Teacher, Henry Sebire, entered the fray. Sebire complained that 156 children were being housed in a classroom designed for 100. The school had not been able to accept enrolments for infants under the age of 6 years since April. Sebire reminded the Department that St Michael’s Hall, which would accommodate 100 students, was available for 30 shillings per week. Acting positively, the Department advised the Head Teacher to lease St Michael’s Hall for six months. (Clearly the Department hoped that some magical act in those six months would relieve the pressure that had been intensifying for more than two years.) The hall was leased, and the 100 pupils in grade 3 moved there.57
Perhaps frustrated by the slow pace of developments, and undoubtedly seeking some political mileage, Prendergast had raised the matter in Parliament on 18 September 1913. Using the plight of Princes Hill as an example, he ridiculed the conservative Watt Government’s education policy. How could the Government, he sallied, display Princes Hill to visiting dignitaries as the show-school of the metropolis? The school was horribly overcrowded, so much so that it threatened the health of children. The neighbourhood was growing and the need for more space would not go away. It was not enough to take stopgap measures, such as renting or buying small premises in the neighbourhood. The school was choking without adequate playing space for the children: yet promises to upgrade the grounds remained unfulfilled. The government encouraged immigration, he continued, but it was not providing new arrivals with adequate schoo1ingschooling.58 18
On 21 April 1914, Prendergast led a deputation of local politicians, including Councillors W. Bell and W. Brunton, to meet the Minister for Education, Sir Alexander Peacock. Their complaints were familiar: the school needed another 250 places; St Michael’s Hall and the old shoe factory in the lane behind Arnold Street, which were being used as extra classrooms, were badly ventilated and poorly lit; the school’s furniture was old-fashioned; because the meagre grounds could not accommodate the students, the children were forced to play inthe in the street. Echoing the proposals raised in Prendergast’s speech, the delegation recommended that Arnold Street be converted into a high school and a new school be built for the primary students perhaps on land near the railway reserve.59
The debate in Parliament and the delegation to the Minister galvanised activity. In April 1914, Peacock diplomatically visited the railway site and the school. In 1915, the Department, having decided to erect a new building rather than add a second storey to the existing school, moved to acquire land and design a newjunior new junior school. Meanwhile, to alleviate accommodation pressure, it provided three pavilion classrooms.60
‘’‘’ The First World War brought new pressure to reduce education expenditure. School building took the brunt of the cuts; expenditure was slashed from £315,868 in 1914-5 to a mere £62,532 in 1917-8.
As life slowly returned to ‘normal after the ‘Great War’, the building of new schools resumed. By 1924-5, the Education Department was spending £350,000 annually on buildings, £219,321 on suburban schools alone. Almost every week the Department could announce that a new school had been opened, or an old one refurbished."’ 61 In Princes Hill, attention again was focused on the school’s plight. In 1920, after six years of negotiations with the Melbourne City Council, the State and Federal Governments, the Education Department finally netted a former army site for a new school. The five-acre site, bordered by MollwraithMcIlwraith, Pigdon and Wilson Streets, was locally known as ‘the swamp’.
In June 1921, the Education Department advised Prendergast that the Public Works Department had been asked to furnish a plan and cost estimates for a building that would house 400 pupils.62
Pigdon Street School. Opened as the Infant School in 1924, it became Princes Hill Primary School in 1959 when Arnold Street became the high school
In February 1922, a kindergarten room for 50 children was added to the p1ansplans."3 63 By December, the plans were ready for tender.6" 64 In April 1923, Prendergast proposed that the architects consider a novel feature for the school a moveable roof to allow ventilation. Unimpressed, Public Works rejected the innovation,"5 65 but the Department did accede to Prendergast’s request for gas rings and a kettle to be provided in the teachers’ room."" 66 In the mean time, the students were despatched back to St Michael’s Hall until the new building was ready."7 67 By that stage, daily attendance at Princes Hill was around 875.68
Designed by W. Kerr, the new school was opened on 16 April 1924 by the Mayoress, Lady Brunton. The new single-storey, red-brick building cost £10,598 to construct, and would accommodate more than 450 scholars at 12 square feet per student. Its centrepiece was a large, airy assembly hall measuring 64 feet by 34. Around the hall were eight classrooms, an office, and a teachers’ room. Dig20 nitaries Dignitaries present at the opening included the Mayor, Sir William Brunton, the Minister for Public Instruction, Sir Alexander Peacock, the Director of Education, Frank Tate, Cr Bell and George Prendergast."9 69 The school population was now divided between the ‘little’ and the ‘big’ schools. Kindergarten to grade 2 attended Pigdon Street under the charge of a Head Mistress, while grades 3 to 8 continued at Arnold Street.
Funding, however, remained a problem. With the advent of the Depression in the early 1930s the government began to cast around for ways of cutting its expenditure, and education was an obvious target. A Board of Inquiry into the administration of the Department was appointed in 1931, with C. S. McPherson as chairman. The Board found that in the past decade consolidated revenue per head of population had risen by 24 per cent, while educational expenditure had increased by 40 per cent. The Board recommended that control over the education system be centralised in the hands of a three-member Board, chaired by the Director of Education, which could take steps to eliminate overlapping and inefficiency. Meanwhile, the government had resorted to the usual expedient of slashing building expenditure from £429,652 in 1928-9 to £45,743 in 1931-2. It became difficult to winkle even the smallest improvements out of the building fund. In 1939, for example, Princes Hill School was refused money to build an internal women’s toilet, and to put up window guards to stop vandals breaking window panes.7" 70
The Maintenance Problem
The maintenance of school buildings and grounds was the bane of every Head Teacher’s life. Thorough half-yearly inspections were made by the District Inspectors to ensure that acceptable standards were sustained.
