Printer Friendly

Problem or solution? A secondary teacher training initiative for a new era.

Introduction

Division D, a two-year course of concurrent university study and post-primary teacher preparation, was introduced in New Zealand in 1962. It was one of several initiatives aimed at addressing a staffing crisis in secondary schools that had arisen out of expanded participation in post-primary education, the post-war baby boom and other demographic and labour market shifts. The course was designed specifically for bonded recipients of teaching studentships who had not obtained the required number of university passes to retain their financial assistance. Because most of the participants in the scheme would enter the teaching profession as 'trained' undergraduates, the course reflected tensions and debates which had been building steadily since the early twentieth century as to whether university qualifications or professional and practical factors should be given priority in preparing teachers for the secondary service. As a consequence, the course was met with a variety of responses from the education sector.

This article forms part of a wider research project which examines the role, nature and impact of the Division D course as an historically specific response to a problem of teacher supply in New Zealand. It draws on documentary and archival evidence to provide an understanding of the ideological and practical tensions which underpinned the brief history of the course and of the associated controversies which developed around its operation. The project is interested not only in the way the course was planned and received but also in the way it was experienced and its long-term impact. Division D had a short career and was an option taken up by a relatively small number of trainees--fewer than one hundred in total. (1) On entry to the course, the students had in common unsuccessful initial university studies but many of those students went on to higher degrees and successful careers in the educational sector. Their stories have never been part of the historical record. Rather, they have remained part of what Kate Rousmaniere has called the 'haunting silence' of practitioner experience which has characterised historical documents. (2) The research project aims also to redress this silence. Understandings of student perspectives, of their subsequent careers and of the role of training college and classroom educators of the time are currently being pursued through oral history.

This article introduces the course and explains who the students were. It begins with a discussion of the contradictory views relating to the nature and purpose of secondary teacher preparation which developed as provision expanded after 1900. This provides a framework for understanding the dilemmas faced by the Education Department when attempting to address the staffing crisis of the post-war years. In pointing out the complex circumstances which contributed to that crisis, the article suggests that the introduction of Division D was both a solution to the Department's problem of supply and a problem for status within the profession. This was to have implications for the ways in which the course and its students were perceived and received.

Establishing the context--towards universal secondary education

The objective of early compulsory state education in New Zealand was to render the majority of the pupils useful and conforming citizens, whilst post-primary education was to be the preserve of an elite minority. (3) This view had been challenged in the later nineteenth century and under Inspector-General George Hogben there had been considerable development in secondary education. Although the form of provision and the structures of allocation established at that time constituted yet another means through which social selection could be effected, (4) mechanisms were put in place to support much wider participation in post-primary education. This created a need for more teachers at that level. The accepted preparation for secondary teaching had traditionally been the gaining of a university degree but as the scope of secondary provision widened with the formalisation of district high schools and the establishment of technical high schools so, too, did the perception of 'the qualified teacher'. (5) Debates relating to quality of teachers were developed around the university/training college relationship; (6) the issue of whether teaching should be seen as a practical craft or a learned profession, (7) in particular whether or not pre-service secondary teacher professional and practical training should be obligatory; and the undergraduate/graduate status of secondary teachers. (8)

Under the post primary grading scheme, university and trade qualifications earned credits as an inducement for teachers to gain higher qualifications. (9) Regulations to support the establishment of secondary departments at the training colleges were also put in place so that those intending to teach in high schools may have 'an opportunity for training'. (10) In 1911, one-year secondary training courses for university graduates were made available at the training colleges and endorsed by the Cohen Commission. (11) Such courses were not obligatory, however, and as there was little by way of incentive for the trainee or true commitment to the requirements of the secondary sector from the Education Department, they were not widely taken up. (12) It was not until experienced secondary school teachers were appointed as full-time lecturers for post-primary trainees in the 1930s that secondary training began to be more specifically formalised. Even then graduates who took the one-year course spent part of their training in primary schools and often filled positions at the primary level before transferring to the secondary sector. (13)

When meaningful access to opportunity through education became the goal of New Zealand's first Labour education administration, to be facilitated in the first instance through the abolition of the selective proficiency examination in 1936, participation rates rose at an unprecedented rate so that, by the mid 1940s, 85 per cent of all young people were spending some time in the post-primary schools. By 1959, this figure had risen to 98 per cent. (14) In that it was required to cater for the needs and interests of a much more diverse group of students, secondary education had taken on a broader application. The issue of supply, therefore, was not simply a matter of providing sufficient teachers but also of recruiting for the wide variety of courses which were to be offered to a broad student body. Specialist streams to cater to such needs and interests were introduced as early as 1943 with the Homecraft course, to be followed by the Technical Division W in 1946, Special Mathematics and Science in 1958 and Commercial in 1958. (15) The demand for teachers with wider specialist knowledge was to support a new philosophy on the nature of teacher training which was embedded in the development of new social knowledges. The 'immense growth of knowledge relevant to the business of education', (16) it was argued, was a function of the interest shown by practising teachers in ideas posited by educational thinkers and research workers and an increased number of students engaging with such fields as child psychology, medicine, social work and sociology. By 1944, the Department had decided that all graduate teacher trainees (Division C) should go to Auckland for one year of training but with the post-war crisis significant change became imperative.

