Hidrólisis enzimática y fermentación

New Zealand relied heavily on ideological precedents set by Europe, England and Scotland in its selection of teacher training methods. Chronologically, Europe had a

well-defined system of training long before Great Britain. In fact, during the 1800s, little attention was paid to teacher training and this is constantly animadverted upon:

The remarkable thing in the modern history of education is that it took so long for the various countries to realise the importance of teacher training – to realise, in fact, that schools cannot be better than their teachers. Throughout the first half of the nineteenth century in England the attempts to establish a general system of elementary education were continually hampered by the hopeless inadequacy of their teachers.2

When England finally paid attention to teacher training in the mid-1840s, a series of different theories were proposed. These enveloped contradictory ideologies and images of what constituted an effective teacher identity and developed distinctive discursive formations which articulated different methods of training. Each theory aimed at the production of differently constituted objects and included both secular and denominational forms of technologies, many of which were institutionalised. Most were based on the underlying premise that securing obedience to authority by producing teachers who were models of desirable behaviour was more important than the cultivation of the intellect.3 Social and moral control of the children of the poor was viewed as critical in a world beset by the problems of mass urban immigration caused by the Industrial Revolution. This precipitated the advent of a strategy of mass schooling, and, inevitably, a strategy of mass teacher training which aimed at regularising, normalising and making more manageable the expanding and allegedly degenerate faction of the population.

The first of the „en masse‟ theories organised teacher instruction in association with the Monitorial School; this was replaced by the pupil-teacher system which brought with it its own technology of discipline, micro-penalties and organisation. The training college eventually dislodged the pupil-teacher system as the dominant and most persistent mode of training. The University Day Training Colleges introduced in 1890 also furnished an alternative and more systematic approach to the preparation of neophyte teachers,4

although it only attracted low numbers of enrolments compared to the two systems of pupil-teachers and training colleges. All four of these technologies (i.e. the monitorial system, the pupil-teacher system, the normal schools/training colleges, and the

university) prescribed their own forms of appropriate knowledge and pedagogy and were transmitted through increasingly elaborate rites of passage which led the novice teacher to full qualification. In an archaeology of early teacher training, these four technologies were major constituents: each will now be explored in more detail.

a) The Monitorial System

The Monitorial School was established as an antithesis to the informality and irregularity that characterised its antecedents, namely the Dame Schools, Common Day Schools, Sunday Schools and Charity Schools.5 _{The Monitorial School provided}

extensive disciplinary and pedagogical machinery based on a method of surveillance and a hierarchy of normed classifications which rendered individuals as part of an ordered mass. They were established as the solution to the major social problem of child unemployment and Morris maintains that it was child unemployment and not child employment that was the source of the social problems for early 19th _{century Britain.}6

The monitorial system was separately designed by two different architects, Dr Andrew Bell (1797) and Joseph Lancaster (1798) in association with the National Society, and the British and Foreign School Society, respectively. Children between 9 and 13 years acted as monitors and were responsible for instructing younger pupils in the hastily erected denominational schools. It became common practice for the school master to instruct the monitors, and the monitors to subsequently instruct the pupils. Foucault likened Lancaster‟s monitorial schools and other similar institutions, to the synchronisation of a complex system of clockwork mechanisms which were,

… built up cog by cog: first the oldest pupils were entrusted with tasks involving simple supervision, then of checking work, then of teaching; in the end, all the time of all the pupils was occupied either with teaching or with being taught. The school became a machine for learning, in which each pupil, each level and each moment, if correctly combined, were permanently utilised in the general process of teaching.7

He refers to this as a potent combination of forces which were organised efficiently in order to optimise the final result.

A three to six month training scheme for monitors was put in place, although it was Bell‟s proud boast that he needed only 24 hours to train a teacher.8 The increased numbers of monitors that were required to keep pace with the rapid explosion of the school population necessitated mass training for both the monitors and their instructors (the latter were usually headteachers). This was undertaken with associated training colleges. The British and Foreign Society, in particular, attracted students from all over the world to its training college in monitorial method. It trained both men and women and produced various teacher manuals on different school subjects which were frequently used as texts. It was this particular institution that was regarded as the English antecedent to the later teacher training colleges. The instruction provided by headteachers to their monitors is also reputed to be the first formal attempt at providing teacher training in England.9

However, the regimented structure, emphasis on control, and strict compliance to regulation were heavily criticised. More enlightened educators regarded the system as highly unsatisfactory as it provided a narrow, literacy-based curriculum imparted within a highly prescribed monitorial pedagogy.10 Its inculcation of a strict moral code ensured conformity, obedience and adherence to the continued maintenance of a hierarchical social structure. As an institutional form, it provided a prototype of order, systematisation and regimentation that was characterised by the control of time, people, curriculum and space. Similar to the French Ecoles Mutuelles, the Monitorial Schools were preoccupied with the organisation of time and, according to Foucault, the disciplinary and detailed timetable ensured that every moment of an individual‟s life was maximised, intensified and made more efficient, “The more time is broken down, the more its subdivisions multiply, the better one disarticulates it by deploying its internal elements under a gaze that supervises them, the more one can accelerate an operation.”11 The school became a machine which intensified its use of time and,

