?He explained to them that history was like an old house at night. With all the lamps lit. And ancestors whispering inside.
? To understand history,? Chacko said,? we have to go inside and listen to what they?re saying. And to look at the books and the pictures on the wall. And smell the smells? (Roy, 1997 : p.52.)
INTRODUCTION.
In undertaking an historical analysis of the ?middle school philosophy? and its development in New Zealand we must be aware that the various historical case studies we find have their own antecedents, although they may not have been seen by their key players in the same context as we do now with hindsight. However, with the gift of hindsight, it may be possible to suggest links and similarities that have only become evident with the passing of time.
Within this historical study the concept of providing educational opportunities for eleven to fifteen year olds in a school that was neither primary nor secondary is central to this investigation. The development of schooling for eleven to fifteen year olds, whether it be in central schools, junior high schools, intermediate schools or, more recently, middle schools, has a common heritage. While a vague definition, it allows for the exploration of linked concepts that have played a key role in the development of a middle school philosophy, within the New Zealand context.
A number of key themes occur through out this study. The concept of early specialization, that students of a younger age than post-primary school should be exposed to specialist subjects is a common theme. At various times in the New Zealand debate, this concept has been expounded as a reason for certain forms of middle schooling. An antithetical view has also been expressed, that of ?exploration?, the opportunity that middle schooling offers to allow students to experience a wide range of educational opportunities before having to face specialization in a post-primary environment.
A part of this debate has been the development of the concept of a ?middle school? offering either the opportunity to be a terminal institution, that is one from which the pupils then enter the work force or an opportunity to be a preparatory institution for secondary or high school. Should ?middle schools? meet the needs of those students who are not suited for post-primary education or should they provide a common educational experience for all students before they enter a post-primary institution, is open to debate.
Many of these philosophical concepts depend on the age range that best suits a ?middle school?. The focus of this chapter is the broad sweep of eleven to fifteen year olds, as this best suits the purpose of out-lining the historical development of middle schooling in New Zealand. However it does not ignore the fact that many commentators have suggested different age spans for middle schooling.
The most common thread in this historical survey however, is that of educational efficiency. The cost, both in terms of implementation and the development of curriculum, plays a crucial role in all of the debates on the middle schooling issue. This theme is traced through-out each of the important developments in the middle schooling movement in New Zealand.
1877 EDUCATION ACT.
The issues surrounding the provision of educational opportunities to students from eleven to fifteen years in New Zealand have been debated since the very beginnings of a national education system. The Education Act of 1877 set down the foundations of a national primary education system as a direct response to a provincial debate that saw a wide variety of provincial educational systems converge into one entity. As commentators have remarked (Watson, Cumming and Cumming ) the success of the 1877 Act was its ability to reform these provincial systems into one colony and not the fact that it established a great blueprint for education generally. This was something that would evolve over time.
During these debates the place of secondary education was hotly debated, and provision was made for it in a separate act, the Education Reserves Act of 1877. Therefore the place for another school structure, as represented by the term ?middle school?, was not part of this early national educational debate, although a brief mention was made of it in the O?Rorke Commission of 1879-1880. This division between the two acts carried over into different boards of management, different staffing entitlements and salary scales and eventually different teacher associations. As John Watson has observed,
? This separation of the primary and secondary levels, as much an accident as an act of deliberate policy, undoubtedly handicapped efforts at a later date to bring about greater harmony between them..? (Watson, 1964; p3)
Although a perceptive comment we can assume that it was more probably the later than the former. During the creation of a national education system two strong philosophies were evident. The first was that a compulsory, free and secular primary education be provided for all citizens. This was already occurring at a provincial level, in Nelson and Canterbury, and the Education Act brought together those similarities into one form. The second philosophical thrust was that of secondary education, raising questions about what was to be provided for, once students were past the compulsory years of attendance. This debate quickly intensified.
As early as the mid 1880s the articulation between the primary and secondary schools became a feature of much debate. New Zealand was faced with two separate and clearly differentiated institutions. The one, primary schooling, was specified by a seven to thirteen year compulsory attendance age, and a prescribed curriculum with no mention of advanced study apart from the provision of district high schools under the 1877 Education Act. The other, secondary schooling, was established for fee paying students under the Education Reserves Act of 1877. How were the primary students to come to an understanding of what they could learn and achieve by attending the secondary school? Few pupils remained at school past standard six, in order to meet the eligibility requirements to attend secondary school. Of those that did stay for standard six, many chose to remain at the primary school for standard seven rather than begin at the secondary school, given that one was available locally for them to attend.
In 1880 the O?Rorke Commission, set up to report on the operations of the University of New Zealand and its relations with the secondary schools of the colony, recommended,
?That a primary school, not being in the neighborhood of a secondary school, when it contains, say fifty pupils above the fourth standard, be constituted a ?Middle School?; and that a grant of ?100 be made by Government towards the payment of an additional teacher or teachers, so that secondary instruction may be imported in such schools without detriment to its proper primary-school work.? ( AJHR 1880: p 46)
Clearly this commission saw ?middle schools? as post standard four institutions set up in such a way as to not compete with secondary schools.
Using this philosophy students at the primary school, especially those in the senior standards who required an enrichment or an acceleration in their programme of work, would have the opportunity to study secondary subjects. This first reference to a middle school, as with every reference mentioned in this research, is governed by the context in which it is stated. Each educational generation has developed an unique definition for middle schools, or middle schooling, and it is important to view these definitions in their historical context.
The belief of this Royal Commission, then, was one where,
?Standards Five and Six would still provide primary education but they would also introduce the able children to secondary studies.? (Cumming and Cumming 1978: p114)
These students would remain at primary school but have the opportunity to experience secondary school work. It was this philosophy that tended to underpin the development of middle school thinking in New Zealand well into the 1920s.