The crisis

Although the staffing shortage at this time is often reduced to the consequences of the baby boom, it was very much more complex. Ian Cumming notes the impact of urbanisation as exacerbating the situation in some areas, of post-war resignations from the service (especially of women) and of the raising of the school leaving age. (17) At the same time, teacher preparation facilities nationwide were inadequate. With no provision in the south, many potential teachers were either lost to the profession or were permitted to enter professionally unprepared. Problems of recruitment further compounded the issue and complicated attempts to seek solutions. In the first instance, there were smaller numbers of potential trainees from which to draw because of the lower birth rates during the depression years of the thirties. (18) There were also wider occupational choices because of post-war developments in business and industry. Some years later, a recruitment officer was to observe that at that time New Zealand had been facing 'a desperate state of affairs'. (19) The reality was, he claimed, that 'we were trying to staff schools for children born at the rate of 50,000 a year with new teachers gleaned from years which produced only 25,000 births; and that in the face of the fiercest known (up until then) competition for labour'. (20) For the professional bodies representing the principals and teachers, poor remuneration and low status were at the core of the matter. Cumming cites arguments put forward by The Auckland Headmasters' Association in an attempt to explain the inability to attract quality trainees to the profession. In terms of professional status, economic incentive and retirement conditions, Cumming suggests, there was little to render teaching a desirable occupation with long-term rewards, especially to well qualified people. (21) In the view of the New Zealand Post-Primary Teachers' Association (NZPPTA), the solution lay in a 'revaluation of the teachers' services'. (22) Indeed, as demonstrated by Hugh Parton in his 1956 analysis of 'Professional Status by Income', of the professions, teaching rated very low in terms of financial reward. Only a very small percentage of the teaching force received a salary that was higher than average for professionals. (23)

Attempts to attract more people to the profession had begun with a system of post primary teachers' bursaries, initiated in 1947, which offered conditional assistance to students selected in their final school or university year. In the following year, the Minister of Education set up a consultative committee to inquire into the recruitment, education and training of teachers. After three years of deliberations, this group noted the increasing needs of an already stretched post-primary service, especially given the anticipated growth in rolls in the 1960s. The Dominion, it pointed out, would have to 'recruit, educate, and train post-primary teachers on a scale not hitherto contemplated'. (24) This was not simply to boost supply for the secondary service but also to prevent unwelcome moves to co-opt primary trainees to the secondary sector. Even though they were facing an emergency situation, it was felt, expediency should not allow the distinct training needs of the sectors to be overlooked, (25) nor should the quality of the primary service be compromised by siphoning off its all too few graduates. (26) However, despite the severity of the problem, the Campbell Report was somewhat optimistic in its claim that recruitment for teaching was proceeding 'moderately well' in comparison to other countries, (27) and the publication of the report was followed by assertions that the problem was under control. In 1952, a Government Services Tribunal was assured by Doug Ball, Assistant Director of Education, that 'after 1954, the supply [of teachers would] be adequate ... of high quality academic, professional or trade ability'. (28) In the same year, the NZPPTA would claim that the Department had downplayed the severity of the situation with an attitude of 'easy optimism'. (29) The NZPPTA had reason for concern. As awareness of the imminent crisis strengthened, however, a number of training and recruitment initiatives were developed by the Department of Education. Training opportunities were opened up for students who did not have university or higher technological qualifications and a studentship scheme was introduced in 1955. This was a targeted scheme whereby classroom teachers would be asked to identify 'the most able' (30) potential trainees so that they may be offered financial inducement to embark on a career in secondary teaching. As intending teachers and as a government investment in securing an appropriately prepared teacher workforce, studentship recipients were paid to undertake university studies, to be followed by a year at training college. Students were bonded under the scheme, the anticipation being that allowances received were to be paid back by an equivalent number of years in the teaching service. Prescriptions for satisfactory progress were laid down and a number of possible alternatives for those not meeting those expectations outlined. One option adopted by the Education Department in 1962 was to initiate a new course of secondary teacher preparation that would enable failing studentship holders to meet their financially-incurred service obligations to the teaching profession. This course was Division D and was to be of two-years duration in order to accommodate concurrent university and teacher training. Under the course, students were prepared to teach general subjects to junior classes.

