Information recently leaked from the Department of Education to the Wellington Evening Post on the question of student bursaries has disturbing implications as far as the future of the allowances paid to teacher trainees are concerned. Rumour has it that a $9 per week increase in the level of the standard tertiary bursary will be financed through a substantial reduction in the level of remuneration paid to teacher trainees. If, infact, these rumours are accurate this will be the latest in a long line of intrigues perpetrated by the education establishment at the expense of teacher trainees.

The Student Teachers' Association of New Zealand (STANZ) has, over a number of years, supported technical and university students in their struggle for an adequate bursary. At the same time, however, the STANZ has maintained that such bursary increases should not be granted at the expense of a cut in teacher trainee allowances .

The history of this struggle is a long and, in places, complicated one. It is important however that all students are familiar with the background to the current intrigue.

Students or Employees?

The STANZ's position is that teacher trainees are employees and should be recognised as such by the inclusion of their allowances under the provisions of the State Services Conditions of Employment Act, 1977. In fact, the actual status of the allowances has been in a state of flux for several years now. Prior to 1969 teacher trainees were included under the provisions of the Education Act, 1964 and the Government Services Tribunal Act as members of the education services. As such their income was a 'salary' negotiable by the appropriate service organisations (PPTA, NZFKTA, NZEI) under the auspices of the Government Service Tribunal.

After the passage of the State Services Conditions of Employment and Remuneration Act, 1969, which superceded the above legislation it was discovered that teacher trainees had been accidently (or purposely?) excluded. Despite this exclusion the allowances were negotiated in 1972 and 1974 with the Education Service Committee by the interested parties as if they were subject to the provisions of the Act.

In effect, therefore, they were being treated as salaries, subject to tax and superannuation deductions, even though they did not have this status legally. This continues to be the case today.

In 1975, however, the then Labour Government took advantage of this situation to initiate an all-out attack on teacher trainee allowances with little or no prior consultation with the STANZ and NZUSA. In the budget of that year it was announced that teacher trainees would receive the standard tertiary bursary. This amounted to an attempt to undermine the solidarity between students and their organisation by taking from one group in order to give to another. Fortunately this attempt at 'divide and rule' was unsuccessful.

The STANZ fought a successful campaign with the support of NZUSA, NZTISA, the other teacher organisations, and some backbench Labour MPs such as Russell Marshall and Mike Moore to have the budget provision reversed. In the face of massive opposition the Government had no choice but to back down and accept the maintenance of the status-quo with regard to the allowances. This campaign, more than anything else, emphasised the importance of student unity of purpose on all matters affecting their livelihood and conditions of service.

In 1976, however, the attacks continued; this time under a National Government, acting in direct contradiction of its stated election policy of retaining teacher trainee allowances at their current level. The Government decreed that teacher trainees were not eligible for cost-of-living adjustments. Teacher trainees were understandably incensed. The effect of the action would have been to steadily devalue the level of the allowances over a number of years - basically a back-door method of achieving the same goals as the previous Government.

Once again the STANZ and other organisations forced a reversal of this action and the allowances retained their increasingly tenous status. During both 1976 and 1977 the STANZ and NZUSA argued that no decision should be made on the long term future of teacher trainee allowances until such time as a thorough enquiry had been conducted into all aspects of teacher training. In 1976, such an enquiry was, in fact, initiated by the Minister of Education under the auspices of the Review of Teacher Training. Now, three years later, the report of that review has been completed and will be ready for publication in the very near future.

While the Review of Teacher Training was in progress the Minister of Education, Mr Gandar, gave repeated assurances that there would be no decision on the future of teacher trainee allowances until such time as this review is completed and its report made public. In spite of Mr Gandar's assurances, members of his department have continued to work against the long-term interests of teacher trainees by attempting to initiate an examination of the allowances within the context of the Review of Financial Assistance for Post School Study (the Bursaries Working Party).