To catalogue every item of school maintenance attended to by the Head Teachers of Princes Hill over a hundred years would waste time and space. It is enough to allow imagination free rein: grubby hands, rushing, scuffing feet, careless use and abuse of equipment, stray footballs, vandalism, young egos determined to leave their mark on desk tops, faulty workmanship, vagaries of time and acts of God (where hands and feet could not reach), took their toll day 21 after day, year after year. The principal had to attend to a multitude of maintenance jobs: smoking chimneys, defective spouting, blocked eaves and downpipes, flooded rooms, crumbling and falling brickwork, weakened handrails, loose roofing tiles, defective drinking taps, greasy, dirty walls, flaking paint or peeling wallpaper, muddy playgrounds, falling fences, heating that was inadequate for cold and damp rooms, worn floor matting, piping for the stove, the endless blocked ‘out-offices’ (lavatories) and broken cisterns, and even the bell chain, which was regularly pulled off by over-enthusiastic bell monitors. The list goes on forever. There are hundreds of requests for school furniture such as desks, blackboards, drawing models, rifle racks, map stands, tables and chairs for teachers, cupboards, and even heaters.
The Department did not give the Head Teacher freedom of action to discharge these responsibilities. Instead of arranging to have a particular problem fixed by as local tradesman, the Head Teacher was required to submit a request to have it repaired. Each request was assessed by the Department, costed by the Public Works Department, and the fault rectified eventually. If a Head Teacher initiated his own repairs, for example in cases where there was an immediate threat to health or to the running of the school, the Department was not happy, as McNab discovered in May 1895. Ordered by the ‘Inspector of Nuisances’ to have a leaking closet pan fixed within two days, McNab had new pans fitted and passed on the bill to the Department. Their reply was uncharacteristically swift: the Department, he was informed, has a contract with a supplier of cheaper and superior earth pans. In the future, the Head Teacher should take care to follow proper channels. 7’ 71 In August 1933, Head Teacher Ernest Mylrea was similarly chastised for using a local plumber to repair a blocked sewer without first consulting the Department’s Building Branch.” 72
Additions to the school’s building, particularly those of 1906, alterations to accommodate more students, or Departmental changes to classroom design, added to the Head Teacher’s consternation. The north wing built in 1906-7 displayed signs of Frank Tate’s influence on education, with his emphasis on adequate lighting and high standards 22 of cleanliness and hygiene. The old dark green frosted window panes, designed to cut out glare, were replaced by blinds. Glass panes replaced wooden panels in doors, and seating was arranged so that natural light fell over the pupil’s left side. Rooms had to be kept free of dust, even if this meant leaving the room devoid of wall or mantle decorations. Hats and cloaks were no longer to be brought into the classroom, but were to be left outside in the newly erected cloakrooms. The old galleries - twelve-foot-1ong long seats arranged in stepped’ stepped rows above one another were to be replaced by New Zealand-style dual desks with backed seats, also arranged on stepped floors. The stepped arrangement of galleries took up air space and teachers could not move freely to attend to-individual students. The number of pupils per classroom was now set at fifty. Curiously, an earlier proposal in 1902 to convert the ,schoo1’s school’s gallery room into one with desks had been refused.73
” Further improvements were introduced in 1910. The inner walls of classrooms surrounding the central hall were fitted with glazed doors and screen-panels, enabling light to fill the hall. The size of classroom was fixed at 26 feet 6 inches by 24 feet; ceilings were repainted flat white and the plastered walls a light green. A level floor, with only a platform at the front, replaced the stepped classroom. Hyloplate blackboards dominated the rooms.74
” Skewes quickly took on the spirit of change. He made an extensive, detailed appraisal of the 1906 additions and his recommendations for further alterations. The old portion of the school was disrupted when carpenters were brought in to alter and refurbish the tiered rooms in line with the new proposals. Rooms were reflooredre-floored, desks installed, windows enlarged and frosted glass panes replaced by blinds. Internal brick walls, which hitherto had only been painted, were plastered over and repainted, thus erasing the threat to health posed by greasy and dirty walls. The brown ceilings were repainted white.75
7 Classroom decorations became acceptable again. A letter to the Argus from an ex-pupil led the way at Princes Hill. Comparing the ‘handsome collection of masterpieces’ adorning the walls of SS Macarthur in Ballarat with the blank and barren walls of Princes Hill, Donald McDonald exhorted all past students of Princes Hill to show their 23 appreciation of their old school by purchasing pictures and presenting them to Princes Hi11Hill.7" 76 Requests for money to buy pictures were made periodically to the Department. In 1956, a subsidy of £50 was used to purchase sixteen prints for the Infants’ Department. Among them were Heysen’s ‘Summer’ and, ‘A Summer’s Day’, Corot’s ‘The Bent Tree’, Young’s ‘Evening Sunlight’, and Wood’s ‘Seascape’.77 Scientific and technological developments also made an impression. Despite the general use of electricity‘in electricity in the community, and even though wiring had been installed some time before 1936. (defectively, as it transpired), in 1945 the Department refused to install electric lighting in the classrooms at Pigdon Street. Electric lighting had been connected at Arnold Street in 1912 to provide light for the evening classes. A wireless was bought in 1936, a film projector was promised for 1946, a public-address system was installed in 1947, and a strip projector was supplied in 1959. But here, as in so many other areas, the facilities provided at Princes Hill lagged far behind the times.