On top of other undergraduate courses already introduced by the Department to alleviate the staffing crisis, Division D was not welcomed by the NZPPTA. This group was committed to the objective of securing a graduate secondary teaching profession and stood firm in its belief that the cumulative effect of the undergraduate courses was detrimental to the needs of the school students. The introduction of Division D became the deciding factor for the NZPPTA to exercise sustained resistance to what they saw as yet another make-shift measure. So long as the problem continued to be ill-defined, it was argued, the recommended solutions would continue to be 'piecemeal'. (31) At a meeting of their Teacher Training Group in February 1964, the Executive expressed its intention to actively promote a three-year course which had been proposed by a recently appointed teacher training advisory group, to replace Division D. (32) The new flexible Division B course of training was more acceptable to the NZPPTA in that it would demand that students gain a minimum of six university units before being granted certification for teaching. It was introduced in 1966 as a more permanent course of training in general subjects.

Reflecting its short-lived career, there is little about Division D in the historiography of teacher education in New Zealand. J.W. Fletcher's account of the Christchurch College of Education, however, notes the opposition of the NZPPTA to the course and 'a good deal of unhappiness' over the fact that the title Division D carried with it 'connotations of failure'. (33) It is primarily reports of educationalists and government agencies which provide understanding of the wider educational context within which the course of training developed. In particular, the annual reports from the Minister of Education, the 1962 Report of the Commission on Education in New Zealand and those of agencies put in place to address the issues raised by the commission, provide essential insights into the circumstances under which Division D was developed and the brief period during which it operated. A perspective from professionals engaged in teacher preparation is provided by various articles that were published in a journal established by the New Zealand Teachers Colleges Association in 1964. Some of the early journal articles relate to the development and demise of Division D and its place in some of the key debates which were current at the time. The Journals of the NZPPTA provide other insights, most specifically in relation to the group's opposition to the course, but also because of the inclusion of commentary from the lecturers on the programmes at Auckland and Christchurch who were able to report that students were making positive academic and professional progress. (34)

The literature outlined above presents three distinct readings of the role of the course. In the first instance, it was to meet a need--to help address the staffing shortfall which, by 1960, had reached major proportions. Second, Division D was to provide an alternative means through which the student of moderate capability would be able to realise his/her ambitions to become a post primary school teacher. In this, concern for quality became redefined within a student-centered rhetoric. Third, the introduction of Division D would be a means of 'rehabilitating' failed but indebted students. The course would offer a second chance for students to demonstrate academic success. It would also be an economically pragmatic means of making the best possible use of students who had failed in fulfilling their academic obligations but who still had to meet financial obligations.

Meeting a need

The secondary teachers' studentship, introduced in 1955 by the then Minister of Education, Ronald Algie, was the initiative which, it was widely believed, would most effectively address the staffing shortage. The scheme was characterised by one commentator as 'the one substantial plan' in that it paid fees and allowances to enable prospective teachers to undertake full-time university study. (35) Called Division U, students under this scheme were teachers' college students who were 'seconded to the university as full-time university students'. (36) They were essentially university students in that they attended the university only, and their 'immediate loyalty was to the university'. (37) However, Division U students received teacher training allowance during the weeks they were required to attend lectures. They were also subject to the expectations and entitled to the privileges shared by teachers throughout the country. They became members of the teaching profession on enrolment, took up superannuation, could become members of NZPPTA and were subject to disciplinary regulations as employees of the Education Board. (38)

To the Minister, this scheme was a far more realistic move to attract teacher trainees than was the system of bursaries introduced in 1947. He pointed out that, whilst more than 200 bursaries had been made available during the 1950s, they were never all taken up. Compared with what primary teachers at college were paid, he argued, the allowance was small and recipients were not officially recognised as part of the teaching profession until their entry to college. Having to enter into a bonded situation under such conditions was seen to be a distinct disincentive. (39) The post-primary teachers' studentships, on the other hand, put post-primary trainees for the first time on a financial and professional par with their primary colleagues. The response to the scheme was 'very gratifying', with 500 applications being made for the 300 available awards in the first year. (40) Such was its advantage that within a year it was being noted that many of those on bursaries had transferred to the studentship scheme. (41) In the opinion of the Currie Commission writing in 1962, '[f]ull-time study on scholarship or studentship [was] no doubt the royal road to secondary teaching and more were travelling it to their own and the country's advantage every year'. (42)

Division D developed directly from the studentship scheme. Studentship trainees had an obligation to pass four university units by the end of their second year. Failure to do so meant that they could no longer expect to be supported at the government's expense and they had to repay either their debt or transfer to the primary service. In order to minimise the number of Division U students being lost to the service because of their underachievement, the Minister of Education's Committee on Teacher Supply had recommended that a year's suspension be granted to failed students so they may have a chance to redeem themselves in the eyes of the Department and subsequently be absorbed back into the system. (43) For some, this option was not feasible and Division D was established as yet another alternative to avoid the potential loss of these students to the needy secondary sector. However, the Department's decision to institute Division D was reached without consultation with the NZPPTA, whose sustained condemnation of the course during its brief history was powerful and most explicitly expressed in annual conference resolutions to oppose it and to agitate for it to be discontinued. (44) Throughout the controversy, it was referred to as an emergency course--an unacceptable temporary measure, whilst to the Department, it was a pragmatic response to an extreme set of circumstances.