As recently as 9 February, this year, the new Minister of Education reiterated Mr Gandar's assurances during a meeting with members of the NZUSA national office. Just two weeks and four days later, however, it became clear that the situation had altered drastically. This time, during discussion with a STANZ delegation Mr Wellington refused to give any such assurance. Why had be changed his mind?

The next day, 28 February, the infamous leak appeared in the Wellington Evening Post (quite by coincidence?). Could it be that Mr Wellington and his department have realised that the Review of Teacher Training is not going to come forward with the, hoped for, recommendations. If, the recommendations of the Review are indeed ignored, it will be an act of gross irresponsibility on the part of the Government.

Allowances — Why?

In general, the arguments for the retention of teacher trainee allowances are complex ones. In brief terms, however, they go something like this:

In attempting to fulfill the needs of society, teacher training must be allowed to develop in its own unique way. It has now, and will continue to have in the future, certain requirements that distinguish it from the multiplicity of other training programmes that are designed to meet a whole range of differing needs. Unlike university students, for example, teacher trainees have to undertake periods of practical training as a compulsory component of their programme.

While on section a trainee must act, to all intents and purposes, like a junior teacher rather than a student. In this respect the training period is analagous to that of policemen, for example. In recent years it has become necessary to increase the practical component in order to meet the needs of society. The STANZ has supported this trend.

Teacher training is being recognised more and more as a continous process. It is a process which is Not completed upon graduation from a teacher's college. In this light the division between pre-service and in-service teacher training has become blurred. A continous training programme of such a specialised nature requires a great deal of commitment to the teaching service. This level of commitment should be recognised at an early stage during the training process.

Recruitment Aspects

The STANZ has always maintained that mature applicants with occupational experience outside of an educational institution are more likely to show the required commitment to teaching and to training for teaching. This experience within the wider community is often an invaluable asset in the classroom. In recent years there has been an encouraging increase in the age of entrants to teachers' training colleges. In order that this trend should continue, however, it is very important that the allowances be maintained. In this respect they have an extremely important role insofar as recruitment is concerned.

Similarly there is a need to recognise the requirement that the teaching service be as representative as possible of the wider community. It is essential then that training be available to people from minority ethnic and cultural groups such as Polynesians and also to people from working class backgrounds. Once again, to ensure, that there is a wide range of applicants for teaching it is necessary to maintain a supportive allowance during training.

Requirements

In training for teaching, trainees have to meet certain financial requirements that pertain only to their vocation. Opportunities for secondary and holiday employment are severely limited in comparison to university students. The vacation period is much shorter (seven weeks) and the practical training component makes part-time employment a difficult proposition. Such employment, if obtained, is subject to secondary taxation and of course, teacher trainees are not eligible for employment under the Student Community Service Programme.

The time spent in schools can be particularly expensive. Clothes, for example, are expected to be of an 'acceptable' standard and clothes can be an expensive item. Out of town teaching practice results in high travel expenses and the doubling of accommodation costs (rent, power etc). The period spent at teachers' college is recognised as the time when teachers gather their classroom resources - a costly process.

These considerations show quite clearly that teacher traineee allowances are not as lucrative as some of our opponents would like us to believe. The minimum allowances received by trainees under 20 is $60 per week after tax. Given the training related expenses and the scarcity of secondary and vacation employment opportunities it can be seen that teacher trainees are not that much better off than students in technical institutes and universities.

Elitism?

The argument for the retention of the allowances may sound elitist to some. It is not intended to be. What we are saying is that teacher training has a very special place in the development of our education system. The teaching service Must, as far as possible, be representative of the wider community. There is a very real possibility, in light of the rumoured intentions of the government, that teacher training could become the preserve of white, middle-class school leavers. This is a situation which the STANZ and all groups with a real concern for education would not like to see.

Unity Essential

Undoubtedly some elements will continue to attempt to create, and then exploit, antagonisms between the various groups involved in the education sector. It must be made clear that one group is not trying to gain at the expense of another.

It must be understood that this is Not an either / or situation. We must support each other.