TEACHER EDUCATION AND TRAINING
IN NEW ZEALAND
Geoffrey Partington
EDUCATION FORUM
October 1997
First published in 1997 by the Education Forum,
PO Box 38218, Howick, Auckland, New Zealand
ISBN 0-9583540-2-2
© Edition: Education Forum
© Text: Geoffrey Partington
Production by Daphne Brasell Associates Ltd, Wellington
Printed by Astra DPS, Wellington
AUTHOR AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Dr Geoffrey Partington's qualifications include B.A. (Hons), M.Ed. (Bristol
University), P.G.C.E, Advanced Diploma of Education, BSc. (Hons) (London University),
and Ph.D. (Adelaide University). He has been a history teacher, a secondary
school headmaster and an inspector of schools in England, and a teacher educator
in Doncaster College of Education and Coventry College of Education, now part
of the University of Warwick, in England; in Flinders University, South Australia;
and the University of the South Pacific in Fiji. As a teacher educator he taught
courses in curriculum theory, philosophy of education, history of education,
sociology of education, and educational evaluation and assessment, and special
methods courses in the teaching of history, social studies and economics. He
also served as coordinator of post-graduate diploma of education courses and
practicums. In different professional capacities he has supervised large numbers
of student-teachers and beginning teachers, and advised experienced teachers,
in many subjects and over wide age ranges.
His books include: Women Teachers in the Twentieth Century (1976) and The Idea of an Historical Education (1980), both published by the National Foundation for Educational Research/Routledge; The Australian Nation: Its British and Irish Roots (1994), published by the Australian Scholarly Press, Melbourne; and Hasluck versus Coombs - White Politics and Australia's Aborigines (1996), published by Quakers Hill Press, Sydney. He has written over 100 articles which have appeared in various journals including the British Journal of Educational Studies, the Oxford Journal of Education, Comparative Education, the Australian Journal of Education, the Canadian Journal of Education, the Journal of Moral Education, the Journal of Religious Education, the International Journal of Social Education, Quadrant, Encounter, Education Research and Perspectives, the Victorian Historical Journal, the Journal of the Royal Historical Society of Australia, and History of Education. He also assisted the Education Forum in the preparation of submissions on the two drafts of the Social Studies curriculum statement.
This report contains a foreword by Professor Roger Scruton, an academic philosopher who has been professor of philosophy at Birkbeck College, London, and at Boston University, Massachusetts. He has held visiting posts at many other institutions including Princetown, Stanford, Louvain, Guelph (Ontario), Witwatersrand (South Africa), Waterloo (Ontario), Oslo and Bordeaux. He is currently visiting professor in the Department of Philosophy, Birkbeck College. He is the editor of The Salisbury Review, composer, broadcaster, a reviewer of opera, a columnist on architectural thought, and writer of opinion pieces and book reviews for the Times. He has published numerous academic articles and over 20 books. His books include Art and Imagination (1974), The Aesthetics of Architecture (1979), A Short History of Modern Philosophy (1982, second edition 1995), A Dictionary of Modern Thought (1982, second edition 1996), Modern Philosophy (1994), The Intelligent Person's Guide to Philosophy (1996) and The Aesthetics of Music (forthcoming 1997). His books and articles have appeared in 20 languages, including all the major European languages.
Dr Partington wishes to record his appreciation of the many valuable comments and suggestions made on earlier drafts of this report by Alan Barcan, Harold Entwistle, Ian Hall, Roger Kerr, Reg Lockstone, Dennis McGrath, Harvey McQueen, Roger Openshaw and Simon Smelt. An unpublished report on research undertaken for the Education Forum by David Trebeck of ACIL Australia Pty Limited was also of assistance. He is also grateful to the many college of education and university staff and their present and former students who generously gave their time and the benefit of their experience and expertise during interviews conducted for this report. His greatest debt is to Michael Irwin of the New Zealand Business Roundtable for unfailing encouragement and incisive yet highly constructive criticism.
The interpretations, conclusions and the recommendations in this report are solely those of the author and should not be ascribed to any of those whose assistance is acknowledged above. Further, the views expressed in this report are not necessarily those of the Education Forum.
SUMMARY OF CONTENTS
page
Foreword by Roger Scruton xi
Preface xvii
Executive summary xxi
Chapter 1 Introduction 1
Chapter 2 Background 7
Chapter 3 Admission into teacher education 33
Chapter 4 The established providers 47
Chapter 5 New providers 75
Chapter 6 Knowledge and teacher education 87
Chapter 7 Quality controls 115
Chapter 8 Ideological capture 135
Chapter 9 The practicum 153
Chapter 10 School-based teacher education 181
Chapter 11 Maori teacher education 191
Chapter 12 Summary, conclusions and recommendations 215
Appendix A Auckland College of Education - 1994 - Essay by
an intending secondary school teacher 231
Appendix B Copy of letter sent to colleges of education and education
departments and faculties of the universities about this
review of initial teacher education 233
References 253
CONTENTS
page
FOREWORD by Roger Scruton xi
PREFACE xvii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY xxi
Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Contestability 1
1.2 Two kinds of recommendation 5
1.3 Governments and teacher education 6
1.4 Recommendation 6
Chapter 2 BACKGROUND 7
2.1 Historical sketch 7
2.2 The current organisational structure 11
2.3 Current controls 17
2.4 External regulatory agencies 18
2.5 Internal controls 21
2.6 Extent of autonomy 23
2.7 Client satisfaction 23
2.8 Client criticisms 26
2.9 Recommendations 31
Chapter 3 ADMISSION INTO TEACHER EDUCATION 33
3.1 Introduction 33
3.2 Numbers 33
3.3 Entry requirements: qualifications 35
3.4 Entry requirements: character 37
3.5 Accusations of bias 40
3.6 Niche markets 41
3.7 Recommendations 45
Chapter 4 THE ESTABLISHED PROVIDERS 47
4.1 Auckland College of Education (ACE) 47
4.2 Christchurch College of Education 54
4.3 University of Canterbury 58
4.4 Dunedin College of Education 58
4.5 University of Otago 61
4.6 Massey University College of Education 61
4.7 University of Waikato 64
4.8 Wellington College of Education 66
4.9 Victoria University of Wellington 70
4.10 Recommendations 73
Chapter 5 NEW PROVIDERS 75
5.1 Introduction 75
5.2 University of Auckland 76
5.3 Auckland Institute of Technology (AIT) 76
5.4 Manukau Institute of Technology 77
5.5 UNITEC Institute of Technology (formerly Carrington
Polytechnic) 77
5.6 Christchurch Polytechnic 78
5.7 Bethlehem Teachers College 78
5.8 MASTERS Institute, Auckland 78
5.9 New Zealand Graduate School of Education (Christchurch) 81
5.10 Attitudes to new providers 82
5.11 Recommendations 85
Chapter 6 KNOWLEDGE AND TEACHER EDUCATION 87
6.1 The issue of priorities 87
6.2 Substantive curriculum knowledge 88
6.3 Inadequacies in substantive curriculum knowledge 90
6.4 Specialism and generalism in early childhood and
primary teacher education 97
6.5 Educational theory 101
6.6 Liberal knowledge 108
6.7 Transmission of public information 109
6.8 Teachers-only university courses? 109
6.9 Research in teacher education 110
6.10 Recommendations 112
Chapter 7 QUALITY CONTROLS 115
7.1 The educational case for assessment 115
7.2 Antagonism to assessment 119
7.3 Assessment of student-teachers 123
7.4 NZQA and unit standards 125
7.5 Assessment of teacher educators 130
7.6 Recommendations 133
Chapter 8 IDEOLOGICAL CAPTURE 135
8.1 Overview 135
8.2 Gender issues 139
8.3 Case studies of courses 144
8.4 Recommendations 151
Chapter 9 THE PRACTICUM 153
9.1 Introduction 153
9.2 Selection of lecturers for supervision of practicum 156
9.3 Appointment of associate and liaison teachers 158
9.4 Student-teachers and lecturer-supervisors 158
9.5 Lecturer-supervisors and associate teachers 162
9.6 Student-teachers and associate teachers 166
9.7 Length of practicum 169
9.8 Practicum profiles 172
9.9 Fundamental theoretical considerations 174
9.10 Recommendations 179
Chapter 10 SCHOOL-BASED TEACHER EDUCATION 181
10.1 The case against school-based teacher education 181
10.2 Arguments for school-based teacher education 182
10.3 Recommendations 190
Chapter 11 MAORI TEACHER EDUCATION 191
11.1 'Waitangism' 191
11.2 Maori in teacher education 194
11.3 The problem of secrecy 198
11.4 Some pedagogical problems 201
11.5 Maori language 202
11.6 Maori science education 203
11.7 Wanganui and the immersion approach 206
11.8 Te Whare Wananga Awanuiarangi 214
11.9 Recommendations 214
Chapter 12 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS 215
12.1 Summary and conclusions 215
12.2 Recommendations 224
APPENDIX A Auckland College of Education - 1994 - Essay by
an intending secondary school teacher 231
APPENDIX B Copy of letter sent to colleges of education and education
departments and faculties of the universities about this
review of initial teacher education 233
REFERENCES 253
FOREWORD
Educational reform is high on the agenda of modern democracies, and New Zealand
is no exception. Almost every aspect of schooling is now in question - the curriculum,
how we teach it, how we teach the teachers, and how we test the results. And
in every country there is conflict between the vested interests - the teachers
and the colleges which train them, whose lives get easier as standards decline
- and the general public, most of whom want standards to be maintained or improved.
Moreover, there are disputes over educational philosophy, both within the teaching
profession and outside it. And because people are less and less sure of what
education is for, they are less and less able to choose a policy that would
improve it. The situation is exacerbated by religious decline and its inevitable
conjunct: a loss of confidence in Western civilisation, a turning away from
traditional authority, and a sentimental leaning towards those most easily seen
as 'other' and as 'victims'.
This last fact is particularly important in New Zealand. Like Australians, whose destiny they closely follow, New Zealanders have identified themselves as part of the European diaspora, whose language, culture, politics and law were made in England, and whose educational system was designed to perpetuate the knowledge and culture on which that inheritance depends. Post-colonial guilt and 'oikophobia' (the contempt for home that afflicts the modern intellectual) have seriously damaged this self image - not perhaps among ordinary New Zealanders, but certainly among those whose job it is to teach them. As Geoffrey Partington shows, a near-uniform dissent towards the European inheritance emanates from the colleges of education, and there has been a serious and ongoing attempt to transcribe this dissent into educational policy. The boundary between education and indoctrination has been dissolved, and educational 'theory' has become an excuse for political attitudinising.
The process is fuelled by the presence in New Zealand of another and (by local standards) older civilisation, with which to castigate the civilisation of 'Dead White European Males'. Feminism, gay liberation, and assaults on the traditional curriculum, therefore go hand in hand with an emphasis on the Maori, as the true natives of New Zealand, the victims of colonial usurpation whose culture deserves a place in the educational system at least equal to the place given to the culture of their oppressors. The effects of this are documented by Dr Geoffrey Partington in Chapter 11, and it is clear that they present a serious threat to the continuity and content of the school curriculum. It is now widely assumed that henceforth education in New Zealand must be 'bicultural', and that this means a complete reform of the ends and means of teaching.