Its organisation made it possible to obviate the linear, successive character of the master‟s teaching; it regulated the counterpoint of operations performed, at the same moment, by different groups of pupils under the direction of monitors and assistants, so that each passing moment was filled with many different, but ordered activities; and, on the other hand, the rhythm imposed by signals,

whistles, orders imposed on everyone temporal norms that were intended both to accelerate the process of learning and to teach speed as a virtue.12

Such schools, therefore, exhibited rigid timetables, registers of attendance, dedicated spaces for instruction, commonly prescribed curricula, and strictly defined rituals of learning. Detailed school records provided teachers with knowledge about their pupils and also became ways of ensuring teacher accountability. In executing these features, they exhibited the Utilitarian lack of regard for the role of the teacher, reducing it to one of technical bureaucrat.13 _{Facilitating pupils‟ comprehension was not amongst its}

objectives. Learning was mechanistic and not understood either by the monitors or their pupils. Wragg exemplifies this with a typical extract from the pupils‟ reading material: “If thy brother be waxen poor, and fallen in decay with thee; then thou shalt relieve him; yea though he be a stranger or a sojourner, take thou no usury of him or increase”.14 _{The material proved convoluted and perplexing to both pupils and monitors}

alike. Strict organisation and uniformity became its hallmarks.15 _{The monitorial system}

was also responsible for providing an educational blueprint for standardisation and it resulted in a far-reaching preoccupation with „method‟ rather than content in both schooling and teacher training.

The monitorial system never eventuated in America, although J. Herbst found evidence to suggest that such a system of training pupils and teachers was proposed by the Editor of the Common School Journal in 1850.16 Although it was never implemented in New Zealand, per se, several of its disciplinary techniques were inherited, such as regulating the use of time and tightly orchestrating the movements of pupils and teachers. These aimed at subjection and ensured the formation of the individual as an object. Many such tactics have become instantiated into teacher educational provision in the Westernised world for over two centuries. Because the image of the teacher was limited, a limited training was all that was required. As a rite of passage to becoming a successful teacher it was unsatisfactory; however, as a theory based on a specific strategy of training, it became an essential component of the teacher training discourse.

b) Seminaries, Normal Schools and Colleges

Residential teacher training seminaries, normal schools and training colleges were preferred methods of training on the European Continent from the 1790s onwards. All

three institutions, although referred to differently, were similar in intent and function and performed the identical objective of training teachers to meet the needs of the state. Elements filtered from them into subsequent college developments in Scotland, England, America and other countries around the world. New Zealand can also trace the evolution of its training colleges through this direct and clearly distinct archaeology. This commenced with the Continental institutions and was succeeded by institutions such as D. Stow‟s Normal Seminary in Glasgow, the Free Church Training College of Edinburgh and J. Kay-Shuttleworth‟s Training College in Battersea. These developments led to the culmination of the establishment of New Zealand‟s first two Training Colleges: the first in Otago with its Scottish immersion in Stowian ideals, and the second in Christchurch highly influenced by Kay-Shuttleworth. The latter occurred as a direct result of C. C. Howard, arriving as an ex-lecturer from Kay-Shuttleworth‟s Battersea College to take up the position of foundation Principal at Christchurch Normal School. It is therefore not surprising that teacher training in New Zealand assimilated many elements derived from the early Continental seminaries.

The rise of social institutions such as the training colleges at this point in time was becoming a common phenomenon in Westernised countries. This removed the training of teachers from the apprenticeship world of disciplinary power to one in which a combination of disciplinary power and regulatory power by the state was exercised – this potent, dual combination of powers was referred to as bio-power by Foucault. Both forms of power are inter-related and are associated with the parallel development of social institutions with the new social „sciences of Man‟. Disciplinary power relates to individual bodies and refers to the operation of power upon them through ritual practices such as hierarchical observation and examination. It leads individuals to normative self-understandings through practices that render them docile and useful at the same time. Disciplinary power „subjects‟ individuals in both senses of the word: it subordinates them whilst, at the same time, making them subjects:

This form of power applies itself to immediate everyday life which categorises the individual, marks him by his own individuality, attaches himself to his own identity, imposes a law of truth on him which he must recognise and which others have to recognise in him.17

Regulatory power is that exercised by the State through its formation of policies and interventions and it focuses on the „species body‟ which is constituted of various populations. In this case, the species body is comprised of teachers and teachers-to-be and, in order that both powers can be wielded, a special institution had to be created: this became the training college. The bio-power employed in the institutional college has been evident in almost every subsequent teachers‟ training college (in Westernised countries) since then and its characteristics are summed up in the following description of the first recorded seminary for primary teachers which was set up in Pomerania as early as 1785:

The seminaries produce a strong esprit de corps among teachers, which tends powerfully to interest them in their profession, to attach them to it, to elevate it in their eyes, and to stimulate them to improve constantly upon the attainments with which they have commenced its exercise. By their aid a standard of examination in the theory and practice of instruction is furnished, which may fairly be expected of candidates who have chosen a different way to obtain access to the profession.18

Such a system won world-wide acclaim.19 All the essential components of a successful rite of passage are articulated in these training institutions; for example, the creation of a distinct and specialist „teacher‟ culture, separating teaching aspirants from their former lives, instructing them in isolation from novitiates of other professional bodies, attempting to induce an esprit de corps, and implementing practices which led to the development of a new teacher identity; one that had been carefully thought out and imposed by the educational authorities of the time. A growing dominance of disciplinary technologies such as the examination, the development of a corporate spirit, and the wholesale absorption of the norms of the community were becoming apparent. Throughout the archaeology of teacher training, the training college has been the most efficient at providing the conditions necessary to fulfilling the assimilative and transformative functions required by the state.

Other American educators were also impressed by Prussia‟s determination to employ only trained and qualified teachers who conformed to the ideals of the state. H. Dwight, for example, after travelling through the North of Germany in 1825, maintained that

America should embrace the seminary system, the consequence of which would result in teaching “soon becoming a distinct profession.”20 Germany was clearly at the forefront with regard to the provision of teacher training within specialist institutions, most of which were heavily influenced by Pestalozzi‟s philosophy. By 1850, it had 156 normal seminaries and 206 associated preparatory schools.21

In the United Kingdom, the „new‟ training colleges or normal schools modelled themselves on this German pattern. In theory, the adoption of the college and rejection of the monitorial methods employed by the British and Foreign Schools Society, was an attempt to encompass a more professional and academically-oriented approach. In reality, however, although their pedagogy differed from the Monitorial colleges, they hedged their practices with many of the disciplinary techniques inherited from their predecessor and, in fact, intensified their deployment of regulatory powers and control. The newly established colleges provided by the Home and Colonial Society and those introduced in Glasgow and Battersea in the 1830s are examples of such institutions. As the two latter were particularly influential on the setting up of New Zealand‟s training colleges, they will be explained in a little more detail.

As stated previously, it is not surprising that it was Stow‟s College in Glasgow and its similar institution, the Free Church Training College of Edinburgh, that provided significant models for the early Otago settlers, themselves originating from Scotland. Dissatisfied with the British Foreign School Society‟s efforts at training instructors from the monitorial system, Stow introduced his revolutionary “Simultaneous System” of instruction at his Glasgow Normal Seminary whereby pupils were taught together as a collective, as well as individually (the latter was a characteristic of the monitorial system). This made possible the ranking of pupils where they could be assigned positions that corresponded to their function as individuals as well as to their value as members in the educational collective. Stow designed a new educational space and new ways of testing and assessing pupils to facilitate the ranking process. Foucault refers to these various judgements techniques as “an ensemble of compulsory alignments” in which “each pupil, according to his age, his performance, his behaviour, occupies sometimes one rank, sometimes another”.22 _{It was this assigning of pupils to individual}

locations within the classroom that “made possible the supervision of each individual and the simultaneous work of all.”23

These techniques were new and largely attributable to Stow; however, other supposedly innovative disciplinary methods implemented by him in order to organise time and space, were slightly-reshaped relics of the monitorial system. They were also employed in other social institutions. Adopted by colleges such as that in Edinburgh, they ensured that the institutions became not only “learning machines” but also machines “for supervising, hierarchising, rewarding”.24 _{The inevitable result of categorising and}

organising pupils and student teachers led to an educational obsession with defining the norm and nowhere is this more evident than in the training of teachers. The early colleges were referred to as „normal‟ schools as they provided a „type‟ or „norm‟ to which individuals could aspire. They were schools in which the training rendered trainees normalised so that they became average, standardised and homogenous. Rich explains the common use of the word “Normal” within the teacher training context, it

… is significant of an „idol‟ of the training college – the idea that there exists some norm or type in teaching, and the nearer the teacher comes to that norm the better will his teaching be. It is this conception that explains the popularity of the model school, which was looked upon as the concrete embodiment of the norm so far as the school as an institution was concerned, whilst the teaching of the master of method was to be regarded as the norm in the technique of classroom teaching.25

Foucault argues this point more forcibly when he asserts that “the Normal is established as a principle of coercion in teaching with the introduction of a standardised education and the establishment of the ecoles normales (teachers‟ training colleges)”. He maintains that normality indicates (through a wide range of degrees), “membership of a homogenous social body” in which the individual is, paradoxically, classified, hierarchised and ranked:

In a sense, the power of normalisation imposes homogeneity; but it individualises by making it possible to measure gaps, to determine levels, to fix specialities and to render the differences useful by fitting them one to another. It is easy to understand how the power of the norm functions within a system of formal