One of the recommendations of the Currie Commission was to establish form I-VI secondary schools, which were expected to have particular implications for curriculum organisation at the forms I-IV level. (45) The principal way the Department believed Division D would support the staffing crisis was by ensuring that students, who had committed to post-primary teaching but who had not achieved the required success in their university studies, could become appropriately qualified post-primary teachers in the reorganised post-primary system. (46) In a context where degrees were being increasingly expected of post-primary teachers, the presence of Division D teachers in the system was justified by its supporters because of the nature of the 'typical secondary school in New Zealand', with its diverse range of ability and needs. (47) According to the Currie Commission, allowing these undergraduate teachers into the service should not be seen as a move to 'dilute the ranks of the graduates' but rather as a means of filling 'a most important field of effort' in junior forms of secondary schools and at the intermediate level. (48) The focus of the training for these students was to be on junior level English and social studies.

Expanding opportunity for students of moderate ability

Despite the realisation that secondary education had come to have very wide application, the fact that many secondary teachers were entering classrooms without adequate qualification or training was represented to the Commission as 'anomalous' and 'a relic of the past'. (49) A major concern during the late 1950s had become the range of qualifications with which students were being accepted into Division C. In their Interim Report, the Currie Commissioners had noted the way in which entry requirements to the one-year graduate course had been redefined. It had been developed originally for graduates or for those students requiring one unit only to complete their degree and yet students were being accepted into

the one-year course of training with far from completed degrees. Indeed, to accommodate the increasing number of school enrolments, students with as few as five units had been accepted onto the course. This included some from Division U. (50) In the view of the principal of the Auckland Teachers' College, this was not simply a pragmatic response to the teacher shortage but was a situation which would continue so long as the studentship scheme was in operation. He had other concerns. Where students were taking on a large university load in an attempt to complete a degree, there was an inevitable clash with college requirements and this precipitated concerns about the amount of professional training that was being gained by the part-time student.
 If those who have incomplete degrees are to be admitted to a
 course at a teachers' college, while still studying at the
 university, the period of professional training should be
 longer. The provision of a separate course should be established
 as distinct from a course for those with complete degrees. (51)


The Currie Commission was in full agreement with these concerns. The Division D course, as a two year programme, would provide 'a useful channel' for the efforts of these students and a means of realising their ambitions to work in secondary schools. (52) Some years later, the Director-General of Education was to acknowledge that, even though the students had been unsuccessful in their university studies, at the time of their application, they had been deemed suitable for work in the secondary schools. The course would not only provide an opportunity for such students to continue on that career path but would be a strategic measure to address the staffing crisis. (53 The students, however, would simply have to accept the fact that they had 'reached their ceiling in study, and [be prepared to] concentrate within a limited range'. (54) At the same time, the pressures to retain potential teachers could not be allowed to compromise the increasing demand for better qualified staff. Division D would enable students of limited ability to continue with their degree studies whilst concurrently gaining the professional skills to equip them for their role in the junior classes of the secondary schools. A 'lesser goal ... was realistic', it was argued, where there was a shortage of graduates, giving 'reasonable though rather limited prospects for the individual teacher'. (55)

The proposals to institute form I-VI schools, along with the universalising of secondary education, raised questions as to whether, beyond the need to provide relief in a time of staffing crisis, there was a permanent place in the secondary schools for teachers of general subjects who had not completed a university qualification. (56) That 'permanent place' was to be clearly defined by the perceived academic ability of the teacher. This was enunciated in K.J. Sheen's discussion of various 'teacher types' which he claimed were required to cater to the range of ages and abilities represented in the secondary schools at the time. Sixth form work demanded graduates, he suggested, but in lower forms the need was different. Furthermore, whilst potential sixth formers would require trained graduate teachers to provide the 'sound academic foundations [which would enable them] to make the best of their abilities', for the 'type of teaching' required for junior students of 'modest' ability, 'possession of a degree [was] not a necessary qualification'. (57) There were even those amongst the antagonistic NZPPTA who endorsed such views. In one of their regular protests about the course, a member was obliged to note that:
 A minority of the committee feel that the influx into our
 schools of large numbers of pupils of low ability and the
 shortage of qualified staff demands a "realistic attitude"
 and there may be a place in the schools for such a teacher. (58)