What, however, does 'biculturalism' really mean? Does it mean that each pupil should learn two languages, and become acquainted with the artistic and literary documents of two civilisations? The suggestion is not seriously made, for the simple reason that, in the age of television, video and pop, pupils find it ever more difficult to learn one language, let alone two, and teachers are rarely capable of teaching in any language but their own. Furthermore, if the transmission of a culture involves the study of literary and artistic monuments, it would be fair to say that the modern curriculum, as it is developing under the guidance of feminists, egalitarians and the movement for a 'child-centred' education, is more or less a-cultural, and designedly so. The curriculum that we inherited was in any case not monocultural. It was multicultural, just like the religion upon which it was based. Until the last war, those who came to New Zealand from Britain, if they had any education at all, would know the Hebrew Bible, the Greek New Testament, the language and literature of Greece and Rome, the fairy tales of Muslim Baghdad, the literature of France and England, the music of Germany, and the customs of the Empire. In comparison with this, one can only say that the standard product of a teacher-training college today is at best monocultural, at worst without any culture at all.
To decide what policy to adopt, we must know what education is for. This deep and difficult question underlies all the current disputes, and it is for this reason, no doubt, that Dr Partington recommends that prospective teachers be taught some of the philosophy of education. My own experience suggests, however, that a little philosophy is worse than none, and a little philosophy is all you will ever get in a school of education.
Moreover, philosophy is responsible for many of our problems. I am thinking in particular of the educational philosophy of John Dewey, who first invited us to switch from a 'knowledge-centred' to a 'child-centred' approach to schooling. As is often the case, it was not the reasonableness of this approach that caused so many people to adopt it but the fact that it coincided with a vague and powerful sentiment. Traditional education was designed to turn children into adults, by transmitting the knowledge necessary for adult life. At a certain point, with the loss of religious confidence, people began to question whether the adult life was really worth it. Maybe it was better to remain a child. It was at this point that Dewey stepped in and presented a wholly new image of education, as a way of perpetuating childhood, rather than abolishing it. The child became the single authority over what and how to learn. And a kind of Rousseau-ist fantasy was constructed in terms of which educational reform was henceforth to be conducted. Children were to be encouraged to express themselves, to find their own way to their own knowledge; they must be free from the constraints of old authority, of grammar, of rigorous mathematics, of facts and rules and rote learning, which merely deaden their creative potential. Learning must be a creative process, in which the child remains intact, the author of his or her own being, like God. Read the authorities most frequently cited in the schools of education even today, and you will find this sentimental vision constantly endorsed and elaborated, and Dr Partington gives some telling examples. The child has been 'deified' precisely so that he or she need not be taught.
As Dr Partington argues, the child-centred approach damages the child. It also damages society. It was child-centred theorists who introduced and insisted on the 'look-say' method of teaching reading (which Dr Partington criticises). 'Look-say' makes the child and not the text the principal authority as to what is happening on the page. After years of resistance from the teacher-training colleges, it has at last been conceded, in Britain and the United States at any rate, that this method has substantially raised the rate of illiteracy. And while progressive educationists may regard illiteracy as a good thing since it undermines the capitalist order by making the workforce unemployable, this is not a view that would be shared either by the general public or the government.
More important, however, is the loss of knowledge that ensues, when the child
is the sole authority. Societies depend upon a cognitive inheritance - a mass
of information, knowledge, skills, culture and know-how, which was not acquired
in a single generation and which could never be elicited from children merely
by allowing them to express themselves. If education has a social function,
it surely lies here: in the transmission of this cognitive inheritance to the
next generation. And that, surely, is why governments have an interest in it,
and why they have the right to compel each successive generation to sit for
days in the classroom until the necessary skills and information have been absorbed.
If, however, teachers no longer transmit this cognitive inheritance - either
because they can't or because they won't - then the government no longer has
the right to compel children to go to school. And this, it seems to me, is the
crux of the matter. By taking charge of education, modern governments generated
a vast body of public servants - the teachers and educational administrators
- over whom they exerted little or no control. Pupils were conscripts, and the
curriculum and examinations were established largely by the teachers themselves.
Hence the rooted hostility to assessment that Dr Partington describes. For any
assessment of the pupil is an assessment of the teacher.
Many of the educational theories mentioned by Dr Partington owe their popularity
to the fact that they grant freedom to the teachers, and release them from the
burden of transmitting the knowledge and culture on which the next generation
depends. It is hard to get modern children to recite Shakespeare; hard to get
them to learn poetry by heart; hard to sit them down to study differential equations
or Bach fugues; hard to give them a real grounding in another language, be it
French, German, Latin or classical Greek. The subversive theories which tells
us that these things are, in any case, just bourgeois ideology, or the curriculum
of Dead White European Males, or ways of damming up children's creative potential
or alienating them from their true culture, will always gain more of a hearing
in teacher-training colleges than the old-fashioned idea that these things ought
to be taught since they are proven forms of knowledge. But that does not alter
the fact that the old-fashioned view is the right one, and also explains why
those fields of study have survived. It is because the calculus is a genuine
piece of knowledge, a cognitive acquisition, that those who know it want to
teach it, and those who don't yet know it, but recognise the difference between
knowledge and ignorance, want to learn. And the same is true of Shakespeare.
Granted, study of Shakespeare's plays produces knowledge of a different kind.
But that this knowledge is valuable and improving would be denied by no-one
who has made the effort to acquire it.
British governments in the 1960s were influenced by those who saw education not as a means for transmitting knowledge, but as a way of removing social disadvantage and generating equality in the classroom. However, it is easy to make people educationally equal; it sufficient to ensure that they all learn nothing. But it is hard to transmit knowledge, and impossible to do so without distinguishing those who acquire it from those who don't. There is no third way: no way of reconciling the social function of education (which is to transmit the cognitive inheritance) with egalitarian social engineering. And the general public knows this. We should not be surprised therefore if the reforms initiated during the 1960s led to educational decline, or if people are now reacting against them, regardless of their political orientation.
One reform in particular should be singled out, since it bears on the situation in New Zealand, and this was the introduction of a compulsory graduate certificate of education for those who wished to teach in state schools. This meant that, for the first time in our history, knowledge of a subject (even when testified by a first-class degree) was not considered sufficient qualification for teaching it. Students must also sit through fatuous courses in the theory, psychology and philosophy of education, and waste a year of life, before they could fulfil their ambition and teach in a school. The result was either to drive the best teachers out of the state system into the private sector, or to drive them out of teaching altogether. The fact is that nothing useful is taught in the graduate certificate, since the curriculum is so deeply contested as to contain only a tiny residue of recognised knowledge. The only useful part of the course is the teaching practice (the practicum), and this is surely better undertaken as a paid apprenticeship than as a course of study - not the least because this would channel money to beginning teachers, and away from those who pretend to instruct them.
People have begun to wake up to the fact that the best qualification for teaching, and the only one that can be reliably tested in advance of the classroom, is the knowledge and love of a subject. This qualification - the sine qua non of education in the traditional model - gradually sank during the 1960s and 1970s to the bottom of the educational agenda. And, Dr Partington argues, it is still at the bottom of the agenda in New Zealand. More important for the colleges were ideological conformity, attitude training, and the child-centred teaching methods which ensure that knowledge will not be transmitted in any case, even if the teacher possesses it. Knowledge was driven out of the system, and replaced by professional criteria designed to prevent the competent, the enthusiastic, the politically incorrect - in short, anyone who might threaten the complacent mediocrity of the state system - from entering the profession.
Nothing would have changed had reforms been entrusted entirely to the teacher-training colleges. For the colleges were the problem, as they are today in New Zealand. Only by challenging their monopoly over entrants to the profession could knowledge once again be restored to its central place in the educational process. Every town and village in Britain contains quantities of undisplayed knowledge - knowledge that will be passed on only if someone happens to ask for it. Our village, for example, contains an amateur historian, a competent pianist, several excellent mechanics, a blacksmith, a retired theologian, a native speaker of Arabic and another of German, all of them intelligent and enthusiastic people who could pass on their knowledge given a chance. The local school, however, contains teachers who know nothing at all, apart from a few politically correct nostrums about gender identity, racial discrimination, and the 'social reproduction of disadvantage'. The solution is to allow those with knowledge into the classroom, in the hope that they will drive out those without it. This is the solution that is being tried.
Not surprisingly the teachers and their unions resist such reforms. Incompetent people fear nothing so much as competition. But there is hope, and not all teachers are afraid of knowledge or reluctant to acquire it. Essential to any reform, however, is to break the state monopolies - the monopoly over schools, over qualifications, and over examinations. For the mediocrity that we have witnessed, both in Britain and in New Zealand, is the direct result of the absence of independent controls. This is why Dr Partington's recommendation, that we should develop alternative routes into the profession, must be taken seriously. Equally important, however, is investment in private schools and private universities. People must be encouraged to see private institutions, not as centres of privilege, but as attempts to preserve, transmit and enhance the store of knowledge for the benefit of society as a whole.
Roger Scruton
PREFACE
In 1996 I agreed to a request to undertake a review of initial teacher education
in New Zealand on behalf of the Education Forum. As part of the preliminaries
to undertaking this review, I attended the June 1996 Conference of the New Zealand
Council for Teacher Education held at Dunedin College of Education. This proved
an excellent opportunity to meet men and women at present active and influential
in teacher education in New Zealand and to become acquainted with their views
and concerns.
Michael Irwin, on behalf of the Education Forum, wrote to the principals, chief executive officers or heads of department of all state and most private teacher education institutions in the country to arrange meetings for me with them and with representative staff members and students. Attached to the letter was a paper I had prepared outlining some of what I perceived to be the key questions in teacher education: both the letter and the attachment are included in this report as Appendix B.
The response to the letter was very encouraging and meetings were arranged with staff and students at the Dunedin, Christchurch, Wellington and Auckland Colleges of Education, the Universities of Otago and Canterbury, Victoria University of Wellington, the College of Education at Massey University, the School of Education at the University of Waikato, the Wanganui Regional Community Polytechnic, the Auckland Institute of Technology, the MASTERS Institute in Auckland and the New Zealand Graduate School of Education in Christchurch. Meetings were also held with a number of principals of schools and with recently qualified or re-qualified teachers, some arranged by the teacher education institutions and some by the Education Forum.
Every courtesy and consideration was accorded to me in every institution that
I visited. Substantial documentation, as well as the opportunity to meet a wide
range of senior staff and representative students, was provided. All interviews
and discussions were taped by agreement with my hosts. References to views expressed
or facts adduced by various persons are all taken verbatim or with minimum paraphrase
from the tapes. Oral comments in this report which are attributed to named individuals
were sent to their sources for clearance.
Some judgments reached in this report are critical of New Zealand teacher education
as a whole and aspects of the work of some institutions are evaluated harshly.