In 1885 the Prime Minister, and Minister of Education, Sir Robert Stout
?proclaimed that the absence of a ?proper gradation between primary and secondary schools? was one of the most serious weaknesses of the colony?s education system. Stout agreed with those who maintained that a study of the classics had to be begun early, but he does not seem to have any specific proposals for improving the articulation between the primary and secondary levels.? (Watson 1964; pp 6-7)
Between 1877 and 1885 central government?s concerns were very much centered on the need to provide universal primary education and the opportunity to experience secondary education, not just for those who could afford it. This preoccupation increased post 1901, firstly with regards to district high schools and then with secondary education generally. Among the reformers this was not sufficient and by the early 1900s the free place movement opened up opportunities for a wider cross section of society to attend secondary school.
NELSON CENTRAL SCHOOL.
On 14 August 1894 the Nelson Central School for Boys opened what could be described as one of the earliest middle schools in the world. The 1890s were a decade of world leading social reform, attributable in some measure to the political leadership of such men as W. P. Reeves and R. J. Seddon, in New Zealand with such movements as universal suffrage. To a certain extent this experiment in education can be seen in the same light.
The Nelson school provided for three hundred boys between standard III and VII, eleven to fifteen year olds and a similar school opened at Toi Toi Valley for girls. As Watson, in his history, states it is not difficult to see the ways in which these schools resembled the intermediate schools of the 1950?s. The two schools functioned as middle schools, educating the senior standard pupils from a wide range of contributing primary schools until the pupils entered secondary school or left school altogether. These schools survived until the introduction of national salary scales for primary teachers in 1911, when this experiment further succumbed to a single national system, i.e. regular primer one to standard six primary schooling.
The Nelson region was not alone in exploring the need to better cater for the needs of these pupils. At an education conference in 1904 Edmund C. Purdie moved a motion;
? that where possible and in order to promote a more thorough organization of the pupils in each class and to render the teaching thereof more effective, all pupils in classes above Standard III be taught in the same school.? (A-J 1904 E-16 p22.)
This motion was then removed, Purdie asking for more time to develop his arguments. He was interested in the new movement in England where reorganization had seen the consolidating of the ?higher tops? of the primary schools into ?central schools?. Purdie was an inspector for the Auckland Education Board and in 1905,
?he submitted to the board a scheme for the better organization and teaching of the pupils in Standards Four, Five and Six in the large centres of population.? (Cumming and Cumming 1978 : p 222)
Purdie believed that these central schools would make teachers? lives less burdensome because pupils of almost uniform attainments would be placed together. Better provision for the teaching of science could be made and less time wasted with the traveling to manual training centers, Purdie believed. Each child could be placed in a class and subject where he or she was best fitted and teachers would be able to use their specific talents and subject interests. These arguments, it will be seen, reoccur throughout the debate on middle schooling, and were certainly key points in the creation of intermediate schools in New Zealand.
By 1907 Purdie?s arguments had developed a new coherency and were presented to the 1907 educational conference. The three key concepts he developed centered on the creation of better teacher- pupil relationships, modifying the curriculum to cater for the varying abilities of children at this age group and to use the teachers special interests and talents in science, drawing, physical education and craft work. While little came from these conferences by way of developing a national central school philosophy the influence of Purdie was greater than this implies.
In 1908 Purdie was elected to the Auckland Education Board, the same year that C.J Parr became its chairperson, who later was to become Minister of Education (1920-1926). The influence of Purdie?s thinking on the development of the first Junior High School in New Zealand and the development of a middle school philosophy cannot be over estimated. It is significant that he was influenced by the developments of the central school movement of England and Scotland and not that of the United States of America. The central school philosophy continued the primary school pedagogue into the upper standards. The Junior High School movement added support to the concept of teaching secondary subjects to younger pupils. This debate between earlier specialization and providing opportunity for an exploratory programme characterizes much of the middle schooling debate in New Zealand.
Similarly the work of E.K. Mulgan in 1915, after his visit to Scotland, is strongly influenced from that side of the Atlantic. Mulgan saw,
?two distinct types of post-primary education in Scotland: intermediate, which provided for three years spent on instruction in languages, mathematics and science; and secondary, which provided for five years spent on traditional instruction leading to a leaving certificate.? (Cumming and Cumming 1978: p 223)
The debate surrounding the provision of education preceding leaving school became crucial in the early decades of the twentieth century. With the passing of the School Attendance Act of 1901 the compulsory leaving age had been raised to fourteen. However by 1917 only 37 per cent of students went onto secondary school, although it should be noted that many more did go onto other forms of post-primary schooling e.g. technical high schools. The establishment of the free place system under Hogben in 1903 (or 1901 in the case of district high schools) had made positions in secondary school more available, but during these early decades most students still chose to leave school and to attend night classes in technical schools if required to do so by their employers. The creation of a new school that catered for children who would not stay at school beyond the compulsory age of fourteen was seen in some areas as a means of encouraging the students who were not secondary bound, and by nature academic, to stay at school.
In 1920 James Parr became Minister of Education. He was ?attracted to the system of central schools which had developed in England? (Lee and Lee, 1995: p146), where the great majority of primary school leavers would proceed directly to central schools and the others to existing technical high schools or traditional secondary schools. The need for a more highly educated citizenship coupled with the expected post war growth rate in population encouraged a new age of experimentation tempered only by the agricultural depression of 1921 and the lack of financial support to encourage wide spread experimentation. Further a growth in the number of school aged children added a new urgency to develop structures that cope with these increased numbers. The concept of educational efficiency, the need to meet the changed needs of society was a motivating force for change.
?By the early 1920?s, overcrowding at New Zealand schools had become so bad that parents were obliged to trek from school to school with their children of five or six years, trying to find places for them.? ( Keith, 1984: p 221.)
