Comprehensive post-primary schooling in New Zealand: 1935-1975.

Lee, Gregory ; Lee, Howard

Introduction

In light of contemporary critiques of New Zealand comprehensive schooling published mainly in the popular press, it is timely to re-examine the origins of and the rationale for the widespread adoption of this model of education. The comprehensive schooling philosophy, it was recently alleged, has produced a situation in which 'as many as one in five pupils in the system is failing' and where 'there is a large group at the bottom who are not succeeding'. (1) This group was estimated to include some 153,000 students out of the total current New Zealand student population of 765,000. In this context, however, Chris Saunders and Mike Williams, principals of Onehunga High School and Aorere College in Auckland respectively, have noted that having underachieving students in secondary schools in particular is not a recent phenomenon. (2) A large 'tail' of poor performing high school students has long been a cause of concern, Williams suggests. Notwithstanding this observation a former president of the Mangere (Primary) Principals' Association, Keith Gayford, promptly laid responsibility for this problem squarely on the secondary school sector. Claiming that the high schools' outdated curriculum was primarily to blame, Gayford then confidently asserted: 'Many of their programmes seem to be based on the needs of kids 20 years ago. I think you'll find it is the performance of [secondary] schools, not students, that is the problem'. (3)

A similar opinion was expressed recently by the editor of The New Zealand Herald. (4) Such sentiments, we believe, are broadly representative of opposition to what is seen as being a 'one size fits all' comprehensive schooling model. In an effort to relate 'equality' and democracy in education to minimal variation in students' school performance, the editor mistakenly declared that 'the state system is designed to produce [sic] a broadly similar range of ability in all schools'. (5) Choosing conveniently to ignore the reality that state school teachers have endeavoured to work, and continue to work, with students of widely varying abilities, interests, and motivations, the editor sought to revisit the philosophy underpinning not only compulsory mass schooling but also comprehensive education per se. After questioning 'whether it is wise to ask all schools to cater to the whole range [of students]', (6) this journalist recommended that specialised schools be created deliberately to provide for different types of students. Here the perceived merits of reintroducing a bipartite or tripartite schooling system were alluded to, based on the practice of sorting students into two or three discrete groups as had been advocated enthusiastically in England by the Hadow (1926), Spens (1939), and Norwood (1943) Committees. (7) Selection, it would seem, still had strong appeal in some quarters.

The Herald editor's proposal was scarcely novel, however, as demonstrated by a colleague at The Australian who also offered unconditional support for a selective schooling model:

 Enemies of promise in education argue that selective schools
 nurture talented kids, but leave average students to rot. The
 answer, they say, is to send all students to comprehensive schools,
 where everybody benefits. This makes sense [only] to
 social-engineering ideologues who see classrooms as social
 levellers. (8)

With a policy of institutional differentiation in situ it was simply assumed that the disconcertingly high (New Zealand) school failure rate would be reduced considerably if not eliminated altogether, and that 'equitable results' would somehow be secured. Anything less, The New Zealand Herald editor concluded, was patently 'an indictment of the egalitarian set-up'. (9)

What was not discussed by these journalists or the high school principals quoted above was the fact that the operation of a mass schooling model, as a state-sanctioned educational policy instrument, would inevitably reveal considerable differences with and between the large number of students involved. Accordingly they failed to investigate how these variations were catered for within schools, once they have been identified, and their institutional context. A close study of New Zealand's educational history literature reveals that debate and controversy was intense and prolonged over the way(s) in which administrators, teachers, politicians, and other interest groups have dealt (and should deal) with the heterogeneous student population that became increasingly visible and of growing concern after the Hogben-Seddon post-primary 'free place' scheme was introduced in 1901. (10) This debate is best understood in relation, first, to the consequences of political efforts nationally to expand the schooling entitlement of those students (predominantly non-Maori) who left primary school with a Standard 6 (or 'Proficiency') examination pass--the key motivation behind the Hogben-Seddon policy--and, second, to the educational issues associated with raising the school leaving age from fourteen to fifteen years of age in 1944. The Standard 6 qualification was intended initially, in 1878, to be the highest primary school qualification available. Because the government at that time did not envisage students proceeding as of right to a postprimary school with this certificate, many boys and girls left primary school at thirteen or fourteen years of age to enter the paid workforce. (11) The consequences of these two measures were largely unanticipated by their respective authors, perhaps unsurprisingly, although the majority of them related to a growing recognition of, and provision for, differences in students' academic and other abilities within educational institutions.

Early twentieth century developments

While we do not intend revisiting in detail the Hogben-Seddon free place system, given that it has been examined fully elsewhere, (12) it is worth mentioning nonetheless that the system's popularity quickly outgrew the initially conservative statistical projections of its mathematically and scientifically literate first author, the controversial but charismatic head of the national Department of Education, Inspector-General of Schools (1899-1915), George Hogben. (13) To this end John Murdoch boldly declared:

 [Hogben] under-estimated the latent appeal of free secondary
 schooling. He had in mind those fit to profit by post-primary
 education, and apparently failed to foresee how, in a democracy of
 free competition, this new avenue to [economic, social, and
 vocational] advancement must inevitably be crowded by the
 ambitious, fit or unfit.(14)

Hogben's educational philosophy was not founded on a fully-fledged mass schooling model or, initially at least, on endorsing comprehensive post-primary schooling. Instead, from the outset he favoured having some discernible differentiation between academic, town-based, secondary schools and the higher (secondary) departments of the rurally situated district high schools, and between the schooling available to boys and girls and that for Maori youth. (15) Their functions ought to overlap minimally, if at all, Hogben announced, although he came to concede, albeit somewhat grudgingly, that the latter had to serve as dual purpose institutions because of their geographical location and their students'--and their parents'- expectations and demands. (16) It was this dual function--to offer both academic and 'vocational' (that is, 'non academic') instruction--that persuaded Hogben to accept the district high schools operating as comprehensive institutions, even if not in name. (17) In other words they provided a range of courses, albeit governed by the size of the school's secondary department, within the one institution. While this multilateral structure was adopted generally for utilitarian and economic ('efficiency') reasons rather than for philosophical or educational ones, this fact had not prevented Donald Petrie, an Otago Education Board Inspector, from reporting in 1880 that the district high school was 'a mongrel institution'. (18) Hogben, for his part, had long been convinced that both secondary and district high schools could and should give their students a 'general education'--albeit while retaining some gender-based subject differentiation--that did not have to be defined and dominated by an academic, examination-oriented curriculum. It was this very philosophy that led him to advocate a multilateral post-primary schooling model toward the end of his tenure as Inspector-General of Schools. (19) Hogben was also insistent that the direct association between academic subjects and general education in the public mind could be severed once 'education' was reconceived in less academic terms. In a statement that preceded the Thomas Committee's (1944) general education curriculum model by some thirty years Hogben asserted:

 Education should be both general and technical--or non-vocational
 and vocational. There is no conflict between these two aims; if
 there appears to be, it is either because our ideals are false or
 our methods of education are mistaken.... [but] our guides in
 matters educational do not seem to be able to agree as to the way
 in which the claims of general and of vocational education are to
 be reconciled. (20)

This relationship would be enhanced, he concluded, by encouraging post-primary schools to offer subjects in common between courses and across different types of schools. The resultant common core curriculum would not only promote general education but would also allow optional studies to be chosen 'to meet students' own needs'. (21) In this respect it made sense, in Hogben's opinion, to have 'vocational courses [being offered] at the same school'. (22) The comprehensive model seemingly had received official blessing, although Hogben had sanctioned the establishment of technical high schools in 1908 in response to what he perceived as resistance by many secondary school authorities to his advocacy of curricular liberalisation through policy initiatives and regulations. He wanted these new institutions to offer a variety of courses, each of which was to include a small core of general education subjects. These institutions operated nationally until the mid-1970s, but were not prevented by legislation from offering academic subjects. (23)

Hanan and Parr

There is evidence to suggest, however, that Hogben's ideas were not welcomed universally. In his capacity as Minister of Education (1915-1919) Josiah Hanan had identified, among other concerns, 'the peculiar difficulty' (24) of having institutions such as district high schools--and, gradually, secondary schools--perform more than one role. Such an observation reflected growing political anxiety over how best to provide for students of widely varying abilities: boys and girls who were more visible now than they had been in post-primary schools prior to the passage of the free place system in 1901. It was taken for granted by several politicians and education administrators that the physical separation of Maori youth into denominational, non state, secondary schools, with boarding facilities, was the best arrangement to cater for both their ethnic and cultural differences and their perceived vocational needs and interests. (25) Very few Maori boys and girls received any secondary education; (26) most did not proceed beyond the stand-alone Native primary schools. Hogben, for his part, strenuously opposed any attempts by socially and educationally ambitious Maori parents to define general education in academic terms and with reference to high status school qualifications. (27) Instead he sought to promote manual and technical instruction in all schools attended by Maori youth--at every level--and to diminish the number and profile of academic subjects offered in the denominational Maori secondary schools. (28)

