Anexo I: Balances de materia y de energía

Much has already been stated regarding the desire of the state to control training by introducing new disciplinary mechanisms which employed new rituals of power. The 1900s was a period of intense state intervention, when “the penetration of regulations into even the smallest details of everyday life through the mediation of the complete hierarchy that assured the capillary functioning of power”, resulted in the establishment of major social institutions, such as prisons, asylums, hospitals and schools.127 _New

disciplines borrowed features from well established institutions such as monasteries and factories and they incorporated old, established methods for the regulation of bodies and activities. The training college was one such institution. The disciplinary aims of training at this time were to produce a docile workforce equipped with the requisite knowledge and dispositions to transform an entire nation. This was difficult to enact in the highly devolved structure of the pupil-teacher system. The awareness that the training had to be ordered, regulated and centrally controlled gradually emerged at the

start of the 1900s and was accompanied by a “technico-political” method of operationalisation by the state.128 This was characterised by “a whole set of regulations and by empirical and calculated methods”.129

During the archaeology of training in early New Zealand, there appeared two distinct phases of legislative activity. The first phase preceded the 1877 Education Act, lasted until the turn of the century, and was characterised by very little legislation. It also coincided with a strong pupil-teacher system. The second phase commenced early in the 20th _{century and coincided with the emergence of the college as a new and forceful}

contender for teacher training. This phase was hallmarked by a proliferation of regulations, classifications, and details relating to the examination, training, employment, grading, salaries and working conditions of teachers and pupil-teachers. To illustrate, there were three major Education Acts and associated Amendments, four Royal Commissions (under the chairmanship of Hogg, O‟Rorke, Cohen, and Reichel and Tate, respectively), and at least 13 sets of gazetted regulations. Only three of the latter appeared before 1903, the remainder transpiring between this date and 1925. These were a consequence of Hogben‟s moves to centralise control of teacher training and wrest control from the Provincial Boards. The flurry of regulations and policies occasioned by state centralisation occurred against an economic backdrop of increased prosperity following the 1880‟s economic depression and a political backdrop of interventionist educational policies initiated by a new Liberal government.

These two contrasting phases of legislative calm and frenzy are now examined a little more closely. In the first phase, major legislation regarding teacher training found expression in the 1877 Education Act. Its overt aim was to supply a “steady stream of educated professionally trained teachers for the national system.”130 _{Ostensibly, it was}

to result in state control of teacher training, examinations and classification of pupil- teachers, the issuing of certificates of competency, and the establishment and management of the normal schools and training colleges. However, in reality, these procedures were delegated to the Boards who became responsible for the “maintenance and education of pupil-teachers”.131 _{The subsequent Regulations for the Employment,}

Education and Examination of Pupil-Teachers gazetted in 1878, endorsed decentralisation and allowed Boards to conduct all aspects of the pupil-teacher system, subject to the (theoretical) approval of the Minister of Education.

The Act, therefore, changed very little with regard to the pupil-teacher system during this first period and there appeared little urgency to change the status quo. The teacher training system was still decentralised, administered by teachers themselves on the school site, and unsystematic with respect to both educational content and structure. Provision remained subject to the directives of each Provincial Board.

The second period of legislative action brought with it a flood of regulations which attempted to wrench power from the Boards and bring teacher training under the control of the state. This was spear-headed by Hogben, the Inspector-General. It signalled his deep concern with education, with the nation‟s teachers who were implementing the system, and with their training and preparation. It was shortly after this date that teacher training became centralised.

Hogben was the first to make a determined effort to achieve national cohesion in teacher training. Regulations, classification and examination of teachers were gazetted by him in 1903.132 _{This entailed consolidating the position of the training college. Within this}

single institution, the full effect of the “block of capacity-communication-power”133 _was realised. This meant that he could implement his new educational vision, “The New Movement in Education”134 through a teaching body well trained in transmitting his new curriculum and associated pedagogy. As the curriculum was subjected to rigorous annual examination, the state ensured (not always in accordance with Hogben‟s wishes) that both the knowledge of the pupils and the “professional skill of the teacher” were tested.135 _{Proof of transmission could only be done thoroughly and efficiently within a}

centrally controlled system.

Of the four Royal Commissions undertaken during this period, the first to make serious inroads into the training of teachers was the Hogg Commission in the first year of the new century. This provided a political watershed in teacher training policy, and as a contemporary form of discursive formation, it revealed a detailed description of the pupil-teacher system and, indeed, the whole teaching service. The 1901 Commission, was charged with the brief of providing a national infrastructure for the administration and organisation of the teaching service, including training provisions. This was to consider the principle of providing equal pay for equal work by removing discrepancies in salary that resulted from thirteen different Education Boards with 13 different sets of

regulations.136 It aimed at overturning overseas‟ trends which were resulting in the gradual erosion of teachers‟ salaries: a reduction that was frequently blamed for a corresponding decline in male applicants. It was anticipated that the professional status of teachers would be further enhanced with such a move. Cumming and Cumming inform us that in signalling Government intention that some form of formal, professional preparation was necessary, the practising departments of the normal schools became referred to as training colleges.137

The Commission examined over 150 witnesses and elicited comments from Hogben (responsible for drafting the new salary regulations), Board members, School Committee members, union members, inspectors and teachers. In an attempt to raise the professional status and qualifications of teachers, the Commissioners recommended a uniform system of salaries throughout the Colony and proposed that the pupil-teacher system be gradually phased out. They also, controversially, recommended that a new category of Assistant Teacher be created. Three categories of teachers were now officially recorded: Head-teachers, Assistant Teachers and Pupil-Teachers.