At the end of the 1920 Grading Conference, Parr, the new minister initiated a discussion about reforming education, in particular asking for discussion on the termination of primary education at the age of twelve and the setting up of central schools for those who do not proceed onto secondary school, so that they could continue their education past the primary years,
? into the central school, where the instruction would have a commercial or industrial or agricultural bias in the case of boys, or a commercial or domestic bias in the case of girls.,? ( National Education, 1920: p175)
The choice of courses excluded an academic strand and these central schools were seen to be a terminal institution for those not continuing on with a secondary education. The purpose of these new schools, as outlined by Parr, were to increase each students exposure to secondary subject areas so that they could make a more effective contribution to society. Parr?s thoughts in 1921 included,
?It is clear that the most effective method of increasing the period of secondary education is to lower the age at which it is entered upon? The one years instruction for which 25 per cent of the pupils remain at secondary school can be of little value, as it means that only a beginning is made to the study of several new subjects. If such pupils had begun upon a specially adapted secondary course at an earlier age it is most probable that they would have been able to leave school at the same age as at present with a much more efficient educational equipment.? ( Keith, 1984: p224.)
Opposition was expressed at the Grading Conference by Theo Strong, Chief Inspector of Schools who was concerned with the impact these changes might have on the schools in his area. Strong believed in the status quo and was not impressed with the Minister?s comments on overseas experience. (Lee and Lee 1996; 147). This opposition from Strong was significant in terms of for the role he was to play later in the setting up of intermediate schools.
How best was this experimentation to be provided? Parr had spent a good deal of time with Purdie during his work with the Auckland Education Board and the idea of a central school is evident in these early reports. New Zealand had always had ties with America, but the greater influence had come from the English and Scottish systems, since most of its settlers were from these countries. However, with the end of World War One, the influence of America in all aspects of our national development increased. In 1920 George Fowlds returned from a visit to America and was followed by Frank Milner and T.U. Wells. These visits were encouraged and supported by Parr in an attempt to gain a wider perspective on the world wide educational reform movement.
Frank Milner?s report presented to Parliament in 1921 outlined the development of the Junior High School movement in America. Milner had attended the Pan Pacific Conference held in Honolulu, and at the request of Parr had traveled on to California to investigate the junior high and central school movements of this state. He discovered that in 1910, three pioneer junior high schools had been set up after a report by Dr. Bunker, (superintendent of Californian schools), in which a model of 6 +3 + 3 education, with six years in the primary school, three each in the junior and senior high schools, was advanced.
Milner?s report to Parliament concluded with a recommendation,
(8) ?That Junior high schools (if not already authorized) be promptly established in the four main centres, equipped for the prosecution of the following courses (a) professional (b) commercial (c ) agricultural (d) industrial or mechanical (e) domestic science.? (AJHR ,1921: p7)
It is of interest, in the light of developments to come involving Milner, that his recommendations do not go as far as suggesting that these schools be stand alone, although this was the advice he had received while in America. The recommendation of a professional ( American terminology) or academic course of study contradicted Parr?s original intentions for these schools.
It was not surprising that Milner was invited by the minister to undertake this project. The minister?s son attended Milner?s school at Waitaki, and the two emissaries selected by Parr gave coverage for the secondary and primary school lobby groups. The second traveler was T.U. Wells. Principal of Richmond Road School in Auckland, where Parr had been chairman of the Education Board.
Well?s report was published a year later in 1922, including his attendance at the Imperial Conference of Teachers at Toronto. This report more fully explored the junior high school model and is favorable about its introduction in New Zealand. In fact many of the ideas expressed in this paper can be found stated in the work of Dr. Beeby carried out in the 1930?s and written to support the development of intermediate schools. Both Milner?s and Well?s reports were favorable towards the implementation of Junior High Schools, a rare congruence of opinions from primary and secondary sectors in New Zealand.
The motion passed at the Grading conference in 1920, coupled with the reports received from America and the work carried out by Purdie and Mulgan came to a logical conclusion in the 1922 Conference on Post Primary Education called by Parr. This conference consisted of the Minister, four departmental officers, four post-primary principals, of whom Milner was one and a primary school headmaster, Wells. As Ian Milner (son of Frank Milner) later wrote,
? The conference inter alia resolved ?that where a junior high school is established it shall not form part of a secondary or technical school.? ( Milner 1983: p 166)
The conference proposed that three-year junior high schools be established as stand alone units, separate from both the secondary and technical school. Hence the model seen in American schools was to be introduced here even if in a somewhat modified form. The functions of the three year Junior High schools were to include an accelerated programme for the ?academic? pupils, to provide terminal education for the non-academic, to provide centralized facilities and teaching e.g. art, and to provide for educational efficiency and social control. Many of these were key ideas that had been espoused by Purdie since 1904.
This then became the second ?middle school? model developed in New Zealand. The first, the Nelson Central school had operated some way along the lines of the English central school model of bringing the ?top standard? classes together in one place for several years duration. From this school the pupils either left school or went onto a technical college or secondary school if they could buy or win a place. This experiment had ended in New Zealand, in 1911. Now, in 1922, it was suggested that an American model be adopted where pupils could experience secondary subjects at an earlier age and have the opportunity to prepare themselves for the work that they would eventually undertake. Early specialization and exploration were to sit together with little understanding of the tension that could exist between these two concepts.
The fact that neither of these first two models, Nelson Central School or the Junior High School, became a significant success in the New Zealand educational environment , was largely due to the lack of support from the teacher associations. While the NZEI executive publicly supported the concept at the primary school level very few principals wished to see their senior pupils removed for a new school. Similarly, the secondary schools remained opposed to any threat to their perceived control over student numbers.
However, four of the members of the conference held an opposite view - namely, that the junior high school should be considered as part of a technical or secondary school with a six-year course. One would, therefore, be a feeder school for the other. Milner, the then Director of Education, and Parr himself, were part of this minority group. The cost effectiveness of attaching a junior high school to an existing secondary school alone would have made this an attractive alternative, it was thought.
THE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL.
Within the context of the middle school movement the establishment of the first Junior High School appears to have been a landmark decision. It developed the early experimental stage of the Nelson Central Schools into a national movement and built on Purdie and Mulgan?s concepts of providing a form of central school. The influence of Parr cannot be over estimated, and the reforming zeal of the early 1920s, due to post world war one optimism, played a crucial role in this development. The economic depression of 1921 also had a part to play in the speed, or lack of it, for the continued development of stand alone junior high schools as the 1920s progressed.