One can only state the truth as one sees it, and it is very much hoped that
no recipient of any criticism will attribute it either to personal animus or
ideological hostility. My own educational values and priorities have changed
considerably during a long teaching career, even since I first became a teacher
educator in 1966 in England. It was with deep sincerity that I held views I
subsequently rejected, and I acknowledge the equal sincerity of all those I
have met in New Zealand who hold opinions different from my own on teacher education
and related issues.
The following review covers only initial teacher education. As such it does not cover in-service education which is, of course, a vital component of the professional development of teachers, and one that is of particular significance when a workforce is ageing, as is the case with teachers in New Zealand at present. However, initial teacher education is a major issue in its own right. Further, to the extent that in-service training is undertaken in the same institutions as initial preparation some of the findings of this review will be pertinent to it as well.
Renwick and Vize suggested about their Windows on Teacher Education research:
We are confident that our representative sample allows us to generalise across the cohort as a whole. Even a low number of students making a criticism does not mean that the criticism should not be taken notice of … . One perceptive comment may be of more potential use to the college than a widely shared opinion which merely repeats a criticism of which the college is already aware.
My 'sample' is necessarily smaller and less representative of students than that of Renwick and Vize, but I am confident that the critical points I make of existing practices, together with my suggestions for change and reform, deserve careful attention from all teacher educators, irrespective of their specific educational values. The wisest educators have always been willing to listen to those who speak in a different accent from their own.
Teacher education in New Zealand is, of course, changing very rapidly in some important respects. For example, the number of institutions offering teacher education is increasing and some existing relationships between colleges and universities are changing or are under review. It is also a time of teacher shortage which presents both opportunities and challenges. Thus, in some respects my report will speedily be overtaken by events, but the main substance is likely to remain pertinent for a considerable time.
The title of this report, Teacher Education and Training in New Zealand, acknowledges the composite and changing character of teacher preparation, which has distinctive components never easy to keep in balance. Substantive knowledge of what is to be taught is essential, as is skill in teaching, which in its turn extends beyond techniques and tricks of the trade to a wider theoretical dimension. Although this report holds that teacher education in New Zealand can significantly be improved, it does not claim to have the final answer to matters of legitimate contest.
In conclusion I would make the obvious but important observation that teacher education is only a part - albeit a vital part - of a much broader picture. The health of this activity will undoubtedly be affected to an important extent by factors well outside the scope of this review, and in particular I would refer to the morale of the school teaching service and its ability to attract and retain high calibre men and women.
Geoffrey Partington
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In 1997 New Zealand teacher education remains mainly in the hands of established
state providers: four free-standing colleges of education with teacher education
as their chief but not only function, and two university colleges of education.
There are significant differences in approach among the established providers
of teacher education, but the government should not seek to impose one approach.
It should encourage diversity of provision rather than uniformity.
The established providers have experienced rapid organisational changes, and their responses to new challenges have often been constructive. However, despite the reduction of central control brought about by the Education Act 1989, they still have to negotiate with numerous external bodies, as well as arrive at decisions within cumbersome college councils, before they undertake significant initiatives. These unwieldy councils are stacked with representatives of vested interests who have no final responsibility for the ultimate success of a college's endeavours. Existing controls should be reviewed with a view to making each institution more genuinely autonomous.
Within the constraints of the overall budget for tertiary education, student numbers admitted into teacher education should be left to market forces, specifically student demand and institutional supply. Teacher education institutions should have greater flexibility in respect of academic entry qualifications, provided that they make full public disclosure of the reasons for, and the results of, their admission policies.
It would be advisable to raise the age at which qualifications of a lower standard are accepted for admission into teacher education, since the effect of current policy is to encourage some would-be applicants to wait until they are 20 when they may have easier access, rather than make serious efforts to raise their academic qualifications. Although rigid exclusion from other courses would be inappropriate, provision of entry on lower qualifications for older applicants should be directed mainly to those seeking to teach in areas or types of school or subjects in which there are chronic shortages.
Most teacher education institutions share with the Teacher Registration Board a propensity for making extensive lists of highly desirable qualities sought in teachers, combined with acceptance in practice of all applicants who satisfy basic academic requirements, provided they have not been sentenced for criminal behaviour or, it seems in some cases, have not attended an independent secondary school. The institutions should have wide discretion in admission policy in respect of the character, race, gender and backgrounds of applicants. It is ridiculous, for instance, that Christian providers such as Bethlehem Teachers College and the MASTERS Institute should not be able to make Christian belief a condition of enrolment. All such policies should be made public: purported adherence to open entry combined with covert exclusions is quite unacceptable. Accusations of bias, when shown prima facie to have substance, should be dealt with in an open and public manner.
Whether reformed or not, there is no justification for established providers having a monopoly or quasi-monopoly of teacher education. The government should place no obstacles before those who wish to enter the field. It should finance public and independent providers on a common and equitable basis. Established teacher education institutions should be encouraged to cooperate with new providers, not only because New Zealand is currently short of teachers or because such cooperation is expected of professionals genuinely committed to educational progress, but because they themselves may well learn and benefit from cooperation.
Established providers of teacher education can offer numerous testimonials of client satisfaction, both from students and schools. This is hardly surprising, since the same set of educational ideas is broadly shared by all key players in contemporary New Zealand education, apart from parents. More surprising is the volume of criticism from individuals and groups whose educational ideas are very similar to those dominant in teacher education.
Although the content balance of courses is essentially contestable and should
not be subject to governmental control, there is an overwhelming case for giving
highest priority in teacher education to ensuring that future teachers have
adequate substantive knowledge in the subjects to be taught. This is true not
only for subject specialists in secondary schools but also for primary and early
childhood teachers. Significant improvements could be made in teaching reading,
mathematics, science, social sciences, and other curricular areas if a large
part of current ideological baggage were discarded and more time spent on substantive
knowledge and the best methods of imparting it.
Government and teacher education institutions should cooperate in encouraging
greater teacher specialisation in primary schools and, to a lesser extent, in
early childhood centres. A model that could well be considered for large primary
schools as an alternative to current practice would be for a double class to
be shared by two teachers: one specially qualified in language and the social
sciences and the other in mathematics and sciences. There could be specialist
support in such areas as music, art and physical education.
Secondary schools and teacher educators should provide more feedback as to whether they find typical university first-degree courses the best preparation for their needs. Although there are some sensible objections to the provision by universities of courses of a broader and more general character, with consequent deferment of specialisation, many university departments might well modify some courses to meet the needs of secondary schools better, if they knew what these needs are.
Although top priority should be given to substantive knowledge in subjects to be taught, it is very desirable for teachers' professional competence and the effective working of the educational system, as well as for their own intellectual cultivation, that they should have sound knowledge of at least the main educational disciplines. These are philosophy of education, the history of education, the sociology of education, educational psychology and learning theory and comparative education.
It is highly desirable that New Zealand's teachers should be themselves liberally educated, equipped with a broad knowledge. Given that in education at every level there is far more worth knowing than there is time to teach and learn, tensions will continue between depth and breadth of knowledge, and contestation will remain about the optimum balance of kinds of knowledge in teacher education courses. Such decisions should be made by teacher education institutions, not the government. However, the prime importance of knowledge and the constraints of time should constantly be in the minds of teacher educators and should deter them from trivial pursuits.
Research by teacher educators should be encouraged, but not every teacher educator need be engaged in educational research. Those who are so engaged should not be confined to learning theory, classroom interaction and other kinds of micro-educational research.
One of the gravest weaknesses in current teacher education in New Zealand is the hostility of many prominent teacher educators to the very concept that educational achievement can be fairly and objectively assessed. Teacher educators at every level should try to develop more adequate assessment of educational achievement.
Although at least one established institution, the Auckland College of Education, and at least one new provider, the New Zealand Graduate School of Education in Christchurch, have developed courses which seek specifically to meet the requirements of the New Zealand Qualifications Authority (NZQA) unit standards for teacher education, these should not generally be required of teacher education institutions. In general, unit standards provide useful check lists but cannot be used to assess quality of work.
There should be no requirement by the government about the length of practicums in any type of teacher education. As long as teacher education institutions are responsible for awarding an approved diploma of teaching, they must have ultimate control of the conditions on which it is awarded. However, the institutions would be well advised to use their own staff as specialist supervisors in their areas of expertise, leaving general supervision to associate teachers.
Irrespective of the balance between schools and teacher education institutions, the latter should consider restoring marks of distinction for practicum. Although student-teachers face very different levels of challenge on practicum, it is possible to make adequate allowance for such different levels of challenge and for different contexts of teaching. Improving 'value-added' methods of evaluating teaching effectiveness would be a major contribution to in-service education of experienced teachers, as well to pre-service teacher education.
Claims by teacher educators that they are themselves highly 'reflective' or 'effective', or that their courses ensure that their students are 'reflective' or 'effective', should be treated with caution, unless public evidence is provided of 'reflectiveness' or 'effectiveness'. Special attention should be paid to ways in which student-teachers and teachers add to the stock of knowledge and skills mastered by their students. Government and teacher education institutions would be well advised to commission a leading scholar in the field of 'value-added' teaching to make a detailed study of the current New Zealand approaches to evaluating teacher effectiveness.
The government should encourage the adoption of school-based schemes such as those for 'licensed' and 'articled' teachers which have been developed in England and Wales and which bypass direct enrolment in teacher education institutions. A pilot scheme could be directed at university graduates. Under such school-based arrangements, schools would be encouraged to form themselves into groups and to seek outside support from established and/or new providers of teacher education for aspects of teacher education difficult to provide effectively within the resources of the schools themselves. There would still be a partnership between schools and teacher education institutions, but the needs of the schools would become paramount.
The government should encourage a variety of approaches in Maori teacher education so that teacher education is less subject to the ideological imposition of the Treaty of Waitangi as the critical reference point in all teacher education courses.
Maori and non-Maori teacher educators alike should take more fully into account the obstacles in the way of learning sometimes imposed by traditional Maori concepts, especially those relating to tapu. Maori parents should be provided with ample objective information about the balance of advantage for their children in schools where they will be integrated with other New Zealanders, as compared with full-immersion, part-immersion and other possible educational policies.
A very disturbing feature of teacher education in New Zealand is the extent
of ideological capture by groups holding views which are almost certainly not
shared by the majority of the population. Failure by institutions to counteract
ideological indoctrination within their walls makes a mockery of elaborate formal
mechanisms of quality control. Teacher education should embrace the principle
of educational contestability and accept that people of equal intelligence and
experience may legitimately choose very different educational priorities. However,
the best way to counter ideological takeover is not direct government action,
but the opening up of courses and reading lists to public and professional scrutiny.
Students would vote with their feet and employers of teachers take appropriate
action if only they realised how one-sided and distorted teacher education courses
are in some of New Zealand's tertiary institutions.
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Contestability
The basic approach to education adopted in this report is that it is essentially contestable. By this is meant, following Gallie, that sensible people may know all the relevant facts and yet hold conflicting priorities and values, as in democratic politics. This approach holds choice and variety in education, including teacher education, to be preferable to prescription and regulation.