It was on such a basis that the National Advisory Council in Teacher Training first put forward its recommendation to replace Division D with the new Division B as a more permanent course of training in general subjects. (59)

Other educationalists saw that a less specialised degree may be the answer for the general subject courses. (60) For Minogue, it was regrettable that students had been allowed into secondary teaching without the necessary university degree and training college qualification. This had led to 'a steady dilution of secondary teaching as a graduate profession', he argued, recommending that 'a less highly specialised first degree' be instituted as the appropriate qualification for the teaching which was at that time being undertaken by non-graduate teachers. (61) It was not that Minogue was dismissive of the fact that non-graduate teachers may well have potential that had not yet been realised or that many were 'dedicated and most highly competent teachers'. (62) Nonetheless, his expectation of the students were grounded in ideological notions of student potential. 'It seems fallacious', he noted, 'to expect that students who have been unable to cope adequately with full-time university work should be able to handle concurrently further university study as well as professional studies'. (63)

Such arguments were not only underpinned by understandings of the ability of the trainee but, as did those of Sheen noted above, also reflected an embedded perception of the school students themselves which had persisted since access to secondary education had been expanded. Of the primary school leavers to go on to post-primary school in the mid-twentieth century, it was often noted that a large number remained for two years or less. Many of these young people were seen as academically limited and according to one Minister of Education, were it not for the policy of social promotion and the raising of the school leaving age, they would have reached school leaving age before having completed their full course of primary schooling. (64) Whilst some educationalists were critical of any form of simplistic categorisation of the school population and of attempts 'to use such a division to separate similarly the staffs of the secondary schools', (65) and others protested against the view that the concurrent training courses were to prepare 'not very able' students to teach pupils who themselves were perceived as being 'not very able', (66) it is clear that there was a well supported move towards rendering official the differentiation of both students and staff within general subjects courses and within an official recognition of a form 1-1V section of the school path. (67)

Rehabilitating failures

Division U students were seen in economic terms in relation to both the cost of training and the potential loss to the service. In his Annual Report of 1957, the Minister of Education acknowledged what he saw to be the significance of the role of the senior lecturers who were appointed to training colleges to oversee, advise and assist Division U students. 'It is hoped', he stated, 'that by giving the students personal help and guidance, they will be able to keep the number of expensive failures to a minimum'. (68) With the establishment of Division D, however, failed students were seen to constitute an even greater cost to the already heavily committed college lecturers in extra tutorial assistance and other forms of educational guidance. (69) They were also considered by the NZPPTA executive to constitute an unwelcome time cost to associate teachers in the schools, to such an extent that, as members of the Association, such teachers were urged not 'to accept instructions concerning Division D students' without reporting such instances to their executive committee. (70) If they were still unable to meet their academic expectations, on graduation from college they were to become the most functional, economically viable teaching units as possible--as general academic subject teachers within the 'large multi-course secondary schools' which had been developed to accommodate 'pupils of all degrees of ability'. (71)

Failed Division U students were also seen in terms of personal inadequacy. Despite their failure, they could 'rehabilitate themselves'. (72) Along with their academic limitations, they were seen as immature and not able to achieve the desired professional standard in a one-year period. These students 'need not only time to study their subjects', it was suggested, 'but time and leisure to grow within their own being as people'. (73) There was, therefore, the opportunity throughout their two-year college period to achieve success as students in part-time university study. There was also the chance that they may become successful teachers 'with a lesser goal' than graduates. (74) In this, lecturers were again positioned as crucial. Success was seen to be dependent on the expertise of their mentors and much onus was placed on the staff of Division U students to 'protect the interests of the Department of Education' by ensuring 'that the secondary service [had] a regular supply of qualified teachers'. (75) Part of that responsibility was to work closely with the unsuccessful students and to advise them on the best course of action for their future career. In so doing, they would 'rehabilitate' such students and 'restore their confidence' in the face of failure. (76)

If the decisions to be made were seen to have 'far-reaching consequences for all concerned', (77) however, that was as much about protecting the Department's investment as it was protecting the interests of the student. Division D students were to be fully cognisant of their failure and of the obligations they had to the government. The time had come for them to serve the benefactors, not themselves. Whilst the ultimate aim was for them to complete degrees, the fact that their failure was seen in terms of their limited ability meant that there was a fundamental belief that this may never become a reality for them. If they could be good teachers of general subjects at the junior level, that was preferable to being total losses for the Department. The amount of university study in which they enrolled was to be strictly regulated. The Currie Commission contended that 'students who [had] already enjoyed as studentship holders extremely favourable conditions for full-time university study', should not be permitted to compromise their second chance training in any way. (78)
 The subordination of university study to their teachers' college
 work should be beyond question. The rehabilitation of secondary
 trainees who cannot complete degrees in the requisite time has been
 attempted with considerable success in other countries and the
 Commission sees it as advisable in New Zealand. (79)