Hanan maintained that it was preferable for post-primary institutions--secondary, district high, and the recently introduced technical day schools--to fulfil discrete functions in order to enhance their institutional and social efficiency and to provide more effectively for their students' varied interests and requirements. (29) 'Overlapping' between institutions, wherein schools were emulating each other's programmes and orientation, was regarded by Hanan as an unequivocal sign that institutional efficiency was in jeopardy. (30) He firmly believed that the solution lay with more rather than less institutionally based curricular differentiation. According to this theory, students who were 'endowed with superior mental capabilities or gifts' (31) would be directed toward or 'drafted' into academic secondary schools. By comparison, '[those who] show great ability in practical pursuits, though lacking in scholastic ability', (32) were seen as the proper audience for the recently established technical day schools. Nevertheless, Hanan sided with Hogben in attempting to distinguish between an academic and a general education curriculum and in not wanting to delineate between general education and prevocational instruction. (33) To this effect Hanan wrote about pupils having 'certain common human possibilities and needs as future citizens', (34) which echoed support for a general education curriculum. Some differentiation was necessary, he added, because pupils' vocational intentions and intellectual and practical aptitudes could not be ignored. Hanan believed that provision therefore had to be made for students' individual differences in recognition of the growing awareness of the alleged uniqueness of each and every learner.

Hanan's advocacy of institutional differentiation, in conjunction with a small compulsory common core curriculum, was arguably the most important feature of his term of office. (35) It was also to dominate Christopher J. Parr's tenure as Minister of Education (1920-1926), albeit somewhat more overtly than had been the case with Hanan. (36) Having assumed that a direct relationship existed between schooling and social and personal efficiency, the active promotion of institutionally based curricular differentiation, and the need for greater state intervention in the post-primary sector, Parr sought to raise the school leaving age from fourteen to fifteen years of age in 1920. Although unable to secure this 'reform' immediately because of the onset of the economic depression in the early 1920s, Parr nevertheless was determined to institute a selective schooling policy beyond the primary sector. (37) This he did, in part, through establishing three- and four-year junior high schools, spanning Forms 1-3 and occasionally Forms 1-4, from 1922. (38) These institutions were to fulfil preparatory and terminal roles that involved directing some youth to a technical high or secondary school while preparing the majority for entry to the workforce. (39) Institutional efficiency would be elevated, Parr concluded, because 'pupil wastage' (that is, a low student retention rate at school) would cease to be a major problem in the context of a non compulsory post-primary schooling market (until 1945) with the free place scheme still in operation. This was deemed essential at a time of national economic hardship.

What Parr had ignored initially, however, was the fact that the relentless public pressure for 'good' examination results from technical high, district high, and secondary school students made it far harder for his (and Hanan's earlier) proposed curricular 'reforms' to gain a foothold. (40) All these institutions had bought in early to a market model of schooling by providing academic programmes. An academic conception of worthwhile post-primary schooling had proven to be remarkably tenacious since the late nineteenth century, as Hogben had discovered earlier. Consequently while curriculum changes--however slight--were made via a succession of free place regulations that governed the post-primary sector post-1901, they had always to consider national examination requirements (e.g., the Form 4 Civil Service Junior, Form 5 University Matriculation, and Form 6 University Scholarship examinations). (41)

During his term as Minister of Education Parr was forced to concede that post-primary schools were expanding their curricular offerings, in an effort to meet the perceived and real 'needs' or requirements of their students, (42) and that in this regard school authorities were often exercising their own initiative, independent of educational legislation. Moreover, in the absence of free place and other legislation that compelled post-primary school authorities to adopt different courses or programmes, (43) curricular overlap could not be prevented. This meant that although ministers of education often professed support for institutional curriculum differentiation--they personally supported more rather than less direct intervention in the post-primary arena schools could continue to satisfy government and Department of Education expectations through the free place legislation while simultaneously offering (in the majority of instances) a variety of courses for their students. Overlapping of institutional offerings therefore was inevitable. 'General education' and gender considerations were to be met through the small number of compulsory subjects prescribed in the free place regulations for both junior (Form 3 and 4) and senior (Form 5 and 6) free place holders, (44) while individual needs and interests were to be catered for by selecting appropriate subjects from a lengthy list of electives specified in the same regulations.

Growing support for comprehensive schooling

By the late 1920s an uneasy and obvious political tension remained over the advocacy of subject- and gender-based differentiation and the prescription of a limited set of 'general education' subjects: English, History and Civics, and Arithmetic or Mathematics for district high, technical high, and secondary school students. (45) Despite the absence of a clear government policy concerning the particular institutional context within which both general and specialised instruction ought to be delivered--tripartite or comprehensive (46)--educationists continued to explore alternative structures for post-primary schooling. Among their number was Harold Kidson, President of the New Zealand Secondary Teachers' Association (NZSTA) in 1928, who outlined succinctly the case for comprehensive schooling as follows:

 We [the NZSTA] feel... [that a] composite type of school will do a
 distinct service to the country....We believe that if we have the
 two types of work -- the one aiming at giving skill in creating
 things with hand and brain, the other at training the professional
 man...-- alongside each other in the same environment, equal credit
 being given for excellence in either branch, that something will be
 achieved to bring about a much needed readjustment. [But] these
 great reforms cannot be brought about in a day. (47)

It seems reasonable to presume that Kidson would have known that the Assistant-Director of Education, Dr Ernest Marsden, had endorsed the comprehensive philosophy enthusiastically only two years earlier as had John Caughley, the Director of Education in 1922. (48) These expressions of official support were recorded at the same time as Labour Party politicians were publicly opposing any suggestion that a selective post-primary schooling policy should be adopted and/or retained. Their principal thesis was that to base access to schooling on the existing social class structure ensured that a sizeable group of students (that is, working-class youth) would receive only narrow technical and other directly vocational training whereas others (that is, children of the middle class) would benefit from 'a full cultural education'. (49) For Peter Fraser, the Party's education spokesperson, comprehensive schooling held special appeal because he regarded it as being 'not a cast-iron system but an elastic system of secondary education'. He declared:

 The one thing we do want to avoid... is the dividing up of children
 into secondary colleges and technical colleges, whereas the
 [post-primary] system should be one progressive march forward. I
 think that this is the beginning of the merging of the two kinds of
 school. (50)

Fraser concluded that such a model would not only preserve a general education philosophy but also prevent undesirable early specialisation from receiving undue emphasis. However his thinking did not extend to the schooling of Maori youth.

Fraser's curriculum philosophy--indeed, that of the Labour Party--was warmly endorsed by Frank Milner, the prominent and eloquent Rector of Waitaki Boys' High School (Oamaru) and frequent commentator on a host of education and social issues. (51) Milner had advocated a secondary school curriculum philosophy that involved 'a harmonious combination of the cultural and the practical and economic in one organic whole' (52)--essentially a compulsory general education curriculum to be followed by some specialised studies based on optional subjects chosen by students, with parental and teacher input. The Fraser et al. thesis slowly gained momentum, although it was abundantly clear that some educators and officials remained convinced that a generic type of general education curriculum should not be delivered to boys and girls alike (even with predictable gender differentiation in the content), and that it could not be given to students attending different kinds of high schools. Notable among their ranks were John Howell and Robert Wright. As the Director of the Wellington Technical College, Howell resorted to the familiar argument--challenged earlier by Hogben--that a general education curriculum was by definition an academic one, intended solely for long-term students. (53) Theo Strong, the national Director of Education (1927-1933), arrived at the same conclusion. (54) Accordingly, it was suggested that such a curriculum should not be made available to every adolescent student. Howell also attacked the comprehensive ('composite') schooling model, alleging that it represented a 'low-type education' and lamenting that '[it] does not permit that differentiation which is needed to meet the requirements of first-class intellects'. Failure to differentiate between students, Howell boldly asserted, was simply 'contrary to British tradition'. (55)