Educational theories can be divided into five clusters, each with a different priority:
" transcendental education: what is of greatest value to God's purposes;
" instrumental education: what is of greatest value to society broadly
as it is;
" liberal education: what is of greatest value to the development of the
mind;
" reconstructionist education: what is of greatest value in transforming
society as it is to one of a radically different character; and
" child-centred education: what is of greatest value or interest to the
child.
Within each cluster there are many choices of an essentially contestable character. Arguments about just what is of greatest value to a society at any given moment provide the content of much political as well as educational debate. There are many disputes among reconstructionists about what sort of new society ought to be created and how education might best accelerate the process. Each religion, whilst urging the priority of transcendental over worldly values, has its own set of beliefs about the nature of God and the created world. Child-centred educators disagree about what constitute children's natural needs and upon whether these are basically the same for all children, or whether each group or individual child has different needs. Liberal educators, from Plato and Aristotle onwards, have disagreed about which knowledge is of most worth in the development of the mind.
It should be clearly understood that this typology of clusters does not correspond to simple or conventional distinctions between 'right' and 'left', 'radical' and 'conservative'. For example, earlier in this century, when communist political movements were successful in overthrowing existing regimes, Marxist theorists often changed overnight from being reconstructionists, which they were in respect to the old order, to being instrumentalists, which they were in regard to the new one. Furthermore, adherents to one type of theory may appreciate insights contributed by those of a different perspective. For example, people generally unsympathetic to reconstructionism may value aspects of the educational thought of Marxists such as the Italian Antonio Gramsci and the Frenchman Pierre Bourdieu. There are sometimes alliances between two or more clusters, usually against another that threatens them all, but such alliances are usually fleeting and always unstable.
'Moments of truth', or 'critical moments', occur when choices must be made between conflicting priorities. Many early childhood and primary teachers have been attracted both to reconstructionist, especially feminist, theories, but also to child-centred ones. Yet when children exert their choices between activities in 'traditional gender-oriented' fashion, these teachers are in their turn forced into a very difficult choice: shall they be child-centred and let girls and boys go their different ways by and large, or be reconstructionist and try to get boys and girls to engage in activities each gender associates negatively with the other? Some temporary alliances between clusters are local rather than international. In English-speaking countries during the 1970s and 1980s there were tactical alliances against child-centred and reconstructionist policies between instrumentalists and transcendentalists, although issues such as 'Creation Science' divided them as well. However, there were no such even temporary alliances in many Islamic countries, where instrumentalism and transcendentalism were in sharp opposition.
Despite conflicts within clusters of ideas and leaps of sympathy from one to
the other from time to time, the fivefold division provides a useful model of
how basic educational ideas relate to each other. Such an approach requires,
of course, openness and choice, as the Picot Report understood:
Only if people are free to choose, can a true co-operative partnership develop
between the community and learning institutions.
Some teacher educators are reluctant to accept the concept of contestability
and pine for consensus imposed by a national authority, always providing consensus
is based on their ideas. Grant McMillan of the New Zealand Educational Institute
holds, for example, that "NZ primary teaching is child centred not subject
oriented". Lester Taylor, Principal of the Dunedin College of Education,
believes that what is needed is that we "decide as a society what we want"
in education. Taylor seems confident that educational needs are capable of being
consensually established: it just needs the stakeholders to be brought together.
X can speak for parents, Y for employers, and so on. This ultra-empiricist confidence
that we can all agree on educational priorities, if only we understand all the
relevant facts and other peoples' points of view, is more characteristic in
New Zealand of the old 'college' tradition than of university educationalists.
Contestability should not be confused with arbitrariness. Although there are a number of different value positions that can be held in the light of all relevant information, some contentions within each cluster must be rejected as conceptually incoherent or factually wrong.
Dennis McGrath of the Auckland College of Education says that it is not unreasonable for parents, politicians, and school trustees and principals to want the highest quality of teacher education and assurance that good teachers are being produced. But he is wrong to suggest that it would be "a bizarre question" to ask which institution offers the best teacher education in New Zealand. McGrath considers the question bizarre because there are different dimensions we might compare, such as 'attributes' of graduates and research output. Yet, there is nothing inherently difficult in ranking institutions, or departments within institutions, in respect, say, of research and publication achievement. If it were impossible to make such comparisons, then the whole system of so-called quality assurance would be a sham from start to finish.
If McGrath simply means that one institution may be superior to others on one dimension but inferior in another, he is right - just as an individual student may be superior to others in learning a new language but inferior in some other ways. Yet this truth does not prevent comparisons, but helps to refine them. Thus, when McGrath argues that questions such as "Does one of the institutions add more value [than the others] to the student intake?" are "really irrelevant to principals and school trustees, to parents in general and … to politicians", he is doubly wrong. He is wrong factually because many individuals in these groups are interested in such questions. He is also wrong normatively in that all of them ought to be interested.
McGrath claimed that "Teaching as a profession has not had a tradition of writing and assembling the 'wisdom of practice'. We are not able to point to evidence of standards to clarify what teacher education is about." Yet, there is much quantitative and statistical material, although not as much as is desirable, that is highly relevant to the establishment of educational standards. Even more to the point, our educational traditions contain much 'wisdom of practice' which form a rich treasure of thought available to all teacher educators.
Although it is inevitable that thoughtful people will form different priorities in education, as in politics and ways of life as a whole, there are some concerns that all educators in a democratic society should possess. The first of these is a willingness to embrace openness and debate between contending positions. The best elements in each cluster value freedom of discussion and believe in the maxim magna veritas et praevalebit (great is truth and it shall prevail). Yet no cluster has been entirely immune from totalitarian tendencies when in the ascendancy. Varieties of transcendentalist and reconstructionist theories have been most associated with intolerance, but the Prussian founders of mass compulsory schooling were instrumentalist thinkers with authoritarian views, while Plato, one of the founders of liberal educational ideas, sought to impose his ideas by the force of the state. Child-centred theories have been least susceptible to authoritarian capture, but Froebel, for example, had a rigid view of what constitutes the natural growth of the child and vigorously rooted out as 'weeds' any influences he considered inimical to growth in the direction he approved.
The second shared concern should be with objective assessment of the results of our teaching. Honesty demands that we subject our methods to scrupulous testing for their suitability and effectiveness. Otherwise we can have little clear idea as to the extent of our success in attaining our goals, whatever they may be. When our activity is publicly funded, there is the additional responsibility to ensure that the public is adequately informed of our comparative failures as well as of our partial successes. Without full disclosure of results, the value of different methods cannot be properly evaluated, so that innovation and experiment are carried out in vain.
1.2 Two kinds of recommendation
One of the many reasons why the political terms 'right' and 'left', and most of their equivalents, have very limited descriptive or analytical value is that they fail to distinguish between the continuum that runs from conservative to radical, themselves also problematic terms, and the one that runs independently from authoritarian to libertarian. Many people are, of course, opportunistic and support regulation when in office but seek freedom from governmental control when in opposition. Indeed, consistency is hard to achieve, but it is vital to seek it. An organisation concerned to improve educational standards may contain both people who seek to do so through national quality controls and those who believe that higher standards and greater student and parental satisfaction will arise from wider choice and less central control. The two are not incompatible, but they are not easily yoked together.
In reading this report it would be wise to distinguish between recommendations to government - sometimes advice to refrain from rather than to take action, from recommendations to institutions and individuals. There is much we consider wise and sensible which we would never seek to make compulsory. Education is more complex than, say, motor vehicle manufacture, but there are useful analogies. Governments not only may but ought to impose standards in safety precautions, and ensure that factual claims about performance and petrol consumption can be substantiated. On the other hand governments ought not only to refrain from manufacturing motor cars but also from prescribing their colour, names, shapes or levels of comfort. In teacher education this report advocates freedom for students and employers to choose from a range of institutions which may adopt very different priorities. On the other hand, it urges diligence in seeking to establish objective standards of educational achievement.
An obvious feature of this report and its recommendations is that they are the work of an 'outsider'. All 'insiders' will be very aware that this particular outsider is ignorant of many things the importance and relevance of which they are keenly aware. On the other hand an outsider may sometimes be of service through having a different perspective from that of even the best informed 'insider'. Time spent reading the report may well be most profitably used by paying particular attention to insights, however sparse some may feel they are, that arise from outsider background and experience.
1.3 Governments and teacher education
The Education Review Office (ERO) rightly noted that the New Zealand government
has a deep legitimate interest in teacher education, because it:
" requires parents to send their children to school and places responsibility
for the care and education of those children in the hands of schools and teachers;
" is ultimately responsible for the quality of education delivered by schools
to students in New Zealand;
" substantially funds pre-service teacher training programmes;
" funds the employment of most New Zealand teachers and regulates and negotiates
their conditions of employment;
" is the 'owner' of most of the institutions that provide pre-service teacher
training;
" determines policy decisions on issues such as the minimum school leaving
age, new curriculum requirements, and staff/student ratios that can have a significant
impact on the demand for and job requirements of teachers; and
" determines policy decisions on matters such as immigration policy for
overseas teachers and registration requirements for teachers which could have
a significant impact on teacher supply.
These considerations do not entail, however, that the New Zealand government
should itself provide all or even part of teacher education. Liberal democracies
are concerned about children's physical welfare, and parents are vulnerable
to prosecution for neglect unless they feed their children. But the state does
not act as baker or butcher or fishmonger.
1.4 Recommendation
1 Teacher education should embrace the principle of educational contestability
and accept that people of equal intelligence and experience may legitimately
choose very different educational priorities.
CHAPTER 2
BACKGROUND
2.1 Historical sketch
Teacher education is a recent innovation in historical terms, as indeed is mass education. In the anglomorph world, of which New Zealand remains a part, most teachers before the end of the nineteenth century learned 'on the job'. In the independent and grammar schools, teachers rarely received any teacher training, but were recruited as university graduates, or from men and women who had previously pursued other occupations. It was not until after the Second World War that the most prestigious independent schools, such as Eton and Harrow in Britain or Scots College and King's College in New Zealand, usually appointed staff who had undertaken teacher education courses. Teacher training for secondary schools only became compulsory in most anglomorph countries during the 1960s and 1970s. For several generations the staff of most elementary schools in anglomorph countries were former pupil-teachers, who became apprenticed at around 13 and became assistant teachers at 18 after an apprenticeship to a head teacher. A few obtained a place in a training college for one or two years, but it was only during the twentieth century that the majority of elementary teachers had a training college education.
This system, described by English educationalist David Hargreaves as 'pre-technocratic', came under strong attack, to be replaced by teacher education based in tertiary institutions, the 'technocratic stage' in Hargreaves' model. Although secondary schools with their untrained graduates and elementary schools with ex-pupil-teachers who had no higher education at all enjoyed some successes, there were powerful arguments for providing graduates with some systematic pedagogic knowledge before they entered secondary teaching, and for providing elementary/primary teachers with a more liberal education. Imitation of experienced practitioners might be suitable for relatively simple and stable crafts, it was held, but not for a protean and dynamic activity such as teaching.