The notice for Junior High Schools was Gazetted on 4 September 1922, and included the following elements.
?(1) A ?junior high school? means a school established to provide a three-years course of instruction?
(2)The number to be established in 1922 and 1923 was ?not to exceed four,? one in a city, one in a town of about 10,000 and one as part of a district high school.
(3)Pupils must have ? a certificate of competency of Standard IV?
(4)A series of regulations outlined the staffing of these schools.
(5)The classes were to be called seventh, eighth and ninth grades, ( as in the USA.)
(6)Several of the clauses referred to the curriculum to be delivered.
(7)A final clause explained the setting up of school committees for these schools.
The first Junior High School, following these specifications, opened in Kingsland, Auckland, in October 1922. Kowhai Junior High School catered for form one to three pupils and even with the changes that were to come held onto its form three pupils until 1957. The initial reasons for Kowhai being established were that the Auckland Education Board were supportive of the idea and that there was extreme over-crowding in the schools of the Kingsland area. (Watson, 1964: p 41)
Pupils attending Kowhai were sorted and placed in classes according to the recommendation of the headmaster of the contributing primary school , their attainments on a number of psychometric attainment tests and an intelligence test, fashionable in the 1920s. First year pupils were put into one of two broad streams, an upper academic and practical subjects course and a lower one for those not moving on past junior high level. In the second year the pupils in the first course were resettled and given academic work in preparation for secondary school. Those not moving on concentrated on manual subjects. As Roy Shuker has noted, in the lower stream,
?Emphasis was placed on the acquisition of practical skills in preparation for their future roles as manual workers and homemakers ? (Shuker, 1987: p )
Hence the most senior classes were available to a few non academic pupils who had no intention of continuing their formal schooling. (Beeby 1938: 22) The first junior high school proved to be an experimental testing ground for more than the middle school philosophy and much of its work surrounded the use of educational testing and the effective placement of pupils in classes for optimal learning opportunities.
One of the more popular educational theories advocated at this time was that of social efficiency.
?The basic tenet of the ideal of social efficiency is that societies operate most effectively when individuals are properly allocated to the roles they perform in society.? (Phillips, 1989:p 39)
The Minister of Education?s annual report of 1925, (summarizing the 1924 year) stated four junior high schools had been established, though only one as a stand alone school. Frank Milner had established his own Junior High as an department of Waitaki Boys High School in line with his own minority vote at the Education Conference of 1922. Milner was rebuked in Oamaru for doing this, given that he was seen to be supporting something that went against the majority vote of the 1922 conference. However Ian Milner, in his history of his father, claims that Frank Milner had the support of the Minister of Education, Parr, and his own minority vote at the conference to support his not creating a stand alone junior high school in Oamaru. ( Milner, 1983, p165)
The minister, in his report, appeared satisfied with the development of the junior high system, however, he reiterated an important caveat that he had referred to on a number of occasions including the opening speeches of various junior high schools. This was that New Zealand must devise its own unique school system that meet the needs and situation found here. Parr confidently, and perhaps optimistically, wrote,
? There is no need for experiment regarding the value of junior- high school principle itself. That stage has passed. The testimony of other countries as well as our own experience sufficiently establish the validity of the principle. We are now trying out different methods of applying the principle to the varying sets of conditions to be found in the different districts of New Zealand, and the results already obtained are distinctly encouraging.? (AJHR 1925: P3)
Support for the Junior High School movement also came from Mr. Frank Tate, Director of the State of Victoria Education Department, Australia. In 1925 he was invited to review the New Zealand education system following on from a similar review he had carried out in 1903.
Although he noticed certain defects in the education system, ?[including] the general lack of articulation between the primary and post -primary schools [as a result of ] the belated adoption of the principle of intermediate school;? ( Butchers, 1932: p 220) he was supportive of the junior high system. According to two of his commentators,
? The junior high schools, he claimed, were ideally positioned ?to give pupils a broad outlook upon the worlds work and help them ascertain their own aptitudes, interests and abilities with reference thereto? ( Lee and Lee 1996: p 150.)
The first crack in the facade of the junior high system appeared with the appointment of a new Minister of Education in 1926, Mr. Robert Wright. As with any change in government there often comes a change in policy or direction. Disregarding the work of Tate, Wright stated in 1926,
? The proposed reorganization [ the creation of junior high schools] has been received with a certain amount of caution, if not reserve, mainly because of the uncertainty of its effects upon both primary and secondary schools and the lack of sufficiently definite information regarding the cost??( Campbell, 1941: p 140)
Gone from the minister?s report were the favorable comments common under the leadership of Parr and appears the first considerations of the cost the new system was imposing on the young country. Historical commentators have made much of this caveat (Lee and Lee 1998) but of greater threat to the middle school movement was the publication of the English, Hadow Report.
At the same time as this development was occurring in New Zealand, another equally strong movement had developed in the English Education system. In 1926 the Hadow Report was released in England, recommending that all primary education terminate at eleven years and that all students then attend a post-primary school providing a similar common core of instruction regardless of their abilities and future intentions. In 1926 the committee convened by William Hadow released its report, ?The Education of the Adolescent? which became widely discussed in New Zealand. Many of the developments of the junior high schools post 1926, and later the development of intermediate schools, were influenced to some degree by the thinking of the Hadow Report.
The influence of this report was felt in New Zealand in the Report of the Syllabus Revision Committee ( Lawson Report) of 1928. The Lawson Report, citing the Hadow report,
? There is a tide which begins to rise in the veins of youth at the age of 11 or 12. It is called by the name of ?adolescence?. If that tide can be taken at the flood and a new voyage begun on the strength and along the flow of its current, we think it will move onto fortune. We therefore propose that all children should be transferred at the age of 11 or 12 from their primary school. Transferred to new ground and set in a new environment, which should be adjusted as far as possible to the interests and abilities of each range and variety, we believe that they will thrive to a new height and attain a sturdier fibre.?( Lawson, 1928 : p18)
The Lawson report is famous for its well articulated majority and minority reports. The majority report closely follows the Hadow recommendations that all children should leave primary school and attend a post-primary school, each offering similar sources of instruction. The minority report, however, suggests that students should stay at primary school with a greatly enriched programme of work. Within the minority report is a strong case advanced for saving costs. During a depression finances receive careful attention.
