The Currie Commission and Report on Education in New Zealand 1960-1962

Abstract

This thesis investigates and analyses the Report of the Commission on Education in New Zealand,1962, also known as the 'Currie Report', paying particular attention to the policy process surrounding the written and oral submissions. Views expressed during the submissions and their ideological basis are related to wider power relationships within society. The submissions emanating from outside the Department of Education are revisited as well as the departmental submissions to establish whether there are any grounds to challenge the consensual, liberal interpretations that have been attached to this important New Zealand historical educational document. The issues raised and avoided in the submissions coalesce around specific themes, which are related to the broader issues of the development of New Zealand educational history. Attempts to counteract, mute and marginalise dissent and to encourage optimal social control are witnessed in the organizational structure of the commission and in its methods. The interaction and networking of key participants is studied and the important inter-relationship between central bureaucratic interventions and powerful educational pressure group activity points to the continuing operational success of central government processes. The often competing forces of provincialism and centralism in New Zealand education underlie many of the conflicts surrounding educational change. Religion, race, gender and class are forces that continually interact to create legitimation crises. The governmental attempt to minimise or at least rationalize these socially contested differences in education from 1960-1962 is the subject of this thesis. An analysis is made of the process by which public dissatisfaction regarding education in the fifties and sixties was mediated and largely marginalised by the educational bureaucracy. This is done by a thorough examination of the interaction of pressure groups, unions, media and governmental agencies during the two year submissions to the Commission on Education 1962. The distinction between the commission's report and the submissions and interrogations leading up to the report is important, as the primary data extracted from the primary resource material in the submissions, at times, contradicts the departmental view as expressed in the report itself. In this way it is hoped to move beyond the rhetoric that informs previous commentaries and move closer to an interpretation based upon the primary data.