The history of the Christchurch College of Education epitomises that of New Zealand teacher education as a whole. It began in 1877 with 31 students, 25 women and six men, and was initially an offshoot of the Christchurch Normal School. In 1905 it became the Christchurch Training College and operated a system of pupil-teaching, the pupil-teaching phase being between the ages of 13 and 16, followed by study in the college from 16 to 18, after which the students became full members of the teaching profession. The long period during which they were institutionally free of university control, although not, of course, from that of government, enabled the colleges to develop distinctive traditions in which they took justifiable pride.
In recent years Normal Schools have been regarded as performing a service role to teacher educational institutions rather than being such institutions themselves. A massive switch to school-based teacher education would in some ways represent a return to that original pattern. Pupil-teaching ended finally in 1931. Subsequently, except for emergency conditions of shortage in wartime and at the height of the 'baby boom', intending non-graduate teachers entered teachers' colleges at the end of a full secondary education.
In 1954 the Christchurch Training College organised its secondary training provision in a more systematic way with the establishment of a Post Primary Department, later designated the Secondary Department. In 1959 the whole institution changed its name to Christchurch Teachers College, the term 'training' being by then regarded as limiting and restrictive. The next change of name was in 1989 to the present one of Christchurch College of Education. In 1991 the additional name was adopted of Te Whare Whai Matauraka Ki Otautahi. The 1960s and 1970s were years of rapid expansion: secondary enrolments, for example, increased to over 900 during the early 1970s. During the same years the standard diploma of teaching was extended from a two-year to a three-year course.
Lower birthrates and other economic influences led to the end of expansion
and then to retrenchment. In 1983 the students intake was sharply reduced, and
33 staff members accepted an early retirement offer. A change of government
in 1984 led quickly to a further reversal, and by 1987 there had been a new
wave of staff recruitment and building to cope with increased quotas in all
the programmes. In 1989 the new reform package was introduced in education as
a whole and the Christchurch College of Education, like the rest, gained much
greater autonomy for budgeting and staffing, with government financial support
being given on the basis of a grant determined by a formula based on, inter
alia, the approved number of equivalent full-time student places (the EFTS funding
system).
Very early links were formed between the Christchurch College of Education and
the University of Canterbury. College trainees attended some university lectures
in English and the principles of education, which were taught by the College
Principal doubling as university lecturer (although not with the title of Professor
of Education in the university, as in the Dunedin College of Education-University
of Otago relationship). A joint four-year B.Ed. was first offered by the Christchurch
College of Education and the University of Canterbury in 1980 and administered
by a joint board of studies.
The change of name to College of Education indicated that its role had become wider than provision of pre-service teacher education. Some new courses were closely related to the 'core business' of teacher education, such as speech and language therapy training. There are also two-year Diploma of Teaching courses for specialist Maori teachers, Pacific Island trained teachers, university graduates or near graduates, and a one-year workshop craft retraining course.
Differences between, on the one hand, the teachers' colleges, training colleges and colleges of education and, on the other, university departments of education as they developed have been deep in all anglomorph countries. In most cases university departments of education were designed initially to prepare graduates for secondary teaching in one-year courses, whereas the colleges prepared intending primary teachers who entered their training courses directly on leaving school. Thus the staff of university education departments tended to be scholars in disciplines such as philosophy, history or psychology, who applied their scholarship to the study of education. College staff tended to be ex-teachers who took further courses, often with university scholars as their lecturers, in order to broaden their theoretical understanding of teaching and to raise their academic status. By and large the university department of education staff looked for approval to colleagues in other university departments and scholars in their own fields internationally. College staff generally sought to gain the esteem of principals and teachers of schools and of educational administrators. University staff were largely judged by the quality of their publications, whereas it was not incumbent on college staff to publish at all, although praiseworthy if they did so. In teacher education in New Zealand today there is still often uneasy co-existence between the two traditions, irrespective of whether formal mergers have taken place between institutions.
The differences between the two traditions were described by Professor Ivan
Snook of Massey University's Department of Education when in 1993 acrimonious
negotiations were taking place about a possible merger between Massey University
and the Palmerston North College of Education. Snook held that the old college
model:
… sees teaching as a practical craft centred on classrooms and the meeting
of children's needs. The good teacher understands children, has sound teaching
methods, a general familiarity with all aspects of the curriculum and the ability
to control a class.
He considered that "all these elements are important and need to be preserved",
but added that "the model is limited and is quite inappropriate to the
challenges ahead". The old university tradition, in Snook's view:
… sees teaching as a learned profession. Its practitioners have a broad
grasp of schooling in its social, historical and political context. They are
able to provide expert advice on the theory of education and on educational
policy. Their approach to teaching is informed and critical. Their methods are
based on the best research available although they know very well the limitations
of this research.
This comparison to their disfavour was endorsed by very few of the academic
staff of the Palmerston North College of Education.
Considerable differences persist in typical qualifications held by academic
staff in the two types of institution. In 1997 35 percent of the Dunedin College
of Education and 32 percent of the Christchurch College of Education academic
staff have never gained a degree, whereas in their partner universities, the
Universities of Otago and Canterbury respectively, almost all the education
department academics hold a higher degree. At the University of Waikato, even
though the merger with the Hamilton College of Education took place only five
years ago, only 7 percent of the staff are non-graduates. Colleges make the
best case they can in respect to the comparatively modest scholarship of many
of their lecturers. Dunedin makes the point that the great majority of its teaching
staff have been appointed directly from successful teaching careers in primary
and secondary schools or early childhood centres. However, pride in the practical
experience of their staff does not prevent colleges from urging all those who
are non-graduates to gain degrees.
2.2 The current organisational structure
The Gandar Report
The 1974 government paper, Directions for Educational Development, called for a comprehensive review of teacher education, but this was not carried out thoroughly until the 1979 Review of Teacher Training, usually known as the Gandar Report. Its criticisms included:
o inadequate interview procedures, selection processes and means of ensuring
that the most suitable applicants enter teaching;
o unnecessarily constraining regulations and requirements;
o apparent irrelevance of some college programmes;
o inadequate staff movement into and out of teachers' colleges;
o aspects of practical training; and
o insufficient training opportunities for teachers in the tertiary sector.
Some criticisms centred on aspects of teacher education which its practitioners
considered they had long since brought to a fine art, including the organisation
of teaching practice. The Gandar Report claimed:
There is a lack of close coordination between the colleges and schools, a lack
of appreciation by many associate teachers of the aims of in-school training
and a lack of coordination between the stage of college courses and what the
student does in school.
The Gandar Report welcomed the extension from two to three years of training
for primary teachers that had recently been introduced, commenting that "many
school principals and instructors confirmed that the beginning teachers entering
the profession are generally better prepared" and that "overall, the
academic qualifications of entrants to primary teachers' colleges are continuing
to rise". It recommended that "the timing, nature and length of in-school
practice experiences should be examined" and further efforts should be
made to establish "systematic and effective methods of evaluating teacher
education".
Quality of teaching
During 1985 the Education and Science Select Committee of Parliament, chaired by Noel Scott, held an inquiry into the Quality of Teaching and published its report under that title in 1986. The report included comments and recommendations on initial teacher training. The committee was impressed with some aspects of the efforts of several teacher colleges and the integrated approach of the Hamilton Teachers' College and the education department of the University of Waikato. However, the committee reported that it was "strongly concerned about considerable evidence that teacher training, both initial and induction, shows major weaknesses." The committee recommended, inter alia, more research into course design, clearer identification of teaching skills and competencies, more flexible courses, and that college lecturers should be appointed on five-year renewable contracts.
The Picot Report
In 1988 the Taskforce to Review Education Administration published Administering
for Excellence, usually known as the Picot Report after its chairman Brian Picot.
On teacher training it "could find no compelling reasons for continuing
the present arrangements for the training of teachers". It rejected independent
single-purpose institutions and recommended that teachers' colleges:
… become semi-autonomous schools of teacher education within the universities,
but that the relationship be such that the integrity of teacher preparation
be retained. Each school of teacher education should have a charter. Funding
would be provided as a specific item within Vote: Education, but teacher education
schools would be free to train as many teachers as they are able within this
and any other funding they can obtain.
The Picot taskforce recommended unrestricted access to teacher education for
those wishing to train as teachers. It was willing to leave to potential applicants
decisions about future job supply. It is unlikely that such applicants could
have miscalculated future teacher supply and demand more than have successive
New Zealand governments and their expert advisers.
Like the 1962 Report of the Currie Commission on Education in New Zealand and several other of its predecessors, the Picot taskforce advocated a graduate teaching profession. This is a worthy idea, provided that it means that all teachers possess the academic level traditionally deemed appropriate for graduation and does not mean that courses once considered below graduate level attract degrees. Which of these two may be taking place in New Zealand requires careful examination.
The legislative basis for the present structure of teacher education was constructed broadly in response to the Picot criticisms. Its main components are the Public Finance Act 1989 and the Education Act 1989, supplemented by the Education Act 1989 (as amended in 1990) which created the New Zealand Qualifications Authority (NZQA) with its wide overseeing powers. The structure emerging from these changes is outlined below.
The institutions
Initial teacher education in the mid-1990s is provided by four autonomous colleges of education, three university departments of education, five polytechnics and a growing number of recently established smaller providers. The autonomous colleges are Dunedin College of Education, Christchurch College of Education, Wellington College of Education and the Auckland College of Education. These are large institutions, ranging from about 2000 in equivalent full-time pre-service teacher-student places under the EFTS funding system in the Auckland College of Education to about 900 in the Dunedin College of Education. Each of these, except the Auckland College of Education as from 1996, cooperates closely with its local university. The Auckland College of Education offered a joint B.Ed. with the University of Auckland, but the two institutions have now gone their separate ways, with no new intakes from 1996. The joint B.Ed. will remain until phased out. The non-university teacher education institutions form the New Zealand Council for Teacher Education (NZCTE) which, through the Colleges of Education Accreditation Committee (CEAC), exerts supervision over each institution's awards and courses, whilst acting at the same time as lobbyist for all of them.
In contrast to the separatist, or independent, direction taken by the Auckland College of Education, the former Hamilton College of Education fully amalgamated in 1992 with the University of Waikato. A similar development took place in 1996 between the former Palmerston North College of Education and Massey University, except that the Palmerston North college retained more of its past institutional shape as the Massey University College of Education than did the Hamilton college within the University of Waikato. All the universities offer higher degrees in education.
Over the last two years several new providers of initial teacher education have entered the field. This expansion has involved both state institutions (polytechnics and wananga) and independent providers. The University of Auckland has become an independent provider, instead of working conjointly with the Auckland College of Education. Several polytechnics have become providers, namely the Auckland Institute of Technology (AIT), the UNITEC Institute of Technology, the Manukau Polytechnic, Christchurch Polytechnic, and Wanganui Regional Community Polytechnic. Te Whare Wananga Awanuiarangi at Whakatane has been a pioneer wananga in teacher education. Independent Christian institutions have been established: Bethlehem Teachers College and the MASTERS Institute. The New Zealand Graduate School of Education in Christchurch is an independent initiative of a secular character.