? Eight junior high school experiments that have been introduced in New Zealand, providing for 2300 pupils? has cost about ?50,000 more in capital expenditure than the old system.? ( Lawson,1928 : p48)
The minority report were firmly opposed to junior high schools, stating that such schools, ?tend to destroy articulation rather than otherwise? (Lawson 1938: p37-39) They recommended against any further such development of the junior high concept.
Within a decade of being established, the foundations of the junior high school were under attack. The key elements of this change in educational thinking were that students should not have to face two changes of school at this time in their life and that a common education for all was more desirable than the, then popular idea of specific education instruction to suit future employment. The tension between early specialization or exploration programs arose again. Parr?s concept of early specialization and exposure to secondary subjects was being gradually overtaken by the rapidly increasing length of time pupils were attending school.
However the junior high movement still had strong advocates. The 1930 Recess Education Committee Report, commonly known as the Atmore or Bodkin Report, supported the continuation of this style of education. The purpose of the junior high schools, it suggested, should move away from providing specialized secondary courses earlier toward a course ? in favour of exploratory courses in which the ?special aptitudes? of the pupils may be discovered and developed? ( Atmore Report 1930: p152.)
Criticism of the move towards all students attending secondary schools was phrased in the context of the structure of the junior classes in the secondary school and the low pupil retention rate. Fault was found by the committee on behalf of those 50 percent of students who attended secondary school where they were hurried all day from room to room, from teacher to teacher. Children were taught by a range of peripatetic teachers, in a plethora of strange subjects. They were set tasks for home work rather than continuing the successful primary model of set reading. The committee were concerned at the number of junior members of staff who taught these children in a secondary school. Strong criticism was therefore leveled at the provision of secondary education.
However, even within this report that highlighted the strengths of the junior high school, evidence was presented by some secondary school principals that was,
?opposed to the establishment of separate schools of the Kowhai type, and recommended that junior departments should be attached to the existing high and technical high schools instead.? ( ibid., 1930 :p21 )
THE INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL.
By the early 1930s two clearly articulated schools of thought existed in New Zealand with regard to the education of these ?middle school? students. On the one hand, the work of Purdie, Mulgan and Parr in setting an educational philosophy for separate institutions had born fruit in the setting up of Kowhai Junior High School. However, these saw the development of a new educational system as both experimental and, more importantly, creating something that was indigenously New Zealand. The ideas of the American Junior High movement had merit in that they allowed for early introduction of secondary subjects to pupils who may not be able to experience them because of their early leaving age.
This body of thought had been added too by Tate and the Atmore Report with a new direction for these schools, the catering for individual differences that appeared not to occur or to a lesser extent, in secondary schools. A lack of confidence in the current secondary education system, as much as a confidence in separate junior high school institutions, influenced the findings of the Atmore committee.
Equally strong was the school of thought that followed the recommendations of the Hadow committee, that primary education should finish at eleven and that all students should make one change to a post-primary institution, all of which provided a similar series of courses to cater for all the perceived needs of students. By 1930 nine of the ten junior high schools were not stand alone institutions. Some were attached to primary schools, but the majority were, like Frank Milner?s, attached to some form of secondary school. The advantage of attaching these junior high schools as departments included the access it gave to secondary specialist staff and resources.
The only common ground between these two schools of thought was that primary education should terminate at eleven years and that it was desirable for all students to remain at school until they reached the legal leaving age.
In 1931 Robert Masters was appointed Minister of Education, and on 15 December 1932, at the peak of the depression, came the Order in Council which saw intermediate schools established in New Zealand. The order set the duration of instruction at two years, except in special cases, which was to be Kowhai Junior High School until 1957. These schools were to be stand alone schools and named intermediates. A set curriculum was outlined for them including some 17 hours per week on English, history, civics, arithmetic, geography, elementary science, drawing, singing and physical education. They were to be funded on a less generous staffing and salary scale and were to be part of the primary service.
Contemporary commentators were quick to respond to this reform. Sir James Parr, the previous minister of education who had established junior high schools commented that the ? ?intermediate school plan? was an unfortunate regression.?(Cumming and Cumming, 1978: p251)
J.F Wells, Principal of Kowhai Junior High School stated that ,
? My opinion, backed up by experience, is that scholars not likely to continue for any length of time at secondary or technical school gain infinitely more by continuing at Kowhai than breaking their course to put in a brief period at a secondary or technical school where they will of necessity be mere nonentities.? (Letter to D W Dunlop secretary Auckland Education Board18 January 1933.)
The debate about the length of time a student should spend at a school was still dictated by the early leaving age that still occurred.
However Watson, in his history of the intermediate school movement, does not hold with the argument that this was a sudden change in policy. The Forbes government had stated that the development of the intermediate system was part of their educational policy. One of the key people, Theo Strong, Director of Education, (1927-1933) stated in an article, written in 1931, for The Year Book of Education (1932) that he was an advocate of the two year intermediate system and spoke of them as if they were already in existence.(Cumming and Cumming 1978; p 252)
The intermediate school would be a cheaper alternative to junior high schools because of the changed staffing and funding ratios, according to Strong. This was important for a government faced both with the Great Depression and the immediate need to rebuild the schools in Napier destroyed in the 1931 earthquake, and a new school in Wanganui.
Strong also argued that if three year junior highs continued then they would be seen to be terminal. This had been a crucial part of the debate and with the need for students to be accommodated longer at school owing to the depression, the new concept of a bridging school developed. The concept of the intermediate school adding to the compulsory part of the primary education system, and the expectation of every pupil approaching some form of secondary education, would meet the immediate economic needs of the country.
