TRAINING COLLEGE

Evening Star, Issue 21285, 14 December 1932, Page 8

TRAINING COLLEGE

FIGHT FOR RETENTION UNFLAGGING CAMPAIGN PURSUED A comprehensive review of the representations to Parliament in connection with the campaign for the retention of the Training College was submitted to the Otago Education board this morning in a statement prepared by the chairman (Mr Wallace) and the secretary (Mr Carrington). Before reading the statement Mr Wallace referred to the presentation of evidence to the House Committee. The first speaker was Sir Thomas Sidey, who came from a sick bed to appear before the committee. They felt that they had a good case, and the report was as favourable as anyone could expect from a committee of the House. Mr Wallace mentioned that they had heard Mr Strong’s evidence, and were not impressed by it. The statement read: “ The evidence submitted in support of the Otago petition went to snow that it was not only just, but logical, that teacher-training facilities should be continued in each university centre, and this is virtually what the House has approved of in adopting the Education Committee’s report. “ It is of interest to recall that the Education Committee of the House in 1903 made practically the same recommendation. The records state:—‘The Education Committee, to whom was 'referred for consideration the subject of training colleges for teachers, have duly considered the same, and recommend that: A training college for teachers be established in each of the four principal centres of the colony—viz., Auckland, Wellington, 'Christchurch, and Dunedin, being the university centres, and in order to avoid the expense of duplicating instruction in subjects which are taught at the university colleges, and to secure. for teachers a greater breadth of view, the training of teachers in literary and scientific work should, as far as possible, be provided by the university colleges.’ “it is surely more than a coincidence that two Education Committees of the House, separated by an interval of nearly thirty years, should come to the same conclusion. If the Education Department had not, during the intervening years, gradually departed from the recommendation that the training should, as far as possible, be provided by the university colleges, the present move to limit the training to two centres, would never have seen the light of day. The Education Department has provided each training College with a complete statf, so that a student may obtain all subjects required for a teacher’s certificate without the need of attending a university class except, perhaps, in education. This certainly was never the intention of the Committee of the House in 1903, but centralised control, with the Consolidated Eund behind it, is liable to become extravagant. _ In 1903 there were only two training colleges—Dunedin and Christchurch—but as a result of the committee’s recommendation training colleges were opened in Wellington and Auckland in 190(5. The 1907 annual report of the Minister of Education recording the fact stated that “ adequate provision had now been made for the training of teachers in each of the, four uni/ versity centres.” , • In passing, I may mention that during the period 1876-1903 training of teachers cost the Otago Education Board £47,408, of which the Government provided only £17,632 by way of special grants. The fact that the Otago Board, out of its slender resources, spent almost £30,000 on teacher training is evidence of the genuine interest of the people of Otago in this question. It was not until after 1910 that the department interfered materially with Otago’s sound and economical method of training teachers. . . ‘‘The question now exercising the minds of all interested parties—parents, students, Training College lecturers, Normal School staffs, hostel authorities, 1 University Councils, and Education Boards—is what is to be done next year? The matter, notwithstanding a favourable report of the House, still rests with Cabinet, but I feel sure there is a way out, and that Mr Masters will do the right thing. I still believe that the Minister has been tendered unsound advice, and the recommendation of the Committee of the House arrived at after hearing the evidence of the Director of Education as well as that of the petitioners should now convince him of this. The department may now say that it has proceeded too far with its closing arrangements to draw back, but such a reply would be simply evading the question. The necessary adjustments can still be made if there is a will to do it. The department will naturally see all kinds of difficulties, but why should the department’s viewpoint still prevail? It is a matter of local concern, and, if left to each centre, difficulties apparently insurmountable to the centralised mind bent on uniformity will quickly bo overcome. Next year presents a golden opportunity for the University College and Education Board in each centre to cooperate in initiating an economical and adequate scheme of training. Tho number of students will be . comparatively small—those ' finishing their second year, some graduates, and a few third-year specialists—perhaps upwards of 120 in each centre. There is really no need for the department to intervene. Allow each centre its proportionate share of the estimated cost of the Minister’s proposed scheme for next year, and the work will be carried out thoroughly and efficiently. I know this can be done in Wellington and Otago, and I am sure the other two centres would accept a like responsibility. The Education Department may, of course, continue to criticise adversely any modified scheme for next year, but such criticism is entirely discounted not only by the Education Committee’s recommendation, but also by the fact that teachers were successfully trained in Otago during a period of over thirty years without any oversight from a central department. The money available next year will provide a very _ much _ stronger lecturing and practical training staff_ in each centre than that _ under which many of our most prominent teachers of to-day were trained. A list taken out at random shows that among Otago students trained between 1895 and 1910 are two university professors, six inspectors of schools, one Training College principal, and twenty principals of secondary and technical schools, besides, of course, numerous head masters, infant mistresses, and senior assistants in our largest primary schools. It is of interest to note the dominance of Otago-trained teachers among the heads of tho post-primary schools of the North Island. With such evidence as this to support it, the Government should have no doubt about trusting each of the four centres with the task of completing the training of next year’s students. Further, it will not cost a penny more than the Government proposes to spend

under the Minister’s scheme, and it could even be made to cost considerably less. In addition, the country would be saved at least £3,500 for the' boarding and travelling expenses of the Dunedin and Wellington students, who would be enabled to live at home. ~ “ The portion of the Education Committee’s scheme recommending separata training centres for primary and postprimary students should be held over for further investigation, and certainly should not be put into effect next year* Each centre will naturally prefer to train the whole of its own students. “ The vital consideration is that’a committee of the House—the House itself—has vindicated the principle that there should continue to be teacher training facilities in each university centre. These should not therefore be discontinued in any centre next year when it has been definitely proved that both economy and efficiency can be conserved by leaving the details to be worked out locally in each of the four centres.” Mr Wallace added that they must impress upon Hon. Downie Stewart, Sir Charles Statham, and the other Dunedin members the extreme urgency of the ease. Members expressed appreciation of the manner in which the case had been conducted before the committee and of the action of the committee.