The ERO considered in 1996 that the colleges of education and universities have not only very little direct competition from actual or potential alternative providers except one another, but are unlikely to do so in the foreseeable future. The ERO took this view because polytechnics and private training institutions face significant market barriers if they wish to provide pre-service teacher training, including the need to obtain course approvals and provider accreditation before applying for funding. They also have to establish arrangements with schools for practical teaching experience and supervision. However, what the ERO described as only a few alternative providers that cater merely for small numbers of trainees in a specific and specialised way, is already creating considerable alarm in some established institutions. The latter may prove more acute than the ERO, in this respect at least, since, given anything like a level playing field on which to compete, several new providers seem likely to flourish.
The post-1988 reforms in teacher education increased competition between established providers, even before new institutions entered the field. Recruitment campaigns for students are far more vigorous than before. The Wellington College of Education, for example, has a marketing manager and liaison staff who travel nationwide to try to widen enrolment. They are backed up by extensive advertising and public relations exercises. Similarly, the Christchurch College of Education has a liaison officer with a generous budget which inter alia makes possible an impressive range of display and promotional materials. The Massey University College of Education is equally active and makes considerable use of the university's Corporate Communications Division. The University of Waikato employs radio as well as newspapers for promotion of its courses. The Christchurch Polytechnic advertises its new teacher education programmes extensively in the press. In order to combat fears of ice and snow, the Dunedin College of Education offers incentives such as lower fees and a free return air trip for students who live outside the Otago and Southland provinces. Overall, the results of freeing up provision of teacher education since 1989 have been positive and encouraging.
The standard courses
The colleges of education offer some courses not directly related to teacher preparation, for example in social work, librarianship and business studies, but overwhelmingly teacher education is their 'core business'. In general, students intending to become early childhood and primary teachers take a three-year course which leads to a diploma in teaching, with some students taking an extra year to gain a B.Ed. At the Wellington College of Education the Diploma of Teaching (Primary) is awarded after completion of three years of study, with the option of a fourth year for the B.Ed. of the Victoria University of Wellington. At Dunedin, most of the programme for the first two years is taught in the Dunedin College of Education, most of the third year in the University of Otago, and the fourth year mainly back in the college. As from 1997 the Auckland College of Education is awarding a bachelor of teaching degree after only three years, not merely a diploma. This has triggered off comparable changes elsewhere: Massey University College of Education and the Wellington College of Education are already planning three-year programmes at the end of which all students will have both a degree and a teaching qualification. This is a very expeditious way in which to achieve a graduate profession!
Intending secondary teachers may proceed the same way as the early childhood and primary students in three-year concurrent courses, or take a one-year post-graduate diploma of education after a first degree without any teacher education component. In addition, concurrent four-year courses leading to a Diploma of Teaching (Secondary) and a B.Ed. are offered by the Christchurch College of Education, Massey University College of Education and the University of Waikato. Commonly in secondary programmes students are expected to take one major and one or two minor teaching subjects. Alan Hall, Associate Dean of the Waikato School of Education, argues that the integrated concurrent secondary programme at Waikato has changed perspectives, compared with an 'end-on' approach. He considers that the changes to the B.Ed. programme, since its introduction in 1966, reflect a view of teacher education as involving the systematic development of applied knowledge rather than as a B.A. in Education with some curriculum courses added.
Three- and four-year teacher training programmes result in a long lead time before changes in the funding of teacher education can make much change in the number of trained teachers being produced. In general, therefore, the Ministry of Education and the ERO favour short end-on courses. End-on post-graduate programmes reduce lead time and may also be attractive to graduates who did not consider teaching as a career when they left school. On the other hand, some teacher educators fear that short end-on courses may not only focus on immediate instrumental goals, discarding deeper considerations as 'irrelevant', but may become indoctrinative, by presenting one way of achieving an objective as if it were the only legitimate method and as if the objective might not itself be in competition with other valuable educational ends.
After initial accreditation, beginning teachers undertake a two-year internship in schools, in which one senior teacher acts as 'mentor' to monitor overall professional progress. On completion of the two-year period, application is made for full registration with the Teacher Registration Board.
Contracts
All colleges of education have tendered successfully in recent years for contracts, usually for curriculum or teacher development, with the Ministry of Education and other funding agencies. This has some drawbacks. Sometimes a contract has to be completed quickly, and in these circumstances it is difficult to make adjustments to staff teaching duties, although outsiders may be brought in on a temporary basis. Also time spent on drawing up proposals or bids may be regarded as wasted if no contract ensues.
Stronger considerations on the positive side are that contracts in areas such as teacher support and curriculum development bring college staff into closer contact with schools, whilst temporary replacements from the schools may well assist some facets of college work, especially the practicums. Tim McMahon and Catherine McMechan of the Ministry of Education, although they find the situation patchy nationally, consider that the winning of contracts for in-service education by colleges is a tribute to their vitality and is likely to be of considerable help in overcoming the lack of cohesion often alleged between pre-service courses and in-service training.
Off-campus courses
Many teacher educators consider they have responded positively to the need to make training more accessible. Local 'outpost' courses have been set up to meet the needs of 'immobile' trainees, and 'distance learning' courses are being developed and offered. Consideration is being given also to delivering programmes in ways that will allow trainees to combine training with paid employment. By mid-1997 there were 44 teacher education programmes on offer in 26 centres. The Christchurch College of Education is now providing courses in eight places, four in the North Island. The University of Waikato now delivers teacher education programmes in Rotorua, Gisborne, Thames and Taumarunui. Like most institutions today, it makes considerable use of the internet, e-mail and other modern techniques for rapid communication. Massey University now provides teacher education in Napier, New Plymouth and Albany, as well as at Palmerston North, and received the major award recently of the Distance Education Association of New Zealand in its Applied Teaching projects category. Off-campus courses in teacher education are now also available in Hawera, Hastings, Wairoa, Te Kuiti, Otaki, Masterton, Buller, Nelson, Blenheim and Invercargill. Off-campus courses usually prove expensive compared with college-based courses, and there are sometimes problems with local communities who consider some of their own people are experts in teacher education while the college concerned thinks otherwise. However, these initiatives are in general to be applauded. They are in keeping with a commitment to openness and contestability.
2.3 Current controls
Policy decisions by the government in the late 1980s and subsequent legislation established the principle that educational institutions should be given as much independence and freedom to make operational and management decisions as possible, and in some significant ways that principle has been implemented. The Ministry of Education was established with a clear policy focus and without many of the operational functions of the former Department of Education. Ownership of assets was transferred to the institutions and balance sheets established. Their statements of objectives specify the maximum allowable debt: equity ratio, and maximum debt: income ratio. Within the set limits colleges are able to embark upon capital transactions without prior government or ministerial approval. Private institutions and other types of providers are able to negotiate charters with the ministry, although government funding may not necessarily follow.
Overall, the operations of colleges of education have been considerably freed up, with much less day-to-day interference from the ministry in areas of course content, services offered and detailed operations. They may remain independent or merge with other tertiary institutions such as universities or polytechnics. They may offer a much wider variety of courses than merely pre-service teacher training. These new courses may attract private sector and/or student funding or may involve contractual services to the ministry for in-service training of teachers, assistance with curriculum development, and so on. The rolls of colleges are no longer controlled by government projections of the future demand for teachers. Colleges now select their own students. They may take full fee-paying students over and above those being assisted by taxpayers. They may engage in entrepreneurial activities. A cardinal principle of the bulk funding system is that tertiary institutions can make their own decisions as to how the total sums of money received are spent, in order to meet their objectives and the delivery of agreed outputs. Nevertheless teacher educational institutions remain subject to many regulatory controls, and these are considered below.
2.4 External regulatory agencies
The Ministry of Education
Although the ministry has only an 'arms length' relationship with teacher education institutions and does not exercise a quality assurance function, it influences them as a policy adviser to the government in several ways: as an allocator of EFTS places across the tertiary sector and between institutions, based mainly on the past performance of each institution in filling the places for which it has bid and the total number of EFTS places available; as a monitor of institutions' reporting against EFTS funding; and as an agent of the Minister of Education in establishing funding agreements with the New Zealand Qualifications Authority (NZQA) and the Teacher Registration Board (TRB).
The ministry has a potentially important role in pre-service teaching training, in that it is responsible, in consultation with boards of trustees and the State Services Commission (SSC), for negotiating collective employment contracts for teachers. The outcome of these negotiations sends important signals to potential entrants about rewards in teaching.
The New Zealand Qualifications Authority (NZQA)
The NZQA has, under sections 253 and 260 of the Education Act 1989, responsibility to promote and monitor inter-institutional course approvals and moderation procedures and to delegate these powers when it considers it appropriate to do so. The NZQA has delegated wide powers in teacher education to the Colleges of Education Accreditation Committee (CEAC), which was established under section 260 of the above-named Act.
CEAC has three main functions:
to establish criteria and procedures for accreditation, within the parameters
of NZQA guidelines, and to accredit colleges of education to deliver programmes
based on unit standards registered on the National Qualifications Framework,
or other programmes or qualifications for which accreditation is required;
to approve courses and programmes, delivered in colleges of education,
which are not based on unit standards registered on the National Qualifications
Framework; and
to ensure inter-institutional monitoring systems of programmes are in
place.
CEAC operates at two levels: through its member institutions which are the
colleges of education forming the New Zealand Council for Teacher Education
(NZCTE), and through its own independent operations. CEAC consists of four college
principals or their representatives and seven outsiders, or six if the chairperson
is classified as an insider, since this post is nominated by the NZCTE. One
outsider is a nominee of the New Zealand Vice-Chancellors' Committee and the
other of the Association of Polytechnics in New Zealand. Four are independent
members eminent in the employment/industrial field, at least one of whom must
be Maori. In May 1996 these were the chair of the central region of the New
Zealand School Trustees Association (NZSTA), the former Principal of Wellington
High School, an employee of the New Zealand Employers Federation, and the chief
executive of Whitireia Polytechnic who was also the independent Maori member.
As well as delegating powers over the colleges of education to CEAC, NZQA has
devolved authority to the New Zealand Polytechnic Programmes Committee for teacher
education undertaken by polytechnics, whilst the New Zealand Vice-Chancellors'
Committee has statutory powers independent of NZQA. NZQA acts directly in regard
to private training institutions including independent colleges of education.
The Education Review Office (ERO)
The Education Review Office (ERO) has an interest in the quality of graduates from training institutions as this ultimately impacts on the ability of schools and early childhood institutions to deliver good quality education. It is also concerned with the quality of programmes at school level for developing the skills of graduate teachers, particularly in the two years leading to full registration.
The State Services Commission (SSC)
Colleges of education are required to consult with the State Services Commission (SSC) on the negotiation of collective employment contracts for college lecturers.
Boards of trustees
Boards of trustees are legally the employers of teaching staff in schools, although they do not exercise all of the ordinary powers of an employer. They have the power to appoint teachers, to manage the performance of teachers and to discipline and dismiss teachers. While boards have a responsibility for ensuring that schools are fully and adequately staffed, they do not have responsibility for fixing teachers' pay. Nor, except in the case of directly resourced schools, do they determine in any significant sense the number of teachers employed in the school. Boards of trustees and teacher education institutions interact in a range of ways. Some colleges involve boards in student selection and in advisory committees on course content.