Further junior high schools required their own school committees while the intermediate schools could be served more cost effectively by the regional education boards. However it is not sufficient to see this policy change just in the light of a cost cutting exercise, although this was one of the primary aims of this administration. According to an Education Gazette entry,
?We have therefore to seek for the aims that during this time of financial depression urge us and urge the minister to countenance making this change wherever it is possible to do so with little or no increased expense to the country.?(Education Gazette, 1933 ; p48.)
Elements of this change had existed throughout the development of the twenties, as we have seen. In 1930 the Otago High Schools? Board of Governors had approached the government concerning the loss of their third form students to a junior high school. (Lee and Lee, 1996:154) Such pressure from the high schools would have added to the decision to have third formers? attend high schools rather than the junior high.
The reality was that stand alone junior high schools had not been established in any number. By 1930 only one such school had been established, while the rest had been set up as attached departments. Furthermore, the new philosophy of providing a responsive environment for individual needs was not part of the philosophy of the attached junior highs. They had taken their philosophy from the earlier need to provide secondary subjects to a younger cadre of students. With this philosophy attachment to secondary schools had provided a source of specialized teaching staff and resources that would no longer be so crucial with the change in policy. The growth in numbers of students remaining at school in the third form year had already begun to put pressure on the availability of these teachers.
With a two year structure New Zealand would have its unique middle school system, different from that offered overseas. Watson comments that had the administration taken the three year format it would have required a drastic reorientation of secondary education because one third of all post-primary enrollments were form III students. The pragmatism of the times had as much to do with the change, as the conference debates had had in determining the ground to be discussed.
In 1933 the Director of Education?s 1932 speech, to a meeting in Christchurch, was reported in the Education Gazette, outlining the ministry of education?s rationale behind the establishment of intermediate schools. In this speech he states that the junior high schools in New Zealand were not established to meet the same needs as those in the United States. The impression given was that the American schools were built simply to overcome an overcrowding issue, an account the Director himself had formulated with little reference to the realities of the American situation. This situation will be explained more fully elsewhere, but in fact there is strong evidence to suggest that the American Junior High movement had been formed on a strong philosophical base to provide specialist teaching to a younger cohort of students. The issue of over-crowding is more likely a New Zealand issue, as we have seen, with the pressure for student places in Auckland schools at the time.
However, he was correct in that only one stand alone junior high school had been established and therefore the form of education offered here was different to that in America. He went onto say
?So the new intermediate school will
(1) ?[Draw] a large number of senior pupils of about the same age and the same intellectual standard together and [enable] them to be classified into groups.?
(2) ?[Have the] advantage of bridging the gap between the primary and secondary schools.?
(3) ?When the pupils are centralized it is quite possible to introduce a greater measure of specialization than is possible under existing conditions.? (Education Gazette 1933:p51)
Due to this change in direction, commentators have suggested that there was a lack of a clear cut and consistent policy. They ( Campbell, Lee and Lee) suggest that there was a failure to be able to adapt the theory of middle schooling to the New Zealand situation. The suggestion is made that the confusion that existed between the American and English systems being borrowed here, was the reason why no clear philosophy had been established.
?In its early stages at least the New Zealand [ intermediate school] movement was a reflection of these overseas developments rather than a response to widely felt and clearly defined local needs. And that was one of the main reasons for the intellectual confusion that has been its peculiar curse.? ( Campbell 1941: p139)
This criticism is probably a little too harsh. The 1920s had seen the experimentation with a number of different structures as New Zealand prepared itself for having students at school for longer periods of time. Parr himself had on many occasions referred to the work of the early 1920s as that of ?experimentation? and to a certain extent the move to intermediate schools in 1932 could be seen as continuing this policy.
As a small country, New Zealand tends to be at the mercy of agricultural markets and boom and bust times have had a marked impact on our economic fortune. These educational experiments were being monitored by frequent educational conferences and the development of an uniquely New Zealand approach had been foremost in most commentators thinking. As educators the New Zealand educational community are frequently captivated by overseas ideas and developments.
The economic circumstances of the early 1930s coupled with a new government and a new philosophical approach merely redirected the development rather than it being seen as a revolutionary change. As Campbell has stated it was impossible to satisfy everyone, the conflicting attitudes within the education service meant that a compromise had to be made.
It is interesting to note that both the primary union NZEI and the Secondary Association of Teachers (SSA), asked for the introduction of intermediate schools to be postponed. The NZEI concerns were that the change was being introduced at a time of cost cutting, that national finances needed to be improved and that the early stages of learning needed addressing first. The secondary teachers were concerned with intermediates, ?being introduced without a definite philosophy behind [them].? Of all the questions asked of the middle school movement, this question of philosophy is probably the most asked and the most difficult to answer.
THE LABOUR GOVERNMENT AND DR. BEEBY.
What the 1932 ?Order in Council? did achieve for middle schooling development in New Zealand was the creation of an institutional structure that could deliver the theory as it was perceived at that time. Unlike Parr?s experiment with the junior high school philosophy, a definite stand alone institution was now established to meet the perceived educational requirements of young adolescents. What was missing, of course, was a strong philosophical base, beyond the pragmatic needs of the early 1930s. As Beeby was to comment,
? The cause for surprise is not that the schools should have lagged along the road but that they should have gone so far, since no-one has ever quite known where they were going.? (Beeby, 1938: p37)
This philosophical base was to be developed by Dr. Beeby in his work for the New Zealand Council for Educational Research. The NZCER was set up with a grant from the Carnegie Foundation of America. Dr. Clarence Beeby was appointed its first chief executive officer and then director in 1934. In 1935 the first Labour Government was elected to office.
? In 1936 the council accepted its first commission from the Government, which had been urged by the NZEI to carry out a survey and analysis of intermediate schooling in New Zealand, judging that this would not compromise the independence they valued so highly. This was a project that Beeby was to undertake himself and it took him away from Wellington for two lengthy (five to seven week) trips through both islands, visiting schools, collecting data and interviewing staff, principals and parents.? (Mc Donald and Benton 1992 :pp17-18.)
