to three acres); demonstrate to the inspector (whose visit might be delayed for a matter of years) that there were enough children of school age and under-25 ready to attend and a number of younger ones was thought desirable—and that parental support was likely to continue. All this contrasts sharply with the commendable zeal of the Education Board in accompanying settlement with schools as a routine procedure.
4.21 The site, once offered, had to be approved by the inspector and its tide ascertained and transferred to the Crown—in the case of Manaia three acres were transferred to the Crown for 5s. After transfer an often drawn-out process of survey, tendering and construction followed. Several years could pass between asking for a school and getting one. In the case of Mataora Bay, the initial request was made in 1903; two years later the community was still awaiting the inspector's visit. After several requests the survey was completed in 1906. In the next year it was reported that 'the Natives' were growing impatient; in 1908 the school opened with a roll of seven which grew to 18. In spite of parental defections (some sending their children to the native school at Wharekawa and others to the public school at Whangamata) the school struggled on with a small roll (II in 1914). Perhaps six years of waiting weakened parental and community support. At the very least, one may question whether the inspector had any right to complain in 1908 that the parents were not as supportive as 'the Department has a right to expect' (BAAA
I00I 329a).
4.22 Action could be swifter. The school at Te Kerepehi was opened within two years of application in 19oz. However, an earlier request had been made zo years before, possibly by the same person or family—Arapeta Te Ngahoa and Te Ngahoa Ripikoi (BAAA 1001 5962). But normally delays of some years were experienced: Kirikiri, five years between request and opening; Te Huruhi, three years; Wharekawa (Opoutere), five years; Manaia, two years (but in a church which soon proved to be an unsatisfactory building—it took a further year before a school building was erected).
4.23 Attendance at these schools fluctuated; this put them at risk as a declining roll could lead to closure. At the same time, an increasing Pakeha enrolment could lead to transfer to the Education Board. Sometimes loss of pupils was due to divisions and animosities within the Maori community. In other cases it is clear that the Maori community, through the school committee, was anxious to keep up enrolments, for example by curbing truancy. But, compared with the powers available to Board school committees, they lacked the capacity to do so effectively. Some committees wrote to the Department inquiring about their powers to require attendance (for example, Mataora Bay, BAAA 1001329a, in 1908). At Manaia in 1900 the local constable offered his services as a truancy officer, but the Department advised that while the police could help no legal proceedings could be taken (BAAA 1001 297a & b). It seems likely that this attitude was also taken to the attendance of Maori children at public schools.
4.24 Though the native schools were small and struggling institutions, subject to assimilationist pressures from the Department and its inspectors, they were institutions
42