The Teacher Registration Board (TRB)
The Teacher Registration Board (TRB) has the power to grant provisional registration
or, under a recent amendment to the Education Act 1989, limited authority to
teach to applicants who meet certain criteria. Full registration requires the
satisfactory completion, within the past five years, of two years' uninterrupted
employment as a teacher.
2.5 Internal controls
In addition to external controls, teacher educators work under a complex apparatus of internal regulation. In respect of their education departments or faculties, New Zealand universities have their own systems for course approval and accreditation under the auspices of the New Zealand Vice-Chancellors' Committee. Each college of education is required by statute to have a council which comprises between 12 and 20 members. Details are set out in section 171 of the Education Act 1989 (as amended in 1990). The term of office of council members, other than the chief executive officer and student representatives, is four years. Student representatives have a one-year term of office (section 173 of the above-named Act).
Fairly typical of the councils is that of the Wellington College of Education. This council is governed by a council of 18 members all of whom, apart from the chief executive officer and one co-opted member, are nominated by various groups, as follows:
4 ministerial nominees;
2 Maori group nominees;
1 Pacific Islands nominee;
1 Employers' Association nominee;
1 New Zealand Council of Trade Unions' nominee;
1 Education Employers' nominee;
1 Education Employees' nominee
1 Victoria University of Wellington nominee;
1 Wellington College of Education Trainee Association nominee;
1 academic staff nominee;
1 general staff nominee; and
1 Association of Staff in Tertiary Education nominee.
Harvey McQueen, Executive Director of the NZCTE, says that in his judgment 'smaller, leaner councils' would be preferable.
McQueen considers that more genuine freedom of action for principals would enable teacher education to be more proactive and to avoid having to respond belatedly to changed conditions, especially to reversals in 'policies in respect of funding and numbers. In his opinion the current purchase model invests too much power in Wellington and inhibits the pace of reform. He also argues that the present position of the government as monopoly employer, albeit through the intermediation of school boards of trustees, makes it difficult for teacher education to respond to changing educational markets. Overall, the current EFTS funding system creates powerful incentives for institutions to get and retain the maximum possible number of students for as long as possible by maximising the length of programmes they offer. However, it is also the case that this policy could be reversed at very short notice.
As a further condition of receiving grants for teacher education, each college is required to submit to the Secretary for Education a statement of objectives based on its charter in respect of three consecutive academic years. Reporting against the objectives and the EFTS funding is by way of a statement of service performance which is required for all Crown entities by the Public Finance Act l989.
Irrespective of, or because of, these various controls, current educational ideology suffuses official teacher education documents at nearly every level. For example, the charter of the Dunedin College of Education proclaims that it will always:
o acknowledge the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi with recognition that
the achievement of a partnership with tangata whenua in the provision of Post-School
Education and Training programmes is a matter of priority;
o promote and systematically achieve identified equity objectives for the socially
and economically disadvantaged and for those for whom inequities currently exist;
o promote equal educational opportunity for low income groups, Maori, women,
people with disabilities and special needs, people with literacy/learning needs,
people requiring special learning assistance, rural groups, Pacific Island groups,
other ethnic groups specially identified by the institution as disadvantaged
and other groups identified as disadvantaged;
o acknowledge and value active commitment to biculturalism; and
o [maintain] partnership goals [which] ensure that the principles and articles
of the Treaty of Waitangi are translated into the immediate work environment,
policies, personal behaviours and professional services of this College, ensure
Maori representation on all policy making groups, acknowledge and support Maori
ways of learning and teaching, and provide Maori language and tikanga Maori
courses for staff, students and community.
At the Massey University College of Education, in order to ascertain progress on 'social equity', the corporate plan requires that annual statistics of female percentages be compiled of students, academic staff, general staff and teacher support staff. If the statistics show 'under-representation' of women, then further action is needed. However, if there are proportionally far more women than men, as in early childhood and primary education, no action need apparently be taken. Massey and Dunedin are little different from the rest in respect of 'equity', or in their devotion to the Treaty of Waitangi.
2.6 Extent of autonomy
Despite the considerable constraints which still impinge on them, teacher educators have more freedom of action than in the past. Bryan Hennessey, Principal of the Massey University College of Education, illustrates the contrast between the very limited autonomy enjoyed by colleges of education before 1989 and the present situation. He worked then in the Teacher Education Division of the Department of Education in Wellington, which treated the six colleges as if essentially they were one. In Hennessey's metaphor, each received a set of jam jars with specified money for libraries, student travel, academic staff salaries, general staff salaries and so on contained in each. Almost every item was pre-determined except that the balance between employing part-time and full-time staff within the maximum permitted full-time equivalents could be determined by each institution. Furthermore, as late as the 1980s the Minister of Education of the day actually prescribed the number of hours in every course that was to be held in every college in the country, and the number of contact hours that students had to have to qualify for allowances was defined. And woe betide anybody who moved away from those hours.
At least since 1989 each college gets its funds in bulk, so that more decisions on the allocation of resources can be made by each college. The new financial structure, Hennessey argues, has enabled prudent organisations such as Massey to invest wisely with a long-term view and to help educational development in this way. His view that a rather high minimum size is necessary for such advanced institutional planning is more open to debate.
2.7 Client satisfaction
Despite strains and tensions of many kinds, there is a wide area of agreement between most teacher educators and most teachers, especially those in early childhood and primary education, about educational values and priorities. Sometimes the two sides exchange sincerely meant compliments which outsiders do not share. This observation is not intended to negate praise conferred by school principals and others, but as a reminder that in a contestable field they line up with the teacher educators on most of the contested questions.
It is hardly surprising that principals of Normal Schools, which work particularly closely with teacher education institutions, are in general supportive of the institutions' aims and activities. It can be assumed that one important question asked when these principals were interviewed for appointment would have concerned their evaluation of the relevant teacher education institution. In interviews for this report principals of Normal Schools supported the child-centred beliefs that dominate college courses. They also expressed satisfaction with the average quality of student-teachers, whom they consider are keeping up a strong tradition for quality teaching which has given New Zealand education high prestige in Britain and elsewhere overseas.
Jean Packman, Principal of Ngaio School, generally has praise for the Wellington College of Education, although she considers that some beginning teachers would have benefited from a longer time in college. She claims to have a lot of good applicants for vacancies on her staff - the pick of the crop with As and Bs in their courses. Because she is generally satisfied with their knowledge basis, she looks for 'people people' most of all. On the other hand, she is aware that many teachers whom she would be very reluctant to employ still enter the system. She is critical of principals and others who fail to be firm enough in their requirements of student-teachers and allow some to pass the practicum when they ought to have required them to repeat it or failed them.
Jean Packman is among many who make the point that too often external critics judge schools by an unrepresentative minority of lazy or ineffective teachers. This is a fair argument, but it raises questions about the effectiveness of so-called 'quality controls' when such people can pass all the courses in teacher education and be appointed to schools. Moreover, while teachers, once appointed, are not immune from dismissal it would seem that the procedures for doing so are not often invoked.
All the college principals and chief executives claim (and there is no reason at all to doubt them) that they spend a lot of time and effort on ascertaining whether teachers and boards of trustees are satisfied with their efforts. Dennis McGrath describes the Auckland College of Education as client-oriented and seeking to tailor its courses to the needs of schools, whether in music and the arts or commerce and technology. He advises that over 90 percent of principals canvassed are satisfied with the quality of student-teachers and new staff members from the Auckland College of Education.
Bryan Hennessey of the Massey University School of Education also considers schools are generally satisfied with teacher education. He holds that most employers are happy with the skill levels and attitudes of school leavers, and that parents and boards of trustees are satisfied with the schools. He considers the educational situation overall in New Zealand to be a good one, except for inadequate funding, but subject to excessive and unfair attacks from ill-informed outsiders.
Evaluations by students are also said to show that courses are satisfactory, although it is not clear with what students are able to compare their own experiences. Hennessey concedes there are some unsatisfactory teachers, since some principals have approached Massey to provide them with distance education programmes to raise the professional and educational level of unqualified teaching staff employed in schools. But, on the whole, he considers all is well in standards of teaching and teacher education.
Many teacher educators argue that the high rate of employment of their graduates and the fact that so many of them are given responsibilities very speedily constitute evidence of the quality of their courses. Yet it is almost inevitable in a period of teacher shortage that most graduates seeking jobs and willing to move residence will get them. One should no more congratulate the teacher educators on this than one should blame schools when there are large numbers of school leavers unemployed, unless it can be shown that school inefficiencies are a significant factor in generating unemployment. In early childhood education, an area including many people with few if any formal qualifications, the employment rate of graduates is even less a warranty of quality. Attention to job applications is, however, an area in which teacher education shines. Far too much attention was given, in the view of some recent graduates, to preparation of curriculum vitae and job applications, although they conceded that other students were very appreciative of the time spent on these activities.
Many teacher education students consider their courses adequate and better than adequate. For example, several Waikato students, especially those in early childhood education, are gratified that some of their tutors and lecturers are at the cutting edge of their subject as a result of writing many of the unit standards relating to this field for the NZQA's National Qualifications Framework. Sometimes teachers in the schools regard the student-teachers as more knowledgeable than themselves about new curriculum requirements.
Dr Anne Meade, Director of the New Zealand Council for Educational Research (NZCER), is generally happy with the state of teacher education in New Zealand. She sees a 'positive spiral' in current trends to encourage more research among teacher educators and teachers themselves. She considers that standards among teachers in early childhood education, a special interest of hers, have risen significantly in recent years. She defended the colleges from the criticism that they spend too much time on gender and race issues.
2.8 Client criticisms
New Zealand teacher education has not lacked critics as well as admirers during recent years. Teachers themselves are often critical of the colleges and university departments in which they received teacher education, and are hostile to claims by education lecturers to understand teaching better than they do. Teacher educators are often seen as out of touch with the realities of schools. On issues of practicum teachers generally hold that schools should have the predominant influence and also that teaching practice should form a larger proportion of courses. Even though they value the possession of an academic qualification, many consider teacher training, apart from teaching practice, largely irrelevant to the 'real' world of classrooms. Many student-teachers claim that teaching practice is the only really valuable part of teacher education courses.
Harvey McQueen, of the NZCTE, is well aware that many New Zealand teachers hold very negative opinions of teacher education, both as it is now and as it was when they experienced it. Teachers have said to him: " 'Never learnt much', 'The sections were the only useful thing', 'They had forgotten what the classroom was like'. We hear such comments. Not often do we hear 'So and so inspired me'. 'Gee, they made me realise how many skills a teacher required,' 'I was well prepared'." He went on to observe that "If I had been paid a $1000 for every time I've heard a teacher say, 'we could train them better and more cheaply', I'd be a millionaire." Although McQueen holds that "one of the biggest distractions has been the continuing demand for information from groups wanting to review teacher education", he accepts that there is considerable disquiet and that "Whatever the reasons, the fact it is happening reflects something out there. Without a fire there can't be smoke. I believe we would be very foolish to deny the existence of the fire." McQueen considers that "The scorn that some educators pour upon words like 'profit' or 'market' reflects a mental mindset that puts their own enterprise at risk."