Both the NZEI and the TSTA (Technical School Teachers? Association) supported this commission.
In 1935 Professor Fred Clark had visited New Zealand from the University of London Institute. According to the Cummings, he expressed ?[a] dislike of the two-year intermediate course and said the term ?intermediate? was either a misnomer or it implied a wrong conception of what a school should be. No school, he said, should be regarded merely as a ladder between two other schools, but each should be autonomous, with its own particular function to perform- in this case that of making suitable educational provision for the years of early adolescence.? [Cumming and Cumming, 1978; p253)
At the very least an attached intermediate department was deemed undesirable. For Dr. Beeby the challenge existed to take the term intermediate and make it relevant to the educational and political climate of New Zealand in the late 1930s. Beeby investigated sixteen intermediate schools, eleven of which were attached to post-primary schools. As Watson comments in his history, many of Beeby?s recommendations were therefore unduly influenced by what he saw in these institutions. One of the difficulties in formulating a philosophy for an organization is that if insufficient institutions exist how does one formulate sufficiently effective conclusions? To this end much of the work that T.U. Wells had reported in 1922, on the American Junior High schools, found its way into Beeby?s study.
Beeby?s report was released in 1938 in which he outlined eight philosophical tenets of intermediate education. These tenets were outlined in his second recommendation, the broader functions of the intermediate school in New Zealand.
The first function is,
?to provide a socially integrative period of schooling, the chief function of the intermediate school [is] to provide between the two [ primary and secondary] a period of expansive, realistic, and socially integrative education that will give all future citizens a common basis of experience and knowledge. No other function should interfere with this.?( Beeby,1938; p210)
Beeby clearly claimed the exploratory philosophy over that of early specialization.
His second tenet was,
? to introduce all children gradually and sympathetically to the world of industry, commerce and the professions.? (ibid., 1938 p210).
More than an example of the philosophy of educational efficiency, Beeby was interested in every child making meaningful links with the adult world that they were to live in.
Following on from that it was therefore important,
?to help every child to a rational choice of future school course and occupation based on the knowledge of his (sic) own aptitudes and interests.? (ibid., 1938; p211)
For some pupils the reality of intermediate education was that it would be terminal and so a function of intermediate schooling should be
?to give a rounded- off education to children not intending to take a reasonably complete post-primary course.? (ibid., 1938 p211)
To some degree this tenet predicates a later recommendation for extending the number of years a student could stay at intermediate school. The next tenet goes further suggesting that intermediates should ?assist children who are not going on to post-primary school to secure suitable employment, and to provide education for them until such employment is found.? (ibid. 1938, p211) Within the context of the 1930s this stands as a clear justification for providing a three or four year middle school opportunity.
Beeby believed in the need,
?to provide for children continuing schooling to a higher level ? mid-way between that of the primary school and that of the post-primary. (ibid., 1938 p211)
Having stated that though he believed that the need,? to continue teaching the fundamental tools of learning? (ibid., 1938; 211) was also crucial.
While many of his recommendations have to do with the physical conditions of the schools he saw others becoming a blue-print for the development of intermediate education.
Recommendation 15, for example, stated
?15 (a) Children who intend to go onto secondary or technical school for two years or more should be allowed to leave the intermediate school after passing Form II, if they so wish.
(b) Children who do not wish to enter post-primary school should remain at the intermediate school for a third year and even portion of a fourth if need be. The intermediate school should be willing to take responsibility for them until such time as they secure permanent employment
(c) Children who do not intend to prolong their full-time schooling for more than one year beyond Form II should be encouraged to stay at the intermediate school for that year. (i.e. to do a third year at intermediate.)
(d) The present rule demanding from a parent of a child entering form III of an intermediate school a guarantee that he will not proceed to full-time post -primary education should be abolished. Facilities should be provided for children in groups (b) and ( c) above who change their minds in Form III, to transfer to a post-primary school. The bigger post-primary schools might establish transition classes for such children: in others special coaching might be given. ( Beeby, 1938; p226-230)
In Beeby?s notes to this recommendation he states that this is a compromise to suit both secondary schools and pupils who wish to stay at a three year intermediate school. He goes on to say though that it is more than a compromise, rather it is an attempt to divide the academic course apart from what Beeby terms the ?realistic? course. He wanted to remove the temptation for intermediate schools to offer academic course like secondary schools so that the intermediate school is free to expand their horizons.
Beeby believed that if a fourth form did develop at an intermediate school that it should be regarded as a leaving form, a preparation for civic and industrial life. Visits outside school would be more frequent he suggested, and students could be observers or temporary workers at various firms, a transition from school to work.
A number of recent commentators have suggested that Beeby did not support a four year middle school philosophy for intermediate schools. These recommendations refute such claims and in part outline a belief for middle schooling that could be seen as one of the early precursors for developments in the 1990s. As was fitting for the times Beeby saw these four year schools as terminal, a logical term of reference at a time when so many students did leave school by their fourth form year.
Clause (b) suggests that the intermediate system of two years was seen by Dr. Beeby as an interim measure. To support this his recommendation 29 suggests that the intermediate school return to the name ?Junior High School?. Beeby goes on to explain that this is a minor change that marks a major change in direction removing the label, intermediate, that suggests a school that falls between two others. Watson, in his history, reiterates the point that Dr. Beeby was in favor of a four year system but considered its introduction as impractical at the time. He goes on to quote Beeby,
? So far, indeed, from the junior high school being regarded as a mere link between two fixed units, it might conceivably be made the pivotal point of the reorganization of the whole system. A reorganized and enlivened junior high school, that is to say, might be the center around which plans for the future of primary and post-primary schools could revolve.? (Beeby 1938;p244.)