However, if the intention of providing this second chance traineeship was to restore confidence in the students, the on-going language of inadequacy was scarcely conducive to such an outcome. On 31 May 1962, in readiness for the opening of the new post-primary block at the Auckland Training College, notes were prepared for the speech of the Minister of Education, W.B.Tennent. Division D was given special mention--the course that 'caters for two years for those with teaching potential but who have been retarded in their degrees'. (80)

Conclusions

Division D was one of a number of secondary school teacher preparation initiatives introduced to meet the shortage of post-primary school teachers in New Zealand which, by 1960, had reached crisis point. This article has explored the significance of the historical origins of the problem of teacher supply and has located the establishment of Division D and the ways in which its students were perceived within the ideological and practical context within which the problem was posed and confronted. Reflecting the contradictions which shaped that context and the tensions these raised within and between the Department of Education, the training colleges and members of the teaching profession, the course was seen alternatively as problem and solution.

At one level, the issue related to the nature of teacher preparation for the secondary sector. Division D students were allowed into the profession without the university qualifications which had traditionally defined eligibility to teach in secondary schools. They did, however, receive a comprehensive training college experience. Whilst there had been increasing recognition of the importance of a practical and professional element to teacher preparation, this was not intended as an either/or scenario and had emerged initially as an optional extra. Despite a crisis of supply, the determination to ensure that academic standards would not be compromised remained firmly on the agenda of the professional bodies. For some, Division D signalled that such a compromise was inevitable.

The nature of the training was inextricably linked to its purpose and this had undergone a major shift following the development of the technical and district high schools and the abolition of the proficiency examination in 1936. The secondary experience was no longer the preserve of the elite and by 1960 most young people were spending some years at secondary school. This meant that teachers were required to be much more flexible in their practice and it had been recognised that a one size fits all approach to teacher preparation was no longer appropriate. What counted as acceptable qualifications had also changed and trainees for technical subject areas were accepted on the basis of their trade qualifications. Division D did not address this need in the schools. The students were undergraduates. Traditionally there had been no recognised place for such a group, nor had there been an expectation that such a place should be created. There were many in the teaching profession who, despite social and educational changes, saw the course as creating a new situation which would allow long-established principles for the teaching of general academic subjects to be compromised.

On the other hand, there were pragmatic concerns to be addressed. There was a shortage of teachers and it appeared that secondary schools should be reorganised to meet the demands that expanded provision had brought. These concerns were to be addressed, in part, through allowing undergraduate teachers to be especially prepared to work in middle school departments of a restructured sector. There were other gains to be made here. Division D would enable the government to capitalise on an investment already made in studentship trainees who had been unsuccessful at university. However, the legitimation of undergraduate teachers through the introduction of the scheme would compromise efforts to raise the status of the profession and would in fact contribute to what was seen to be an increasing 'dumbing down' effect. According to one principal, '[o]ur conception of "ineffective and inadequate" is altering--unfortunately downwards. Today we seem to accept poor staff when some years ago they would be rejected'. (81) What was pragmatic to the administrators was make-shift to the professionals and would not only conceal 'the real urgency of the situation' but would be antithetical to meeting the needs of the children. (82) It would also make the profession less attractive to university graduates. To this extent, the course was seen to exacerbate recruitment issues rather than alleviate them.

Division D students were positioned variously as 'failures', 'inadequate' and 'of limited intelligence'. They were having also to negotiate the intricacies of their own academic and vocational aspirations and the limited chances that were left to them to pursue those aspirations. In a time of social and educational change they were, moreover, as much representative of the compromises that issues of status and supply generated as was the course itself. Just how these factors came together to shape their pre-service and practitioner experiences will be examined in the next phase of the project.

(1) The course was in operation for four years only, at Auckland and Christchurch.

(2) K. Rousmaniere, City Teachers: teachers and school reform in historical perspective, New York, Teachers' College Press, 1997, p. 8.

(3) W. Thomas, C.E. Beeby and M.H. Oram, Entrance to the University, Wellington, New Zealand Council for Educational Research, 1939.

(4) This has been noted in a number of studies. See for example R. Shuker, The One Best System? a revisionist history of state schooling in New Zealand, Palmerston North, Dunmore Press, 1987, pp. 53-55; G. McCulloch, 'Historical perspectives on New Zealand schooling', in A. Jones, G. McCulloch, J. Marshall, G. Smith and L. Smith, Myths and Realities: schooling in New Zealand, Palmerston North, Dunmore Press, 1990, pp. 35-37; R. Openshaw, G. Lee and H. Lee, Challenging the Myths: rethinking New Zealand's educational history, Palmerston North, Dunmore Press, 1993, pp. 102-106.