In his role as Minister of Education (1926-1928) Wright promptly sided with Howell in the debate. He reasoned that retaining different types of post-primary schools involved making major variations to general education curricula on the ground that a heterogeneous student population could be catered for more effectively through differentiation than through an insistence on commonality in institutional offerings. (56) What he ignored, however, was the reality--pointed out by his Director of Education, Theo Strong, and Strong's predecessor, John Caughley (1921-1927) (57)--that the widening of courses by secondary schools meant the gap between them and the technical high schools had already narrowed markedly. It was therefore becoming more difficult, but not impossible, to try to argue and sustain a case for retaining substantial institutional differentiation along the English Hadow Committee lines. As Strong observed, 'the difference between the two types of institutions is rapidly becoming one of name only', culminating in a prediction that soon New Zealand '[will] have only one type of senior post-primary school'. (58) This new institution, he envisaged, would provide a truly 'liberal education' and 'democratized' curricula, geared directly to the 'mental calibre' of its students as ascertained by psychometric testing. (59)

Official recognition of the blurring of boundaries between secondary and technical high schools in particular was given by the Parliamentary Recess Education Committee (the Bodkin Committee) in 1930. (60) A 'new spirit' in education was detected, one that promoted 'closer harmony with the realities of modern life'. (61) Such harmony would be achieved, the Committee concluded, by amalgamating secondary and technical high schools to create 'a single modern composite [postprimary] school'. (62) This institutional transition was assisted by the fact that New Zealand technical high schools were seen as approximating the English 'modern' and the American 'composite' school, and by the observation that three New Zealand towns already had only one composite type of post-primary institution on offer. (63) The Committee's position was affirmed unequivocally by the Headmaster of Wellington College, William Armour, and by the President of the New Zealand Educational Institute, John Polson. (64) As an elected spokesperson for the primary school sector, the latter also was convinced that a composite or comprehensive post-primary model would 'give effect to the principles of unity of progress and continuity of curriculum'. (65) In a statement that both closely resembled Milner's thesis and that emphasised the recognition of and provision for innate talents, Polson concluded:

 It is a matter of providing for all pupils such opportunities of
 finding and developing their real powers, their natural endowment
 of intellectual, moral, and social qualities, as will enable them
 to make the best of themselves for the community, and not... a very
 poor second best. (66|)

For fiscal rather than educational reasons during the economic depression, however, the Committee concluded that different kinds of high schools should continue to operate in their 'reorganized state education system' and to offer 'a common foundation of cultural and manual training' in their several courses. (67) This concession, we suggest, was influenced by the Labour Party members of the Committee.

The Labour government and post-primary schooling

By the time the Labour Party was first elected to the Treasury benches in December 1935, the New Zealand public was well aware of the Party's manifesto on education and other matters. (68) Those who paid special attention to Labour's proposals for schools and schooling in the election campaign would have noted the emphasis on slogans such as 'the right sort of education', on 'extend[ing] and build[ing] up a finer civilisation', and on 'reorganis[ing] the education system to provide the maximum advancement for all our children'. (69) Despite being light on specific details at that time, the government was to outline their intentions comprehensively within a decade. The New Education Fellowship (NEF) Conference held in New Zealand in 1937 was undoubtedly influential in this regard. Peter Fraser, the Minister of Education, reported for example that this Conference 'marked the commencement of an educational renaissance from which much will come'. (70)

At the 1937 Conference eminent educators from Great Britain, Europe, the USA, and elsewhere delivered public addresses on general education and post-primary school structures, among many other topics. A review of the NEF Conference Proceedings reveals that Professors Isaac Kandel of Columbia University's Teachers' College and William Boyd from Glasgow University had the most to say on these two issues. Kandel attached priority to having a compulsory common core curriculum for all students, rather than discussing possible school structures, in the belief that this general education curriculum could be offered and safeguarded in both a tripartite system and 'a multi-bias school' (71) Like Milner, Kandel asserted that specialised instruction (involving 'selection' or differentiation) had to be erected on 'a sound general education' foundation (72) rather than accompanying it. This differentiation was of necessity child-centred, Kandel declared, because it took account of individual students' needs and capacities, and required teachers to adjust their pedagogy accordingly. He was fully satisfied--we suggest, overly optimistic--that the 'fatal distinction' (73) between so-called academic and practical subjects would be eliminated altogether, along with unhealthy rivalry between schools. Boyd, by comparison, professed support for a bipartite model based on students' intended duration at school (from twelve years old), praised the New Zealand district high schools for achieving 'a satisfactory unity' between primary and secondary schooling, and urged every post-primary student to 'pursue a genuinely cultural education' that included 'creative' subjects such as art, literature, music, and other aesthetic studies. (74) Echoing Kandel's sentiments, Boyd stressed the importance of recognising and accommodating variations in adolescents' academic and practical aptitudes. This emphasis was scarcely surprising, given that the 1930s were the heyday for authoritative psychometric testing in the United Kingdom but to a much lesser extent in New Zealand. Some degree of differentiation was therefore unavoidable, although NEF Conference speakers did not reach any consensus about the particular institutional context within which this ought to occur.

Two years after the NEF Conference was convened Fraser issued the Labour Government's most detailed policy statement on education. In this document--drafted in conjunction with the newly appointed Assistant Director of Education, Dr C.E. Beeby--Fraser lambasted the longevity of institutionally selective schooling in the New Zealand post-primary sector and emphasised the electorally appealing, elastic notion of equality of educational opportunity for all youth. (75) While there was no direct indication of the government's intentions with particular reference to either comprehensive schooling or an expanded general education curriculum, Fraser did reveal a desire to provide students with 'post-primary education of a kind for which he [or she] is best fitted'. (76) Also significant is his statement that an equal educational opportunity policy did not guarantee that students 'shall inevitably have exactly the same education in every detail'. (77) Consequently curriculum 'adaptation' was destined to figure prominently in the government's education policy, in light of Fraser's assumption that the school leaving age would be raised to 15 years in the near future (78) and in response to the abolition of the Standard 6 Proficiency examination as a much criticised gatekeeper to post-primary school entry. Therefore, regardless of the Labour Party's rhetoric opposing selection and differentiation dating back to the early 1920s, Fraser was not prepared to dispense with these policies altogether. Evidence for this assertion is provided by a statement that appeared toward the end of his ministerial report for 1938:

 The provision of a highly differentiated system of post-primary
 education for all who wish to take advantage of it necessarily
 involves some attempt to help children to choose the schools and
 courses, and ultimately the occupations, for which their natural
 abilities best fit them. (79)

From this point onward, Fraser and the Labour Government were required to explain precisely what form this differentiation would take, its justification, and how it would (or would not) affect the existing post-primary institutions.

Fraser and Beeby on post-primary schooling

Fraser's tenure as Minister of Education (1935-1940) coincided with Beeby's appointment as Assistant Director (1938-1939) and then Director of Education (1940-1960). Beeby's ideas about 'reorganising' or 'reforming' post-primary schools and their curricula were already familiar to the Minister. For example, immediately prior to entering the Department of Education as a senior public servant Beeby had affirmed the concept of 'a general purpose school', (80) known variously as 'a common multipurpose' type of institution. He was satisfied that a general education curriculum could be devised for post-primary students of all abilities, inclinations, and interests, including 'that large body of pupils which finds little profit or pleasure in verbal abilities'. (81) This was a philosophy to which Beeby would return constantly. By inference, the curricula then in place had not been performing a general education function adequately. Beeby confidently predicted, however, that the introduction of any reform would prove difficult, because of the conservative legacy of historical attitudes, traditions and competition associated with the establishment of different types of high schools. This legacy represented a 'dead crust of habits, prejudices and interests' based on institutions' desire for 'selfpreservation', (82) he alleged. The result was that while Beeby viewed institutional change as essential - given that New Zealand 'faced the task of creating a new type of school system', (83) as he saw the situation--he was expecting a decidedly cautious, perhaps hostile, reception to any proposals for reform. Therefore, while he personally believed that the long-running distinction between academic and practical or technical subjects was unhelpful and invalid, (84) Beeby suspected that such thinking would not have immediate public appeal. His pessimism was to prove well founded. (85)

Although Fraser's 1939 education policy pronouncement did not mention comprehensive schools, Beeby had reported on several occasions that this institutional format had considerable merit. His reasoning was that the institutional overlap or 'duplication of functions' between secondary and technical schools already had established a platform from which a 'realistic, multipurpose secondary school' (86) could soon develop. In this connection the greater the overlap the greater the likelihood that technical high schools would merge with a nearby secondary school, to become one institution. (87) Beeby also signalled, arguably for the first time in the academic literature in education, the possibility that New Zealand technical high schools could gradually evolve into tertiary level 'technological institutes'. (88) But, irrespective of what would transpire, he was keen to avoid a 'mechanical copy of overseas models' in the belief that New Zealand should devise '[its] own solution of her own problems'. (89) This philosophy resurfaced in Beeby's briefing to the Thomas Committee in 1942. (90)