Beeby?s report concludes, ? no real change can take place in any part if the rest remains unaltered.? ( ibid., 1938; p244)
Was Dr. Beeby advocating a complete over haul of the system? Watson comments that by 1938, 60per cent of students left school by the end of form III. That a three year intermediate school was viable is probable, but the practicalities lay outside the brief that Beeby had been given to investigate. During the early 1940?s regardless of the effect of World War Two, the number of intermediate school grew rapidly under the care of the Labour Government. In 1945 a government publication ? Education Today and Tomorrow? (Mason 1945) devoted a section to the intermediate school. The development of intermediate education was not questioned again until the change of government, in 1948, with the Holland ministry.
Beeby inherited, in a sense, an intermediate structure that met the needs of the 1930s but appeared to lack a clear philosophy on middle schooling.. His report attempted to give intermediate schools a clear mission and understanding of their place in the New Zealand education system. However, persuading those who supported the concept and winning over those whose positions placed them in opposition to the intermediate school system are two different objectives.
THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT; 1949.
In 1949 the National government replaced Labour, and Ronald Algie was appointed Minister of Education. His first attack on the intermediate school concerned the cost involved in running them. This was soon replaced with a further concern, reported by John Watson,
? whether it would be wiser for these schools to keep pupils until they were fifteen years of age. It was the issue of the ?break?, he admitted, that was uppermost in his mind. He no longer seemed concerned, as he had been a few months earlier, about the cost of intermediate schooling.? ( Watson 1964:p101)
This comment arose from the raising of the school leaving age in 1944. The raising of the leaving age to fifteen years had become almost universal, and as such had created a stronger school base in the junior secondary school. While the vast majority of students still did not stay for form VI, at least a significant percentage of them began form V. Strong debate arose, with the NZEI reiterating their stance for a three year intermediate school, a policy they had maintained since the 1920s.
The Minister called a conference in 1951 and posed ten questions concerning the future of intermediate education. The NZEI were strongly motivated by this call, and came out with a clear policy statement on the place of intermediate education in the New Zealand educational environment. This charter was published in the National Education on 2 April 1951, as a dominion executive report to the Minister of Education. It reiterated the belief that intermediate schools should educate twelve to fourteen or fifteen year olds.
?That the age from twelve to fifteen years has characteristic needs rather different from groups above and below we consider that children at this stage will receive better provision in a separate school.?(National Education, 1951)
At the end of the conference, ?the Minister was handed a strong endorsement of the status quo.? (31 Oct 1951 Evening Post)
The Minister then changed tack, and stated that ? the intermediate school system has definitely established its right to be part of the education system.? He went on to say that in his opinion the course of intermediate instruction should be longer, and he announced an inquiry along these lines to be carried out by the department of education . However, the report of this inquiry was never published.
While such statements satisfied a significant sector of the New Zealand education scene such as the NZEI and the Intermediate Schools Principals? Association, there were still groups that were opposed to the development and certainly the expansion of intermediate education. Even after Dr. Beeby?s report, and the minister?s speech to the conference, both advocating a longer course of study at intermediate level, opposition to this remained. In particular the Association of Secondary School Teachers felt threatened by this approach.
In 1954 the Secondary Teachers Association?s Executive ? decided that there was no justification at all for a separate school between the primary and post-primary levels, and that, in any case, intermediate schools were expensive.? (Watson, 1964 :p107) As a result of this recommendation they requested the NZCER to carry out its second review of intermediate education, and this was accepted and undertaken by Mr. John Watson.
The Watson report used a more comprehensive approach than Dr. Beeby?s and provided an historical framework as well as detailed research of current practice. As Watson claimed,
?we were more concerned in the late fifties with the pedagogical justifications for setting up an intermediate school system.? (Watson 1977:p58.)
His report concluded with twenty one recommendations. While his research had been commissioned by the Secondary Teachers Association it was little satisfied with its recommendations. The first recommendation was for the intermediate system to be continued, extended and strengthened. Wherever possible they should be independent schools, Watson suggested. They can be established near or on adjacent sites to secondary schools and the creation of intermediate schools should be extended and speeded up in rural areas.
Recommendation nine states that the two year status quo should remain. However, Watson noted
? Perhaps at some later stage, when the co-operation of the two levels is much more effective than it is now, and when the majority of adolescents remain at school beyond the age of 16 years, it may be desirable to lengthen the intermediate school to capitalize on its undoubted potential for providing a well-balanced general education for all pupils before they embark on the special courses of a senior secondary school.? (Watson 1964: p424)
Each of the major reviews of the intermediate structure from 1932 to 1964 reiterated the need for the duration of time at intermediate school to be reconsidered and serious account taken of a course of three or four years duration. Each review placed the intermediate school within the middle school structure, and provided reasons for young adolescents to be educated in this form of schooling.
Between the undertaking of the Watson study and its publication in 1964 two other reports were commissioned and presented, the Wyndham Committee 1953 and, the Currie Commission in 1960. The Wyndham Committee reported its views on 28 October 1957. They concluded that the intermediate school did not appear to offer any real solution to the need of secondary school reorganization and that it appeared to sit between primary and secondary integrating with neither. (Lee and Lee 1996: P161)
The Currie Commission Report, published in 1962 supported the intermediate school structure,
?Intermediates offer many educational advantages over primary schools: better classification of pupils: a smoother passage of pupils from primary to secondary schooling: specialist tuition, particularly in subjects such as music, art, physical education, and manual subjects; and they were ?more economical and efficient?, both educationally and financially?(Lee and Lee, 1996; p-162.)
This last statement is particularly relevant in the light of the Association of Secondary Teachers? claims that they were too expensive when compared with other structures in the education system.
However, the commission went a step further and advocated the setting up of Form I to VI colleges in rural areas too small to sustain intermediate schools, in direct contrast to Watson?s own recommendation to speed up and extend the establishment of intermediate schools in rural areas. The first form I to VI college was opened in 1966 under the then Minister of Education, Kinsella. (Cumming and Cumming,1978 : p350 )
One of the developments that arose out of the Currie com