Windows on Teacher Education
Windows on Teacher Education was a major research project undertaken by Margery Renwick and June Vize for the New Zealand Council for Educational Research (NZCER). The project, commissioned by the Ministry of Education, involved following, via detailed questionnaires and interviews, the progress of the 1989 entry into primary teacher training at the Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch Colleges of Education. The study was in three phases, each covered in a separate report. The results of this three-year longitudinal research project were fed into the colleges as it developed, and this led to modifications in college programmes during the course of the research.
After six months at college, the overall assessments by students were more
positive than negative, and colleges were seen as friendly and supportive, especially
compared with universities. On the other hand, many students found the courses
less challenging than their last year at school and much less demanding and
rigorous than university courses in the judgment of students taking both. Regarding
the assessment of student work, common reactions were that courses were too
easy to pass, standards were not high enough, and that inadequate constructive
criticism was provided. There were many criticisms that courses were badly organised
and taught, and that students were treated as schoolchildren. Students at all
three colleges had favourable comments about teaching practice sections and
wanted more. However, visiting college lecturers were frequently criticised
for spending too little time with each student.
Renwick and Vize observed:
When we interviewed students we anticipated that those taking university courses
might consider college courses less demanding. What we didn't expect was that
students would compare their present workload with their previous year at school,
and find it less challenging. … Again and again student comments referred
to the quality of individual lecturers, with particular reference to those who
had been at college 'for ever' and were not in touch with the classroom. …
The importance students attach to the quality of individual lecturers makes
it clear that no matter how frequently college programmes are reviewed and reorganised,
students will tend to judge their college experience by the performance of individual
lecturers.
The main results of the second phase of the study were:
o more than 80 percent of students were at least as motivated to be primary
teachers as when they began the course, frequently because of increased confidence
in the classroom;
o many students at Wellington and, particularly, Christchurch thought the second
year programme an improvement on the first; Auckland students were less positive
- but they thought the first year programme was better than at the other colleges;
o courses where there was a clear link between theory and practice were valued;
reading, maths and physical education were seen as the three most useful to
the classroom;
o most students did not think the college had articulated a view of what makes
a 'good teacher';
o most students regarded their teaching practice as the most valuable part of
the course and would like more of it; similarly, associate teachers were frequently
seen as the most important influence on students' teaching style;
o students wanted assessments to assist with learning and provide a valid credential
at the end of the course;
o students undertaking university courses felt those courses would be of direct
use in the classroom; those who didn't do university courses mainly explained
their decision in terms of the extra fees involved; and
o graduate students doing a two-year course felt the course length was about
right, though they all believed the course content and organisation could be
improved.
The main findings of the third phase can be summarised as follows:
o at the end of their training, 97 percent of students were either confident
(57 percent) or very confident (40 percent) about teaching;
o similar high percentages applied to confidence in curriculum content, except
Maori language where 48 percent were not at all confident;
o the most useful part of training was teaching practice sessions, supported
by specific courses and individual lecturers;
o while 62 percent of Christchurch students thought their course length about
right, 61 percent of Auckland and 52 percent of Wellington students thought
it too long;
o two-thirds of the students thought their profiles were an accurate reflection
of their student performance, but many said they were not sufficiently specific
and did not differentiate between students;
o the main reasons students did not take university courses were the extra fees
and expenses, and most regretted that decision; and
o 60 percent of students said they were as motivated or more motivated to be
a teacher as when they commenced training (somewhat lower than the 80 percent
at the end of year 2).
Students' general impressions at the end of their course were thus generally positive - partly perhaps, the researchers suggested, because the college period was coming to an end and they would soon be actually teaching. Criticisms, as previously noted, centred on the lack of challenging work, poor organisation and administration and a few poor lecturers. Various positive and negative comments were reported about individual courses. On the positive side, art, computer studies, education, maths, Maori studies, science, professional studies, reading and multicultural studies were mentioned. Negative comments referred to education, social studies, English and educational media.
It should be borne in mind that about 80 percent of the students said they were in sympathy with the teaching methods advocated by the colleges. Many adopted their lecturers' beliefs and were worried by children's (and, to a lesser extent, teachers') attitudes they encountered in schools. Criticisms might well have been much fiercer if most students had dissenting educational values and priorities. Even as it was, however, the range of complaints made by the students sent shock waves through the colleges of education.
Since the Windows research caused such concern among its old allies, the NZCER seems to have gone out of its way to defend teacher education institutions, together with mother tongue immersion and other politically correct causes. At the nadir of the Christchurch College of Education's misfortunes, Margery Renwick wrote of "the college's overriding concern for academic excellence", while the conflicts between the Wellington College of Education and the Victoria University of Wellington were sublimated as a "collaborative approach" with "the emphasis [in discussions between the two institutions] on school curriculum and practical experience, essential to effective teacher education, being recognised through B.Ed. programmes."
The Education Accord
An Education Accord working party on teacher training, consisting of key people from such organisations as the Post Primary Teachers' Association (PPTA), the New Zealand Educational Institute (NZEI), the Secondary Principals' Association of New Zealand Inc. (SPANZ), New Zealand Principals' Federation, the New Zealand School Trustees Association (NZSTA), Proprietors of Integrated Schools, and the New Zealand Intermediate and Middle Schools Association, was highly critical of New Zealand teacher education in 1996. The working party had several aims: to "show our dissatisfaction; to put [the] onus on [the] Ministry to do [an] evaluation"; and "to have training colleges responsive to our needs and for us to see them as credible".
The working party alleged several shortcomings among teacher educators, such as inflexibility, underestimation of the value of practicums, and out-of-date teaching styles. Their proposals included greater emphasis on, and more time for, the practicum, more ongoing school experience for lecturers, release of capable teachers to lecture at colleges, and professional recognition for quality performance by lecturers in practicum support as opposed to research.
The Education Accord also argues that present courses contain "too much dead time for students". It makes several suggestions, for example that colleges should use the time "more wisely" with courses being "compressed and therefore less costly" and that the programmes should be "skill and competency based". Not all of the Education Accord's criticisms and proposals are supported in this report, but they reveal that a wide gulf now exists between the satisfaction with themselves generally expressed by teacher educators and the dissatisfactions of many teachers who share most of the ideas dominant in teacher education.
Marilyn Yeoman, speaking for the Education Accord, claimed in June 1996 that there is a perception among her colleagues that some new entrants may not be adequately prepared to work with the new National Curriculum and new techniques of teaching. She agreed there was little solid evidence one way or the other, itself a condemnation of teacher educators, so her committee presented a questionnaire to the colleges of education. During the same month the President of the Principals' Council of the PPTA, Karen Sewell, claimed there were similar concerns in secondary schools about what appeared to be the shrinking pool of students from which teacher education can recruit.
2.9 Recommendations
1 The government should further reduce the external controls which inhibit the freedom of action of teacher education institutions.
2 The government should reduce the size of college councils, especially in respect of the representation of outside vested interests. In trying to please all, principals have difficulty in pleasing any, and have insufficient powers to undertake proactive policies.
3 Teacher educators should listen to a wider range of voices, not only to those
of groups who share most of their educational ideas. In particular, they should
listen when those who do share most of their educational ideas are critical
of them, instead of attributing criticism to ignorance or the influence of the
'New Right'.
CHAPTER 3
ADMISSION INTO
TEACHER EDUCATION
3.1 Introduction
For information about teaching, their prospects in the profession and teacher training requirements, prospective teacher trainees are largely reliant on the recruitment activities of training institutions and school-based and national careers advisory services. Whether job opportunities increase or decline depends largely on government policies. Indicative projections of the likely supply of, and demand for, teachers at a national level and by location, subject speciality and so on are not made in an ongoing, systematic way and communicated to training institutions or prospective student-teachers.
3.2 Numbers
In 1996, there were 7499 EFTS places funded for teacher training, costing $60
million. The breakdown by programme type was:
Early Childhood 1,166
Primary 5,120
Secondary 1,109
Special Supplementary Grant 104
The breakdown by institution type was:
Polytechnics 151
Colleges of Education 6,121
Other providers 102
Universities 1, 125
About four-fifths of student-teachers were female. The age composition of student-teachers has changed significantly over recent years; 55 percent were under 21 in 1989 compared with 41 percent in 1993. Over the same period the percentage of Maori students had risen to about 14 percent of the student total, very close to their representation in the general population. Numbers of applicants to enter teacher education have been falling and there is a general, although not uncontested, view that the average quality has fallen during the 1990s, even though the formal minimum entry requirement is now higher than before. Teacher shortages have encouraged lower entrance requirements for students aged 20 or over.
Before the 1990s numbers in teacher education were determined by the Department of Education in Wellington on the basis of demographic surveys aiming to quantify overall national needs for teachers of different types. The department then allocated quotas to each approved teacher education institution. The present equivalent full-time student (EFTS) system of grants was introduced by the Education Act 1989 (as amended in 1990). Under the system, institutions bid for and are awarded a specific number of student places on courses. Each of these places has a known and previously determined dollar value which varies depending on the nature of the course and how it is going to be delivered. The Minister of Education may also pay one or more supplementary grants to be used for purposes specified by the minister. The total grant to an institution is calculated by adding up the value of all EFTS funded places awarded to that institution in a given year.
Private teacher training establishments are dealt with under separate arrangements which include a contestable funding system and explicit contracts with each provider to deliver courses to a prescribed number of students. To access the contestable public fund, private training institutions must be accredited by the NZQA, which must satisfy itself that certain criteria are met. Private training institutions are required to report against expenditure of the grant, including full disclosure of their financial position at the beginning and end of the period covered by the grant.
Close government control over numbers entering teacher education has not been justified by its results. Instead of ensuring regularity of supply, central planning has helped to create alternating periods of teacher shortage and surplus. It would be much preferable if a voucher system were introduced whereby persons qualified to enter teacher education courses, as against other kinds of tertiary education, could do so, irrespective of forecasts about future teacher demand and supply. Such information, or indeed informed guesswork, as is possessed by the government should, of course, be made available to all interested in teaching as a career, but the number of places in teacher education should be left to market forces. Providing that no entrants are led to believe that they are certain of future employment as teachers, suitable applicants should not be excluded from teacher education, any more than from arts, science or any other courses, within the overall finance available for tertiary education as a whole. If the spirit of this report's recommendations were adopted, there would be no more reason to consider time spent in teacher education wasted, even were no teaching jobs available, than time spent in non-vocational courses.
3.3 Entry requirements: qualifications
At the very start of formal teacher education in Britain, there was disagreement as to whether it was desirable, undesirable or merely irrelevant whether elementary teachers need be of a high intellectual standard and/or liberally educated. Sir James Kay-Shuttleworth shaped his Battersea College so that its students, mainly artisan in origin, would not seek knowledge beyond what was needed to teach in elementary classrooms, or acquire aspirations above their station in life and seek to enter other more prestigious professions such as the Christian ministry. In contrast, the Reverend Derwent Coleridge planned St Mark's College, Chelsea, on a more liberal basis and was gratified when critics complained that many of its p