Proposals for curricular reform

Not surprisingly perhaps, Beeby was not the only educationist in this era who understood the 'delicate operation' (91) associated with institutional change and the need to give very careful consideration to post-primary curriculum matters. In the mid-1930s Frank Milner had proposed a compulsory common core curriculum for secondary school students--one he deemed '[suitable] to our national needs...and our distinctive conditions of life'--that embraced a range of aesthetic, science, social science, and humanities subjects well beyond those specified in the current free place legislation. (92) This broad and balanced general education programme, Milner suggested, should be delivered before optional pre-vocational subjects were studied 'in accordance to individual interests and aptitudes'. (93) Milner outlined his philosophy as follows:

 Secondary education for all [youth] presupposes adequate diagnosis
 of interests, differentiated courses with a common compulsory core
 of cultural subjects, facilities for transfer of pupils and richer
 equipment. The outstanding difficulty is just this of establishing
 the multiple-bias school with its variable courses bifurcating from
 the common basis of cultural subjects and so adapted to the
 pre-vocational needs of the broad categories of pupils. (94)

These curriculum ideas won universal acclaim from participants at the New Zealand Secondary Schools' Association (NZSSA) annual conference in May 1936. (95) Contemporary educational historians have similarly been complimentary about Milner's contribution to national debates concerning secondary school curricula. Although very few argued that the Milner model was revolutionary rather than evolutionary, some historians concluded that it reflected 'a decidedly modernist viewpoint' and symbolised 'a programme of radical reform' and 'a revolution in ideas'. (96) Yet there was a sharp difference between curricular policy and practice, as two contemporary historians observed. The ever-perceptive Arnold Campbell, for instance, believed that support from the NZSSA was not truly indicative of the 'innermost convictions' (97) of most secondary school teachers. For his part, John Murdoch rightly pointed to a highly conservative teaching profession whose older members tended to be deeply suspicious of any changes in practice. (98) Beeby's earlier caution that there is a 'time-lag between the general acceptance of a doctrine and the acceptance of the machinery necessary to put it into practice' (99) is especially pertinent here, and elsewhere. Consequently, whatever changes were proposed were not likely to result in an educational nirvana. (100)

What is seldom emphasised in historical accounts of New Zealand post-primary schooling in the 1930s and 1940s is the fact that Milner intended his curriculum model to apply to secondary schools only. (101) Thus, when he referred to the 'secondary school curriculum' Milner meant precisely that. (102) When comparisons are undertaken between Milner's proposal and the Thomas Committee's recommendations, as they ought to be, it is evident that the latter expressly intended to extend their suggested compulsory common core curriculum to all types of post-primary institutions. This proposal entailed going well beyond Milner's idea of translating only secondary schools into comprehensive institutions: under the 'Thomas' model, technical high and secondary departments of district high schools--as well as registered (private) secondary schools--were obliged to undergo this transformation. Recognising such a distinction, we believe, is essential to gaining an appreciation of subsequent (post-1946) moves to further consolidate comprehensive schooling philosophy and practice within the New Zealand post-primary sector. This approach signalled a definite departure from the British Spens and Norwood Reports, with their advocacy of rigid institutional differentiation. (103)

The Thomas Report (1944) has deservedly been the subject of considerable discussion by historians of New Zealand education and other educationists. Some have noted the Committee's advocacy of the Milner curriculum and its philosophy, and have pointed to many difficulties associated with the Committee's attempts to formulate both a revised School Certificate examination and a modified compulsory general education curriculum. (104) The Committee was insistent that regardless of the type of post-primary school pupils attended--and irrespective of their academic and other abilities and occupational aspirations--all students would be catered for through a (variable) common core curriculum and through new courses in schools. The 'core studies' specified by the Committee were English language and literature, Social Studies, Elementary Mathematics, General Science, Music, one Craft or a Fine Art, and Physical Education, although no courses were prescribed. (105) Recognition of and provision for individual differences loomed large in the Committee's thinking, which culminated in the recommendations that while the general education curriculum had to represent 'a generous and well balanced education' and to prepare an adolescent 'for an active place in our New Zealand society as worker, neighbour, homemaker, and citizen', (106) it should not be prescribed inflexibly. Rather, the cardinal principle behind the Committee's curriculum philosophy was one of 'adaptation to meet individual needs' (107) through a wide range of compulsory and optional studies. To this end the Committee reported that post-primary institutions would be '[free] to develop courses in terms of their own requirements', (108) although they predicted that school authorities would react differently to the Committee's invitation for them to think creatively about their activities and methods. They invoked the notion of schools taking either 'the easy road' or 'the hard road' (109) in response to the Committee's recommendations, before concluding that the latter approach was best for all concerned.

Mason and post-primary education

The Labour Government's second Minister of Education, Rex Mason, reacted positively to the Thomas Report when he received it in November 1943. (110) After a short 'consultation' period teachers and the general public were notified that the Committee's recommendations would be incorporated into legislation, to take effect from 1946. (111) As with the Thomas Report no explicit mention was made in the publicity material of the fact that once the regulations took effect all New Zealand high schools would be moving closer to a comprehensive schooling model. This may have been because the Committee and the government assumed that educators and parents alike had become sufficiently familiar with this model--through district high school secondary departments from the late 19th century and from composite (amalgamated or merged secondary and technical high) institutions since about 1920--and on occasion through academic literature available in New Zealand. (112) Nevertheless Mason still sought to clarify policy about the future direction of post-primary schooling, and a wide variety of educational issues, with the publication of Education Today and Tomorrow, the Labour Government's blueprint for education reform, in late 1944, intended initially for distribution at a national education conference that year. Besides reporting that the Thomas Committee's proposals would be actioned by the government, he announced that new 'secondary schools' (a term he applied across the whole post-primary sector) 'will in general be of the multilateral type'. (113)

Mason rightly concluded that raising the school leaving age to fifteen years of age in 1944 signalled far more than 'a mere quantitative expansion' (114) in the post-primary sphere. It marked a significant change in the very nature of the schooling to be provided. Although positively disposed toward the combined schools that served as 'general-purpose high schools' (115) in their respective localities, Mason reported that the widespread introduction of these institutions was not straightforward:

 [The aim of combined schools is] to render impossible the social
 stratification that tended to develop between secondary and
 technical schools.... yet [it] remains to be fully proved that the
 multilateral school can perform its many functions with equal
 success. The task may be easier when a generation of teachers is
 trained that has no marked bias to either the academic or the
 technical side. (116)

A further complication was that Mason remained unconvinced that the combined or amalgamated schooling model could readily be applied to schools in the four main centres of population. (117) While he acknowledged that some structural changes would be required at the four largest technical schools--possibly in response to Beeby's comment that any change(s) in the relationship between secondary and technical schools would inevitably determine the 'nature' of the whole post-primary sector (118)--Mason was hardly specific about their format. He suggested only that these institutions could be translated into senior technical schools and anticipated making no definitive policy announcement on technical schooling in the foreseeable future. (119) A five-year settling-in period was specified instead, to allow teachers and the Department of Education staff time to adjust to the new curriculum regulations and requirements in the wake of the Thomas Report and to '[make] the new system work satisfactorily'. (120)

Challenges to comprehensive schooling: From policy to practice

Reflecting on the Thomas Report and its legacy some 45 years later as a former Director of Education, Beeby acknowledged that the requirement for all post-primary schools post-World War II to operate as omnibus-type institutions was an especially onerous one for staff and students, chiefly if not exclusively. Having to deal with the several kinds of high schools that continued to operate in the immediate post-1945 era meant that Department of Education officials were unable to specify precisely how these institutions should introduce the 'Thomas curriculum'. (121) Alongside the reality that the successful implementation of the Thomas educational philosophy required a willingness on the part of individual teachers to re-examine their own pedagogy and to no longer see their students as a homogeneous group, it was not surprising that Beeby mentioned the process of reforming the entire schooling system had taken 'a matter not of years but of decades and even generations'. (122) In other words, if the comprehensive model was to succeed in the medium to long term it could not be forced upon institutions and people. (123) It was expected therefore that schools (specifically, teachers) would respond in different ways, and at a different pace, to the challenges their staff were confronted with in the form of the Thomas Report and the 1945 Education (Post-Primary Instruction) Regulations. (124) Mason had reached a similar conclusion when he conceded that 'true advances in education... cannot be produced by regulations or administrative fiat'. (125)

Beeby's preferred policy--and that of Mason's successor, Terence McCombs (126)--was for the comprehensive schooling philosophy to be adopted progressively by individual post-primary institutions as their staff began designing new courses and determining the subject matter of the new common core curriculum. The subsequent curricular liberalisation would assist the translation of these schools into comprehensive organisations, Beeby maintained. (127) It also meant that the public would come to appreciate that the government's equality of educational opportunity objective did (and would) not guarantee identical treatment of pupils. To this effect Beeby wrote: 'Children vary so widely in their abilities and backgrounds that to treat every student the same would be demonstrably unfair'. (128) Such a thesis reflected his psychological training under Charles Spearman, the prominent London psychometrician. (129) Predictably then, some kind of pupil selection was destined to remain a feature of post-primary schooling, despite Beeby's declaration that New Zealand provided 'an example of secondary education without selection [between post-primary institutions]' (130) in the post-Thomas Report period. As Director of Education Beeby was adamant that the New Zealand high school reforms differed markedly from those being pursued in contemporary Britain. He firmly believed that 'New Zealanders would not willingly accept the re-imposition of a system of selection for secondary schools and the consequent [English] tripartite school system'. (131) New Zealanders had therefore to devise their own model for post-primary schools, independent of the mother country's policy preferences.