(5) This did not mean that district and technical high schools did not pursue higher educational objectives, and indeed, these schools provided important career prospects for women graduates. See K. Morris Matthews, ' "Simply Madness"?: historical perspectives on teachers and university study', History of Education Review, vol. 30, no. 2, 2001, pp. 1-13.

(6) N. Alcorn, 'Teacher education and the universities in New Zealand: dilemmas and directions', Waikato Journal of Education, vol. 1, 1995, pp. 19-28.

(7) I. Snook, 'Teacher education: a sympathetic reappraisal', Delta, 47, 1993, pp. 19-30; R. Openshaw, Between Two Worlds: the history of Palmerston North College of Education 1956-1996, Palmerston North, Dunmore Press, 1996, p. 9.

(8) W.J.D. Minogue, Hawaiian and New Zealand Teacher Education, Wellington, New Zealand Educational Institution, 1971, p. 95.

(9) Report on the Consultative Committee set by the Minister of Education in November 1948, Recruitment Education and Training of Teachers [hereafter The Campbell Report], Wellington, Department of Education, 1951, p. 127.

(10) Appendices to the Journals of the House of Representatives [AJHR], 1905, E-1, p. xiv.

(11) AJHR, 1912, E-12.

(12) A.H.W. Harte, The Training of Teachers in New Zealand from its origins until 1948, together with suggestions for the reorganization of post-primary teacher training in New Zealand in a functional basis, Christchurch, Simpson & Williams Ltd, 1972, p. 46; H. Parton, The University of New Zealand, Dunedin, University Grants Committee, 1979, p. 74.

(13) J.H. Murdoch, The High Schools of New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand Council for Educational Research, 1943.

(14) J.G. Elliott, 'Recruitment of teachers in New Zealand', Historical survey from the Recruitment Officer, 1972, Personal documents.

(15) I.J. Whyle, 'Training teachers for New Zealand secondary schools', Journal of the New Zealand Teachers Colleges Association, vol. 2, no. 2, 1965, p. 6.

(16) Sir Fred Clarke, cited in The Campbell Report, p. 2.

(17) I. Cumming, Glorious Enterprise: the history of the Auckland Education Board 1857-1957, New Zealand, Whitcombe & Tombs Ltd, 1959, p. 638.

(18) AJHR, 1949, E-1, p. 2.

(19) Elliott, p. 3.

(20) Elliott, p. 3.

(21) Cumming, p. 638.

(22) New Zealand Post-Primary Teachers' Association [NZPPTA], 'Open letter to the executive: the interim report', Journal of the New Zealand Post-Primary Teachers' Association, vol. 8, no. 2, 1961, p. 14.

(23) Parton, p. 147.

(24) The Campbell Report, p. 145.

(25) The Campbell Report, p. 134.

(26) AJHR, 1955, E-1, p. 28.

(27) The Campbell Report, p. 20.

(28) Cited NZPPTA, Lost Opportunities: secondary school staffing, Wellington, G. Deslandes Ltd, 1967, p. 4.

(29) Cited NZPPTA, Lost Opportunities, p. 5.

(30) W.R. Edwards, 'Recruiting New Zealand teachers', Journal of the New Zealand Post-Primary Teachers' Association, vol. 8, no. 7, 1961, p. 3.

(31) NZPPTA, 'Open letter to the executive' , 1961, p. 14.

(32) NZPPTA Archives, Report of the Teacher Training Committee, February 28 1964.

(33) J.W. Fletcher, A Sense of Community: the Christchurch College of Education 1877-2000, Christchurch, Christchurch College of Education, 2001, p. 227.

(34) See for example: F.E. Doolin, 'Well-trained non-graduates', Journal of the New Zealand Post-Primary Teachers' Association, vol. 11, no. 8, 1964, p. 17.

(35) Minogue, p. 95.

(36) P. Anderson, 'Entry to secondary teaching: Division U', Journal of the New Zealand Teachers Colleges Association, vol. 3, no. 1, 1966, p. 7.

(37) AJHR, 1956, E-1, p. 24.

(38) Anderson, p. 7.

(39) AJHR, 1955, E-1, p. 28.

(40) AJHR, 1956, E-1, p. 23.

(41) AJHR, 1957, E-1, p. 24.

(42) The Report of the Commission on Education in New Zealand (hereafter The Currie Report), Wellington, Department of Education, 1962.

(43) AJHR, 1958, E-1, p. 23.

(44) See for example: Journal of the New Zealand Post-Primary Teachers' Association, vol. 9, no. 9, 1962, p. 17; vol. 10, no. 9, 1963, p. 15.

(45) The Currie Report, p. 184.

(46) Cited Journal of the New Zealand Post-Primary Teachers' Association, vol. 9, no. 2, 1962, p. 7.