When examining the witness statements provided in over 600 pages of evidence a major preoccupation dominating the social discourse of the time was the lack of men teachers and the „alarmingly‟ high numbers of women. The popular perception was that, suddenly, teaching was becoming feminised and this was viewed in highly problematic and negative terms. Sensationalist claims were made that teaching would soon become completely denuded of men teachers and that an “Adamless Eden” would ensue.138

Hogben explains the grave anxieties about this in his testimony to the Commission:

The phenomenon (of feminisation) itself is by no means peculiar to New Zealand or the United Kingdom; it is not peculiar to English-speaking people, but it is a general movement all the world over that the proportion of female teachers is tending to increase. I would quote the remark made by the Hon. E. Lyttleton, President of the Headmasters‟ Association in January last. He said it was the privilege of a president to prophesy, and it was a question of time, not only in the primary schools, but even in boys‟ secondary schools, when mistresses would to some extent take the place of masters.139_{(my parenthesis)}

Such perceptions induced a gender panic. They reinforced popular claims that the teaching workforce had suddenly become feminised after 1895 when (with the exception of the post-War years) the numbers of women teachers appeared to sharply increase.140 However, these claims are not strictly accurate. Teaching was not abruptly being overrun with women; it had always employed a high number of women.

The pupil-teacher sector of the workforce had always been female-dominated and this commenced with the arrival of New Zealand‟s first four female pupil-teachers appointed to Otago schools in 1864.141 _{This remained the case until the abolition of the}

pupil teacher system in 1926. The ex-pupil teacher and a group of trainees miscellaneously referred to as cadets, monitors or probationers also made an appearance at this time, these categories were also dominated by females. Ex-pupil teachers were fully qualified teachers waiting for a position to become available. They were retained on the school staff at a minimum rate of pay. Probationers, cadets and monitors, although allocated different duties, conditions and remuneration, were usually unpaid candidates waiting for a pupil teacher vacancy. Like pupil teachers, the number of probationers was overwhelmingly female and, again like pupil teachers, there seemed to be no decline in the numbers volunteering to take up these preliminary teaching positions.

The training college system, likewise, had a majority of female trainees throughout its history. E. M. Watkins, the Principal of the Normal School at Christchurch provided the number of new entrants to the College for the 20 years preceding the Commission and an extrapolation of his figures is tabulated here:

Number of New Students Entering Christchurch Normal School/Training College

Year Males Females Total

1880 4 9 13 1881 7 11 18 1885 14 15 29 1886 11 30 41 1890 11 24 35 1891 11 27 38 1895 15 27 42 1896 10 26 36 1900 15 18 33

(Extrapolated from AJHR. (1901). [The Hogg Commission]. E-14, p.141.)

Watkins‟ point was that the number of male candidates presenting themselves for teaching had always remained in the minority and this number, although fluctuating from year to year, had shown no sudden drop as was popularly thought the case.

Official figures of the time painted a misleading picture in that they frequently did not include the large number of females who were actively teaching in the system. They focused on pupil-teachers and adult teachers and omitted categories of teachers such as probationers, relief teachers, ex-pupil teachers, wives of schoolmasters, and the whole cadre of unpaid young female candidates (identified above) who were working in schools while waiting to become pupil teachers. Sewing mistresses, who in reality taught everything in the school curriculum, were tacked on to the department‟s statistics as a separate column. The contributions of most of these groups were voluntary and were literally not counted in the formal Department of Education‟s teacher statistics. It is only by discovering evidence, such as that found in the “Other Teachers” category provided in the Salaries information of the Department‟s Annual Reports, that a more accurate picture is formed.

As a result of the Hogg Commission‟s recommendations, the implementation of the 1905 Select Committee‟s recommendations for both training colleges and pupil- teachers, were issued conjointly. Stronger centralist measures were being gradually

introduced.142 Hogben reinforced the notion of four colleges in each of the four university towns controlled by the central Department. Under the new regulations, he admitted two classes of students: Division A and Division B. The former were mainly pupil-teachers with successful teaching experience who had passed Matriculation. The probationer was also introduced in the 1908 Regulations under this category.143

Snook informs us that Hogben‟s initial intentions, supported by the 1905 Select Committee, were to redefine relationships between colleges and universities in order to bring about a more harmonious relationship.144 _{However, a close analysis of the}

Committee‟s proposals reveals an additional motivation, “to avoid the expense of duplicating instruction in subjects which are taught at the University colleges.”145 _The educational rationale that this would also “secure for teachers a greater breadth of view” appeared secondary.146

At the time, all teacher trainees undertook two compulsory university subjects: Education and English, with the College Principals exercising discretionary powers about which students could pursue additional university study. 147 The only concurrent scheme that met with total success, was that carried out between Dunedin College of Education and Otago University and this was to last until the end of the 20th century.148 Auckland Training College restricted university study to selected, academically-able students. Wellington allowed a high proportion of their students to complete university study but the Principal cautioned about the dangers of overwork and academic strain and recommended that students first gain their degree and subsequently take a one-year training course at College. Christchurch embraced university study so enthusiastically that all their students were simultaneously completing a full year‟s university work and a full year‟s college course. Canterbury University further compounded this problem of students‟ work overload by providing morning-only lectures; thus preventing them from spending a whole day at college or on teaching practice.149 _{In the latter instance,}

Hogben intervened and restricted the number of university courses taken by the students. The discrepancies evident in the collaboration between colleges and universities served to illustrate how the precise nature of their relationship was proving politically difficult to untangle. On the one hand, some colleges successfully pursued links with university colleges; on the other, some complained about the excessive

student workloads and the limitations that concurrent study placed upon the practicum and on the college timetables.150

Dissatisfaction was expressed with the collaboration between the training college and university and it concluded that any system involving both university study and professional training risked a situation whereby students “acquired neither adequate scholarship nor adequate professional training”.151 _{This view endured for several}

decades and is neatly summarised by Minogue, who concluded as late as 1971 that a more integrated course for prospective students should be provided:

…the teachers‟ college students concurrently studying at university, will continue to attempt to serve two masters, suffering the inevitable academic schizophrenia that results from alternating between meeting the uncoordinated demands of the college as well as those of the university.152

Amongst the wide range of measures introduced into teacher training policy during the first decade of the new century were: the provision of a free system of teacher training; the granting of a system of University Bursaries to successful ex-pupil-teachers who wished to attend training college; the provision of allowances to those living away from home; the certification of students successfully graduating from training college; the introduction of accreditation by the College Principals in lieu of a college entrance examination; the increase of teachers‟ salaries; the promotion of closer coordination between the four training colleges and the four university colleges; the provision of an equal salary scale for male and female pupil-teachers – which lasted until 1925; the prescribing of numbers of teachers and pupil-teachers allocated to each school and many other policies designed to strengthen the colleges and weaken the pupil-teacher system.153

Further bolstering of the state-owned colleges arrived with the 1915 regulations; these strengthened the academic staff of the colleges, including the creation of new college posts such as Vice Principals and Tutor Librarians. The Principals of the Colleges continued in their capacity of lecturing in Education at the universities and several selected students still attended university for general courses.154 _{The Department made a}

certificate. This enabled the admittance of graduate students to a one-year training course.155

The Education Department continued to expand and consolidate its control with the Education Amendment Act of 1920. Implementation of the 1920 Regulations further cemented this centralised movement and ensured the domination of the training college in the archaeology of training.156 _{Staffing and resource allocation to colleges was}

increased and they became more autonomous, within constraints imposed by the Department. They were now empowered to provide both general and professional courses without recourse to the universities; they also had the exclusive right to certificate teachers.157 _{Existing legislation was strengthened and national staffing and}

salary scales were introduced for teachers.

The second of the four Commissions which most affected teacher training was the 1925 Reichel-Tate Commission. The interpretation of clause b) below, taken from the Commission, led to the development of a probationer year as the practical qualification for entry to College.158 The recommendation stipulated “that regulations for the Training Colleges be revised so as to provide -

a) A higher standard of entrance qualification embracing a full secondary school course.

b) One year‟s course of professional training.

c) Provision for an extension of the course to two, three or even four years in the case of specially selected students.

d) Students selected under c) above to be allowed to take up university or other courses and to give full time study to such courses.”159

The Report condemned the standard of entry for trainees, a complaint heard in every review of teacher education since then. Many student teachers had received little secondary education and this led to the colleges having to make up the deficit. In order to rectify this, the Reichel-Tate Report stipulated that a full secondary education should be completed before training and that pupil-teacher experience was not sufficient for college admission. It also recommended that trainees spend two additional years at training college before taking up teaching. However, as Lee and Lee point out, it seems that the Commissioners were much more interested “in commenting on the perceived

deficiencies of secondary teacher training” and most of the Report‟s recommendations were aimed at overcoming these.160

The Report was also critical of the relationship of the four Education professors situated in the universities and complained about the ongoing ambiguity of their roles, particularly in relation to teaching practice. The Report concluded:

It is unfortunate that the Chairs of Education were established and professors appointed without a clear definition of the relationship which should exist between the professor and the local training college. So far as we could judge, any connections he may have made with the college, or any facilities which he may have secured for entrance to the practice schools, are dependent upon the good will of the college authorities, and at any time he may be deprived of them.161

The report prompted the abolition of pupil-teacher system in 1926 and replaced it with a single year of teaching practice in school before attending training college162 (this was