The demise of technical high schools: A case for comprehensive schooling?

David McKenzie has demonstrated that the Thomas curriculum and the consequent regulations steadily eroded any marked differences that existed between the technical high schools and other post-primary institutions in post-World War II New Zealand society. He concluded that within a short period of time 'there was nowhere for the specialised technical high schools of the past to go'. (132) Thus it was entirely predictable that they would continue to evolve into comprehensive high schools, as Beeby had suggested earlier. Support for this thesis is provided by Beeby's reports as Director of Education, the 1962 Currie Report, and by the Education Act of 1964. For his part Beeby was keen to oversee the establishment of senior technical institutions in order to train technologists and technicians as well as tradespeople. (133) He felt that this 'movement to change direction' in the technical schooling domain was essential, and that technical high schools should no longer function as 'a conglomerate type of institution'. (134) In this respect Beeby was definitely at odds with La Trobe's and Nicol's assessments of technical schools; the latter two had reported earlier that the technical high schools should remain unmodified. (135) After acknowledging that any change to these schools automatically had a flow-on effect for secondary education, Beeby wrote:

 This multi-lateral type of school has been found to suit New
 Zealand conditions so well that most of the new schools established
 in recent years have been patterned on it, and, except in the
 [four] main centres, the distinction between secondary and
 technical schools has tended to become one of name and antecedents
 only. (136)

The Currie Commission echoed Beeby's thinking on technical schooling and multilateralism, primarily for the reason that the distinction between post-World War II secondary and technical high schools was 'becoming blurred'. (137) The commissioners assumed, nevertheless, that the technical high schools were not destined for closure in the foreseeable future because they were perceived as being well placed to cater for less academic students and, under the 1945 regulations, fulfilled a valuable role as 'instrument[s] of general education'. (138) Yet they acknowledged that a division between metropolitan and other technical high schools could not be avoided owing to the emergence of higher, tertiary-level, technical institutions. (139)

On the topic of comprehensive schooling the Commission shrewdly observed that this model ought not to be regarded by educators and the public as a palliative for each and every personal and societal issue or dilemma. While high school teachers in general were endeavouring to revise and create new courses for their students in response to the philosophy of universal postprimary education--and, the new Director of Education, Arnold Campbell, believed, in recognition of the Thomas curriculum proposals and overall philosophy (140)--the commissioners concluded that comprehensive schooling was not entirely free from controversy. (141) They noted support for a selective schooling model that was evident in some communities, and criticism of the 'uniformity' (142) that was an alleged by-product of multilateralism. Nevertheless, the Commission came out firmly in favour of the 'egalitarian' comprehensive coeducational philosophy principally because '[it] meets the wishes of the people of New Zealand'. (143)

For comprehensive schooling to be translated into practice in the ways its advocates had intended, the Currie Commission stressed that serious consideration needed to be given to a host of issues, both perceived and real. The commissioners noted the suspicion in some quarters that the raised school leaving age had brought large numbers of 'rebellious' youth and 'reluctant' learners into high schools as well as many more students with little or no academic aptitude. (144) In tandem with a chronic teacher shortage, the unceasing demand for School Certificate and University Entrance examination passes, the belief that adolescents were reaching maturity earlier in the 1960s than ever before, and increasing pupil retention at post-primary schools, the Currie Commission justifiably concluded that the post-World War II '[education] crisis is not yet solved'. (145) By definition comprehensive schools were expected to embrace the whole youth population and eliminate any 'objectionable social distinctions' (146) associated with a selective and competitive schooling model. More importantly, the commissioners reported that a multilateral school could select, group, and thus differentiate between students internally, usually by allocating them to different courses. (147) The Thomas Committee, it will be recalled, had not discounted this practice. Under the rubric of 'educational guidance' and 'special counselling', (148) the Currie Commission envisaged that selection would remain a fact of institutional and student life. At this time the best known comprehensive model was from the USA, where schools used 'tracking' (streaming) as a matter of course.

That schools would continue to sort students by some means was taken for granted by the Commission, based on a growing recognition and understanding of significant intellectual and practical variations between adolescents and on Beeby's and the Currie Commission's acceptance of the notion that there was '[a] normal distribution of intelligence' in the youth population. (149) Parental and pupil interests and principals' judgements were not to be ignored in the process however, although the Commission recommended that for every student a balance between a general education curriculum and curricular differentiation had to be struck, one in which compulsory studies would act always as 'a safeguard against any undue specialisation below the fifth form [Year 11]', (150) in line with one of the Thomas Committee's key recommendations. (151) All high schools had evolved to a greater or lesser degree into 'multi-course' institutions in the period 1945-1962, the commissioners reported, thus signalling the demise if not the reputation of the 'unilateral' academic school. (152)

Another benefit of comprehensive schooling in the Commission's view was that it allowed school leavers to move to a variety of occupations 'without distinction'. (153) Here, the commissioners appeared to be invoking the notion of parity of esteem between different courses and types of employment -as had the Hadow and Spens Committees (154)--albeit in a social and educational environment known to be highly conservative, examination oriented, and preoccupied with institutional and personal prestige. (155) Achieving parity in such a milieu was to prove impossible. As Murdoch had earlier cautioned, 'parity of status and esteem cannot be established by proclamation'. (156)

Post-Currie Commission developments

The passing of an Education Act some two years later carried with it few if any surprises, especially for those persons familiar with Beeby's pronouncements on technical education. (157) All secondary, technical high, and combined schools were labelled 'secondary schools', and those institutions that offered or sought to provide 'advanced technical education' received formal recognition as 'technical institutes'. (158) No explicit mention was made of technical high schools being disestablished though, because such a move was underway already. Between 1960 and 1975 the training and education of technicians and tradespeople throughout New Zealand shifted from the post-primary to the tertiary sector, with the result that technical high schools either reinvented themselves on the same site as a secondary school (for example, in Wellington) or shifted premises and acquired a new title (for example, in Auckland and Dunedin). (159) Collectively this institutional transformation set the seal on the multilateral or comprehensive post-primary schooling model nationwide, although debate over New Zealand secondary schooling policy and practice did not diminish. Indeed, it may have intensified following the publication in Britain of Circular 10/65 in July 1965; (160) a document that outlined several ways in which secondary schools were to be translated into comprehensive institutions from mid1966. With the expressed aim of 'end[ing] selection' and 'eliminat[ing] separatism in secondary education', the Circular was a practical manifestation of the UK Labour Government's policy for reorganising secondary schooling along comprehensive lines. (161)

Writing as an historian of New Zealand education, Ian McLaren has noted that even by the 1970s there was no clear consensus about whether teachers and school authorities had 'adapted fully to post-1945 circumstances'. (162) This observation lent additional support to Beeby's and Mason's conclusion that education reform could not be achieved quickly or unproblematically. (163) It also echoed Murdoch's sentiments about the 'extremely difficult demand' upon teachers for them to endeavour to meet 'diverse aims and needs' satisfactorily and creatively, and about the relationship between rhetoric and reality. (164) On the latter point in particular he wrote incisively:

 It is unfortunately easier to formulate a new educational scheme...
 complete with philosophical and sociological justifications, than
 it is to apply the scheme successfully to the adolescents
 concerned. So much Hogben found when he launched his new education
 programme forty years ago; and because of that experience we find
 ourselves today trying once more to adapt a satisfactory
 educational policy to existing circumstances. (165)

In short, the devil was in the detail--not in the philosophy itself. Throughout the 1940s the Labour Government's preference was to subscribe to a comprehensive model rather than a policy of tripartite post-primary schooling that was endorsed by the English Hadow, Spens, and Norwood Reports. (166) Nevertheless, David McKenzie recently has suggested that the New Zealand public was somewhat cautious in wholeheartedly endorsing comprehensive schools because of a suspicion that in practice they might not cater satisfactorily for each and every adolescent. He concluded that New Zealanders 'wanted the substance of differentiated schooling [i.e., selection of students into courses] but not strictly its form [i.e., separate institutions]'. (167) This important distinction helps to explain why the Thomas Committee spoke and wrote of separate technical high, secondary, district high, and composite schools, not of comprehensive institutions per se. Furthermore, it allows us to understand why that committee chose to make frequent reference to curricular adjustment in core studies and the corresponding need for schools to devise a (wider) variety of courses. (168) In reaching this decision the Committee revealed an appreciation of conflict and contestation between proponents of the comprehensive model and advocates of tripartism, and between supporters of general education and proponents of early specialisation. (169) But, whatever the model chosen, some form of differentiation and selection would not be consigned to history. Beeby was attuned to this point, as were Fraser and Mason.

In his comprehensive study of twentieth century post-primary schooling Openshaw has also noted that in New Zealand there was '[little] public and professional ideological certainty' throughout the 1940s over the nature and purpose of post-primary education. (170) This lack of consensus was evident in the competing philosophies of British and American post-primary schooling. (171) Frank Milner, ever alert to international education developments and debates, had commented on these philosophical differences during the war years. He lamented, rather colourfully, that while British policies required youth to 'shin precariously up a greasy pole' the New Zealand multilateral model allowed 'youth [to] march forward without let or query over a broad democratic highway'. (172) It will be recalled that Milner's solution to this ideological and practical dilemma lay with a general education curriculum that allowed for subject and course differentiation. (173) But, as argued elsewhere, (174) the public fascination with senior public school examination qualifications made it difficult if not impossible for teachers and students always to achieve the sort of curricular balance and to have and promote the educational experiences that both Milner and the Thomas Committee had valued so highly. (175)

The education policy forged during World War II--embodying Peter Fraser's national equality of educational opportunity objective, government support for the Thomas curriculum and the introduction of associated regulations, along with the elevation of the school leaving age that ushered in a mass schooling system--was subjected to greater public and political scrutiny from the early to mid-1950s. Growing conflict was evident between the vocational demands of a highly differentiated workforce and those advocates of a broad, humanistic, general education curriculum; one that, in turn, highlighted the fragile nature of policies concerning post-primary schooling during and beyond the 1940s. (176) Support for this thesis comes directly from the Currie Commission, whose members expressed surprise that the Thomas Committee philosophy '[had not] sufficed for at least a generation' (177)--that is, until about 1970. The commissioners were forced to conclude that 'a substantial proportion of the school population' (178) was not deriving obvious benefit from their secondary schooling, although they had less to say on the matter of universal post-primary schooling and its legacy. Wartime educational decisions could not escape criticism, Openshaw concluded, for they were unable to mask the fact that some sifting or sorting of adolescents was thought to be unavoidable:

 [They] substituted the multi-lateral (comprehensive) school, with
 its hierarchical division of subject-disciplines, for the various
 models of differentiated schooling then on offer. But it
 accomplished its task unevenly, leaving in place many of the
 features that had characterised the elitist pre-war secondary
 schools. (179)

That there would be grounds for individual disillusionment and, perhaps, bitterness was only to be expected, we believe, when the far-reaching consequences of the extension of a comprehensive schooling model from the primary to the post-primary domain were becoming increasingly apparent from the 1950s. (180) It was not surprising therefore to find McLaren reporting by the mid-1970s that for many students who were less academic, 'secondary school remains a confused and confusing place' and that the 'needs, interests and concerns of pupils as they are now' (181) would present serious challenges for educators. Vocational and general education conflicts remain a feature of the post-primary schooling landscape in and beyond New Zealand, among other tensions, given the reality that teachers and school authorities are (and have been) expected to satisfy a wide variety of demands placed upon them from several quarters: economic, cultural, social, and political. As a result debate over 'exactly what place people are to be assigned to by whom, on what grounds and for what purpose' (182) did not disappear with the introduction of comprehensive post-primary schooling nation wide, contrary to what its proponents had predicted.

GREGORY LEE

University of Waikato

HOWARD LEE

Massey University

(1) The New Zealand Herald, 26 October 2005, p. A1.

(2) The New Zealand Herald, 26 October 2005, p. A1.

(3) The New Zealand Herald, 26 October 2005, p. A1.

(4) The New Zealand Herald, 27 October 2005, p. A12.

(5) The New Zealand Herald, 27 October 2005, p. A12. Authors' emphasis.

(6) The New Zealand Herald, 27 October 2005, p. A12.

(7) Board of Education, Report of the consultative committee on the education of the adolescent (The Hadow Report), London, His Majesty's Stationery Office, 1926; Board of Education, Report of the consultative committee on secondary education with special reference to grammar schools and technical high schools (The Spens Report), London, His Majesty's Stationery Office, 1939; Board of Education, Report of the committee of the Secondary School Examinations Council on the curriculum and examinations in secondary schools (The Norwood Report), London, His Majesty's Stationery Office, 1943.

(8) The Australian, August 2005, p. A14.

(9) NZH, 27 October 2005, p. A12.

(10) D. McKenzie, H. Lee and G. Lee, Scholars or Dollars? Selected historical case studies of opportunity costs in New Zealand education, Palmerston North, Dunmore Press, 1996; R. Openshaw, Unresolved Struggle: consensus and conflict in state post-primary education, Palmerston North, Dunmore Press, 1995; R. Openshaw, G. Lee and H. Lee, Challenging the Myths: rethinking New Zealand's educational history, Palmerston North, Dunmore Press, 1993.

(11) H. Lee, 'The credentialled society: a history of New Zealand public school examinations 1871-1990', PhD diss., The University of Otago, Dunedin, 1991.

(12) G. Lee, 'From rhetoric to reality: a history of the development of the common core curriculum in New Zealand post-primary schools, 1900-1945', PhD diss., The University of Otago, Dunedin, 1991; McKenzie, Lee and Lee, Scholars or Dollars?; Openshaw, Lee and Lee, Challenging the Myths.

(13) H. Lee, 'The New Zealand district high school: a case study of the conservative politics of rural education', Education Research and Perspectives, vol. 32, no. 1, 2005, pp. 18-19.

(14) J.H. Murdoch, The High Schools of New Zealand: a critical survey, Wellington, New Zealand Council for Educational Research, 1944, p. 48.

(15) J. Barrington, 'Learning the dignity of labour: secondary education policy for Maoris', New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, vol. 23, no. 2, 1985, pp. 151-164; R. Fry, It's Different for Daughters: a history of the curriculum for girls in New Zealand schools, 1900-1975, Wellington, New Zealand Council for Educational Research, 1985.

(16) H. Lee, 'The New Zealand district high school', pp. 17-26; A.H. Thom, The District High Schools of New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand Council for Educational Research, 1950, p. 23.

(17) H. Lee, 'The New Zealand district high school', p. 23; Thom, The District High Schools, pp. 22-35.

(18) Appendices to the Journals of the House of Representatives [AJHR], 1880, H-1, p. 39.

(19) Openshaw, Lee and Lee, Challenging the Myths, pp. 106-107.

(20) General Council of Education, Report of the General Council of Education, 1915: Appendix B, Wellington, Government Printer, 1915, pp. 10-11.

(21) Openshaw, Lee and Lee, Challenging the myths, p. 107.

(22) AJHR, 1912, E-12, p. 39.

(23) D. McKenzie, G. Lee and H. Lee, The Transformation of the New Zealand Technical High School (Delta Research Monograph No. 10), Palmerston North, Massey University Faculty of Education, 1990; Openshaw, Lee and Lee, Challenging the Myths, pp. 104-107.

(24) AJHR, 1916, E-1A, p. 30.

(25) K.E.H.Jenkins and K.M.Matthews, Hukarere and the Politics of Maori Girls' Schooling, 1875-1995, Palmerston North, Dunmore Press, 1995, pp. 30-33; J. Simon and L.T.Smith (eds), A Civilising Mission? perceptions and representations of the Native schools system, Auckland, Auckland University Press, 2001, pp. 111-115.

(26) Fry, It's Different for Daughters, pp. 158-160, 164-167; Simon and Smith, A Civilising Mission, pp. 101, 291.

(27) Jenkins and Matthews, Hukarere, p. 33; Simon and Smith, A Civilising Mission, pp. 101, 111-113, 253-254.

(28) McKenzie, Lee and Lee, Transformation, pp. 148-154.

(29) Murdoch, The High Schools of New Zealand, p. 53.

(30) Openshaw, Lee and Lee, Challenging the Myths, p. 106.

(31) New Zealand Parliamentary Debates [NZPD], 1910, vol. 150, p. 885.

(32) NZPD, 1914, vol. 171, p. 62.

(33) AJHR, 1916, E-1A, p. 4.

(34) AJHR, 1916, E-1A, p. 4.

(35) Openshaw, Lee and Lee, Challenging the Myths, pp. 139, 151.

(36) Openshaw, Unresolved Struggle, p. 38.

(37) D. McKenzie, 'The New Zealand Labour party and technical education: 1919-1930', Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Australian and New Zealand History of Education Society, Hobart, August 1987, p. 4.

(38) H. Lee and G. Lee, 'Caught between two schools: the New Zealand intermediate school experiment', Waikato Journal of Education, vol. 2, 1996, pp. 145-176.

(39) Openshaw, Lee and Lee, Challenging the Myths, p. 144.

(40) Openshaw, Lee and Lee, Challenging the Myths, p. 146.

(41) A.G. Butchers, The Education System: a concise history of the New Zealand education system, Auckland, National Printing Co., 1932, p. 137; Openshaw, Lee and Lee, Challenging the Myths, pp. 202-214.

(42) Openshaw, Lee and Lee, Challenging the myths, p. 146.

(43) Department of Education, Vocational Guidance. Post-primary education and the choice of a career: hints to parents on the choice of a post-primary school and on the choice of a career for their children, Wellington, Government Printer, 1927, pp. 1-7.

(44) Vocational guidance, pp. 5-7.

(45) New Zealand Gazette, 1917, vol. 2, pp. 2769-2773, 3029-3034.

(46) Vocational guidance, pp. 1-7. It was still assumed that Maori youth had to be 'educated' in separate Native primary schools and denominational secondary schools.

(47) H.P. Kidson, 'A coming change in education: secondary schools need farms and workshops as well as classrooms', National Education, vol. 10, no. 109, 1928, p. 469.

(48) Openshaw, Lee and Lee, Challenging the Myths, pp. 153, 155.

(49) NZPD, 1923, vol. 200, p. 462; Openshaw, Lee and Lee, Challenging the Myths, pp. 153-154.

(50) NZPD, 1924, vol. 205, p. 586.

(51) G. Lee and H. Lee, 'Making Milner matter: some comparisons between the Milner (1933-1936), Thomas (1944), and subsequent New Zealand secondary school curriculum reports and developments', Paper presented at the New Zealand Association for Research in Education conference, Palmerston North, December 2002; Openshaw, Lee and Lee, Challenging the Myths, p. 155.

(52) Openshaw, Lee and Lee, Challenging the Myths, p. 155; F. Tate, Investigation into Certain Aspects of Post-Primary Education in New Zealand (Special Report on Educational Subjects No. 16), Wellington, Government Printer, 1925, p. 120.

(53) J.H. Howell, Presidential address to the August 1925 meeting of the New Zealand Technical School Teachers' Association, National Education, vol. 7, no. 74, 1925, pp. 344-346; Openshaw, Lee and Lee, Challenging the Myths, p. 154.

(54) T.B. Strong, 'Statement as Director of Education', National Education, vol. 11, no. 110, 1929, p. 4.

(55) AJHR, 1930, I-8A, p. 22.

(56) AJHR, 1927, E-1, p. 2; Openshaw, Lee and Lee, Challenging the Myths, p. 156.

(57) J. Caughley, 'The development of the curriculum,' in I. Davey (ed.), Fifty Years of National Education in New Zealand: 1878-1928, Auckland, Whitcombe & Tombs, 1928, p. 42.

(58) Strong, 'Present trend of education', p. 151; see also Strong, 'New Zealand: reorganisation of the education system', in H. V. Usill (ed.), The Year Book of Education, London, Evans Brothers/ University of London Institute of Education, 1933, p. 560.

(59) Strong, 'Present trend of education', pp. 151, 153-154.

(60) AJHR, 1930, I-8A; McKenzie, 'The New Zealand Labour party', 1987, p. 8.

(61) AJHR, 1930, I-8A, pp. 7-8.

(62) AJHR, 1930, I-8A, p. 14.

(63) AJHR, 1930, I-8A, pp. 86, 143.

(64) AJHR, 1930, I-8A, pp. 21, 144.

(65) AJHR, 1930, I-8A, p. 44.

(66) AJHR, 1930, I-8A, p. 44.

(67) AJHR, 1930, I-8A, pp. 115, 146-147.

(68) J.T. Paul, Humanism in Politics: New Zealand Labour party retrospect, Wellington, New Zealand Labour Party/New Zealand Worker Printing & Publishing Co., 1946, pp. 165-174.

(69) Paul, Humanism in politics, pp. 167, 174.

(70) P. Fraser, 'Foreword' in A.E. Campbell (ed.), Modern Trends in Education: the proceedings of the New Education Fellowship conference held in New Zealand in July 1937, Auckland, Whitcombe & Tombs, 1938, p. ix.

(71) I.L.Kandel, 'The education of the adolescent', in Campbell, Modern Trends, p. 289.

(72) I.L.Kandel, 'Differentiation and selection', in Campbell, Modern Trends, p. 323.

(73) I.L. Kandel, 'Impressions of education in New Zealand', in Campbell, Modern Trends, p. 467.

(74) W. Boyd, 'A Scotsman looks at New Zealand schools', in Campbell, Modern Trends, pp. 476, 484-485.

(75) AJHR, 1939, E-1, pp. 2-3.

(76) AJHR, 1939, E-1, p. 3.

(77) AJHR, 1939, E-1, p. 6.

(78) AJHR, 1939, E-1, p. 8.

(79) AJHR, 1939, E-1, p. 12.

(80) C.E. Beeby, 'The education of the adolescent in New Zealand', in H.V.Usill (ed.), The Year Book of Education, London, Evans Brothers/ University of London Institute of Education, 1937, pp. 225-226.

(81) Beeby, 'The education of the adolescent', p. 227.

(82) Beeby, 'The education of the adolescent', pp. 229-230.

(83) Beeby, 'The education of the adolescent', p. 220.

(84) Beeby, 'The education of the adolescent', pp. 226-227.

(85) N. Alcorn, To the Fullest Extent of His Powers: C.E.Beeby's life in education, Wellington, Victoria University Press, 1999, p. 123.

(86) Beeby, 'Technical education in New Zealand', in H.V.Usill (ed.), The Year Book of Education, London, Evans Brothers/ University of London Institute of Education, 1939, pp. 693-694.

(87) Beeby, 'The education of the adolescent', pp. 224-226.

(88) Beeby, 'Technical education in New Zealand', p. 702.

(89) Beeby, 'Technical education in New Zealand', p. 702.

(90) Alcorn, To the Fullest Extent of His Powers, pp. 126-128; G. Lee, 'From rhetoric to reality', pp. 498-499, 533-536.

(91) Beeby, 'The education of the adolescent', p. 238.

(92) Lee and Lee, 'Making Milner matter'; F. Milner, 'Secondary schools' curriculum with special reference to its suitability for our national needs', STA: The Official Organ of the New Zealand Secondary Schools' Association and the New Zealand Technical School Teachers' Association [STA], vol. 3, 1936, pp. 11, 13; Openshaw, Lee and Lee, Challenging the Myths, pp. 161-164.

(93) Milner, 'Secondary schools' curriculum', p. 13.

(94) Milner, 'Secondary schools' curriculum', p. 12.

(95) F. Milner, 'Report on the suitability of the secondary curriculum for modern needs', STA, vol. 3, 1936, p. 8; Campbell, Educating New Zealand, pp. 131-132.

(96) Campbell, Educating New Zealand, p. 132; Murdoch, The High Schools of New Zealand, p. 66.

(97) Campbell, Educating New Zealand, p. 132.

(98) Murdoch, The High Schools of New Zealand, p. 410.

(99) Beeby, 'The education of the adolescent', 1937, p. 230.

(100) Openshaw, Unresolved Struggle, p. 18.

(101) Milner, 'Secondary schools' curriculum', 1936, p. 12.

(102) Milner, 'Secondary schools' curriculum', 1936, pp. 11-14.

(103) The Spens Report, The Norwood Report; H.G.R. Mason, Education Today and Tomorrow, Wellington, Government Printer, 1944, p. 34.

(104) Alcorn, To the Fullest Extent of His Powers, pp. 125-135; Department of Education, The Post-primary Curriculum: report of the committee appointed by the Minister of Education in November, 1942 (Reprint) (hereinafter The Thomas Report), Wellington, Government Printer, 1959, pp. 9-10, 13; G. Lee and H. Lee, Examinations and the New Zealand School Curriculum: past and present (Delta Research Monograph No.12), Palmerston North, Massey University Faculty of Education, 1992; Lee and Lee, 'Making Milner matter'; G. Lee, 'Thinking comprehensively: some comparisons between the New Zealand Thomas report (1944) and the New South Wales Wyndham report (1958)', Education Research and Perspectives, vol. 30, no. 2, 2003, pp. 26-59; D. McKenzie, 'Politics and school curricula', in W.J.D. Minogue (ed.), Adventures in Curriculum, Sydney, George Allen & Unwin, 1983; Openshaw, Lee and Lee, Challenging the Myths.

(105) The Thomas Report, pp. 10, 12-13.

(106) The Thomas Report, p. 5.

(107) The Thomas Report, p. 7.

(108) The Thomas Report, p. 13.

(109) The Thomas Report, 1959, pp. 3-4.

(110) The Thomas Report, 1959, p. ii.

(111) Department of Education, The Education (Post-Primary Instruction) Regulations, 1945, also Syllabuses of Instruction and School Certificate examination prescriptions, Wellington, Government Printer, 1945, p. 1; New Zealand Education Gazette, 1945, vol. 24, pp. 278, 280.

(112) Campbell, Educating New Zealand; Murdoch, The High Schools of New Zealand; J. Nicol, The Technical High Schools of New Zealand: an historical survey, Wellington, New Zealand Council for Educational Research, 1940, pp. 144, 159; J.E. Strachan, The School Looks at Life: an experiment in social education, Wellington, New Zealand Council for Educational Research, 1938; J.E. Strachan, New Zealand Observer: a schoolmaster looks at America, New York, Columbia University Press, 1940.

(113) H.G.R.Mason, Education Today and Tomorrow, Wellington, Government Printer, 1944, pp. 39, 43-46.

(114) Mason, Education Today and Tomorrow, p. 39.

(115) Mason, Education Today and Tomorrow, p. 39.

(116) Mason, Education Today and Tomorrow, pp. 33, 38.

(117) Mason, Education Today and Tomorrow, p. 38.

(118) Beeby, 'The education of the adolescent', p. 237.

(119) Mason, Education Today and Tomorrow, pp. 36-37.

(120) Mason, Education Today and Tomorrow, p. 45.

(121) C.E. Beeby, The Biography of an Idea: Beeby on education, Wellington, New Zealand Council for Educational Research, 1992, p. 179.

(122) Beeby, Biography of an Idea, pp. 179, 191, 200-210.

(123) C.E. Beeby, Five-year Plan for Education, Wellington, Author, 28 May 1946, p. 5.

(124) Beeby, Biography of an Idea, p. 196.

(125) Mason, Education Today and Tomorrow, p. 91.

(126) AJHR, 1948, E-1, pp. 4-5.

(127) Beeby, Biography of an Idea, pp. 242, 247.

(128) Beeby, Biography of an Idea, p. 284.

(129) Alcorn, To the Fullest Extent of His Powers, pp. 37-38.

(130) C.E. Beeby, 'New Zealand--An example of secondary education without selection', International Review of Education, vol. 2, no. 4, 1956, p. 396.

(131) Beeby, 'New Zealand', p. 399.

(132) McKenzie, 'The New Zealand Labour party', p. 9.

(133) AJHR, 1956, E-1, p. 13.

(134) AJHR, 1956, E-1, pp. 7, 14.

(135) AJHR, 1938, E-2, p. 15; Nicol, The Technical High Schools, pp. 235-241.

(136) AJHR, 1956, E-1, p. 7.

(137) The Report of the Commission on Education in New Zealand (hereinafter The Currie Report), Wellington, Department of Education, 1962, p. 381.

(138) The Currie Report, pp. 381-382.

(139) The Currie Report, pp. 84, 168, 387.

(140) The Currie Report, pp. 39-41.

(141) The Currie Report, p. 161.

(142) The Currie Report, pp. 168, 216.

(143) The Currie Report, p. 217.

(144) The Currie Report, pp. 5, 7, 208.

(145) The Currie Report, pp. 39, 42-43, 45, 52-53; Alcorn, To the fullest extent of his powers, pp. 191-194, 208.

(146) The Currie Report, p. 83.

(147) The Currie Report, p. 220.

(148) The Currie Report, pp. 173, 669.

(149) Beeby, Biography of an Idea, pp. 131, 195-199; The Currie Report, p. 267.

(150) The Currie Report, p. 332.

(151) The Thomas Report, p. 13.

(152) The Currie Report, pp. 381-382.

(153) The Currie Report, p. 382.

(154) The Hadow Report; The Spens Report.

(155) The Currie Report, p. 78.

(156) Murdoch, The High Schools of New Zealand, p. 426.

(157) AJHR, 1956, E-1, pp. 5-18.

(158) Education Act 1964, Section 2(1), p. 9, Section 2(2), p. 10, Section 82(2), p. 50 in Statutes of New Zealand, 1964, No.135, Wellington, Government Printer.

(159) D. McKenzie, G. Lee and H. Lee, Transformation, pp. 41-42; I.A.McLaren, Education in a Small Democracy: New Zealand, London, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1974, pp. 137-139.

(160) Department of Education and Science, Circular 10/65: 12th July 1965. The organisation of secondary education, London, His Majesty's Stationery Office/ Department of Education and Science, 1965.

(161) Department of Education and Science, Circular 10/65, p.1; I.A.McLaren, British Education 1870 to the Present Day (British History Topic Series), Auckland, Heinemann Educational Books, 1969, pp. 35-37.

(162) McLaren, Education in a Small Democracy, p. 120.

(163) Beeby, Biography of an idea, p. 179; Mason, Education Today and Tomorrow, p. 45; C. Whitehead, 'The Thomas Report--A study in educational reform', New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, vol. 9, no. 1, 1974, pp. 60-62.

(164) Murdoch, The High Schools of New Zealand, pp. 329, 370.

(165) Murdoch, The High Schools of New Zealand, p. 414.

(166) D. McKenzie, personal communication, 17 September 2005.

(167) D. McKenzie, personal communication, 17 September 2005.

(168) The Thomas Report, pp. 7, 10, 13.

(169) Openshaw, Unresolved Struggle, p. 27.

(170) Openshaw, Unresolved Struggle, pp. 34, 44.

(171) AJHR, 1948, E-1, p. 5; Murdoch, The High Schools of New Zealand, p. 223; Openshaw, Unresolved Struggle, pp. 36-37; Strachan, New Zealand Observer, 1940.

(172) F. Milner, 'Foreword', in J.H. Murdoch, The High Schools of New Zealand: a critical survey, Wellington, New Zealand Council for Educational Research, 1944, pp. vii-viii.

(173) Milner, 'Secondary schools' curriculum', pp. 11-14.

(174) Lee and Lee, Examinations and the New Zealand School Curriculum; Lee and Lee, 'Making Milner matter'.

(175) Whitehead, The Thomas Report, pp. 60-62.

(176) Openshaw, Unresolved Struggle, pp. 66, 74.

(177) The Currie Report, p. 13.

(178) The Currie Report, p. 13.

(179) Openshaw, Unresolved Struggle, pp. 128-129.

(180) Whitehead, The Thomas Report, 1974, pp. 60-62.

(181) McLaren, Education in a small democracy, pp. 122, 132.

(182) Openshaw, Unresolved Struggle, p. 137.

Gregory Lee is an Associate Professor in History of Education at the University of Waikato in Hamilton, New Zealand. His major research and teaching interests are in the fields of post-primary education (especially the rise of comprehensive secondary schooling), rural and middle schooling, church and state relations in education, and curriculum history and politics. Email: educgdl@waikato.ac.nz

Howard Lee is Professor of Policy and Leadership Studies in Education and Head of the School of Educational Studies, Massey University College of Education. Howard's areas of research and teaching include comparative education, educational administration and leadership, educational assessment and public school examinations, educational reform, and educational policy analyses. Greg and Howard have co-written two books, two monographs, and numerous book chapters, reviews and articles in refereed journals, and delivered many conference papers. They are both currently engaged in researching the origins, purpose and status of the primary school pupil-teacher 'apprenticeship' system in New Zealand between 1864 and 1926. Email: h.f.lee@massey.ac.nz