(47) Whyle, 'Training teachers', p. 7.

(48) The Currie Report, p. 551.

(49) The Currie Report, p. 544.

(50) Interim Report on Post-primary Staffing and Recruitment: Commission on Education in New Zealand, Wellington, Government Printer, 1960, p. 25.

(51) Cited The Currie Report, p. 550.

(52) The Currie Report, p. 551.

(53) K.J. Sheen, 'New directions in teacher training', Education, vol. 16, no. 2, 1967, p. 4.

(54) Whyle, 'Training teachers', p. 6.

(55) I.J. Whyle, 'On degrees for secondary teaching', Journal of the New Zealand Teachers Colleges Association, vol. 8, no. 2, 1971, p. 12.

(56) Sheen; see also H.C. Evison, 'New training course needed: teachers for Forms I-IV', Journal of the New Zealand Post-Primary Teachers' Association, vol. 11, no. 6, 1964, p. 19; The National Advisory Council on the Training of Teachers (NACTT), The Three-year Course, the Location of Teachers Colleges, Post-primary Teachers Training, Wellington, Government Printer, Second Report, 1964; Minogue.

(57) Sheen, p. 4.

(58) Report of the Teacher Training Association Committee, Journal of the New Zealand Post-Primary Teachers' Association, vol. 9, no. 9, 1962, p. 12.

(59) NACTT.

(60) E.P. Blampied, 'Secondary teacher training: Divisions C and B General Courses', Education, vol. 16, no. 6, 1967; Minogue.

(61) Minogue, pp. 95 and 98.

(62) Minogue, p. 96.

(63) Minogue, p. 96.

(64) AJHR, 1955, E-1, pp. 33-34.

(65) P.W. Boag, 'The secondary service', Education, vol. 16, no. 10, 1967, p. 13.

(66) C.J. Colbert, 'Division B--a new concept in secondary teacher training', Journal of the New Zealand Teachers Colleges Association, vol. 8, no. 1, 1971, p. 6.

(67) New Zealand Educational Institute, 'Curriculum planning on Form I-IV basis', National Education, vol. 46, no. 504, p. 12.

(68) AJHR, 1957, E-1, p. 24.

(69) Minogue.

(70) NZPPTA, 'Division D course', Journal of the New Zealand Post-Primary Teachers' Association, vol, 10, no. 7, p. 4. This directive from the NZPPTA Executive was motivated in the first instance by the stance the Association took towards the course as the point at which they resolved to resist any further weakening of their academic ranks.

(71) Blampied, p. 3.

(72) Minogue, p. 96.

(73) Whyle, 'Training teachers', p. 6.

(74) Whyle, 'On degrees', p. 12.

(75) Anderson, p. 8.

(76) Anderson, p. 8. The oral testimony is indicating that students felt that the programme leaders were indeed crucial to student success.

(77) Anderson, p. 8.

(78) The Currie Report, p. 550.

(79) The Currie Report, pp. 550-551.

(80) National Archives Auckland: Auckland Training College File No. BCDQ A739 779b.

(81) NZPPTA, Lost Opportunities, p. 22.

(82) NZPPTA, Lost Opportunities, p. 34.

Dr. Maxine Stephenson teaches History and Sociology of Education within the University of Auckland's Faculty of Education. She has been engaged in oral history projects related to the Native Schools system and teacher preparation programmes in New Zealand. Other research interests include state theory and state formation; the origins of state education systems; categorisation, inclusion/ exclusion, eugenics and education; and issues relating to access to tertiary education. Email: ms.stephenson@auckland.ac.nz

MAXINE STEPHENSON

University of Auckland, New Zealand
COPYRIGHT 2006 Australian and New Zealand History of Education Society (ANZHES)
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2006 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

 Reader Opinion

Title:

Comment:



 

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Stephenson, Maxine
Publication:History of Education Review
Geographic Code:8NEWZ
Date:Jan 1, 2006
Words:7420
Previous Article:Imagining the secondary school: the 'pictorial turn' and representations of secondary schools in two Australian feature films of the 1970s.
Next Article:Notions of civilisation and the project to 'civilise' aborigines in South Australia in the 1840s.
Topics:


Related Articles
The challenges of new professionalism for Finland's teachers.
Alternative strategies for preparing middle school technology education teachers.
Technology and teacher education for a knowledge era: mentoring for student futures, not our past.
Inservice teacher training and technology: a case of Botswana.
Minnesota launches new teacher initiative.
"Troops-to-teachers" creates new wave of instructors for districts nationwide: classrooms get savvy and experienced military personnel moving to...
Struggling readers: skilled readers emerge where reading in the content areas is taught and practiced.
A qualitative study of Irish teachers' perspective of student substance use.

Terms of use | Copyright © 2014 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters