STATEMENT BY MISS EULA
GUTHRIE, AO; FACE
I was never
sure whether giving me The Ag. File – all of a metre high – was meant as a joke
or a punishment. I was working in a Head Office as Staff Inspector (Pupil
Welfare and Curriculum) looking after a very mixed bag in Administration,
ranging from health and social issues, vocational choice and employment
prospects, the introduction of general studies, sex-education and drug
education, the drug report on sexism in education and national reports on
education to correspondence education and the School of the Air. And we were
making changes in the early seventies.
My mother’s
family were farmers and country people and I’d grown up having one foot on a
farm and some relatives away at ‘Ag schools’, so it wasn’t a closed book to me.
One of the contradictions that had occurred to me was that in country schools
girls could, in theory, choose any subject on offer (often a wider choice in
the maths and science areas than was open to them in city schools) but only
boys could go to agricultural high schools.
I’d not
forgotten women keeping farms running in the war years, on private properties
as well as in the Land Army and after men died keeping places going until their
brothers and sons were old enough to take over. Most of them had no formal
qualifications for the task except perhaps for a few courses in bookeeping and wool-classing at ‘The Tech’ where such
classes were accessible.
The
advantages of having some time away from isolated homes, living with a wider
group than the family, learning group sports and social skills, having relief
from long hours of travel to reach a school and often not seeing home in
daylight in winter had long been urged for boys – why not for girls? Some
girls, of course, went off to boarding schools but the government schools
offered no places for girls and the private boarding schools seldom offered
agricultural courses. The hostels attached to high schools in some country
towns were successively closed because they were not viable, as I knew because
I was involved in their attempted rescue, to no avail.
Girls I had
taught had moved into veterinary and agricultural science courses at university
and had done very well in research and developed – so I knew they could succeed
in such work. Changes in the social status and career choices of girls were
afoot and it seemed right to offer specialised education to qualify girls to
seize those opportunities.
Logic and a
sense of social justice prompted me to take the bull by the horns. I ran
surveys through the Correspondence School and the I.C.P.A. with whom I already
had contact in the cause of improving educational experiences for all students.
There was support for the project of opening at least some places in
agricultural schools to girls.
The condition
of the buildings and the standard of accommodation and facilities in all those
schools needed up-grading so it seemed a golden chance to improve the lot of
boys and staff and to expand to include girls, too.
The then
Director-General of Education, Mr Jack Buggie, an
Agricultural Science graduate, was sympathetic, as was the Director of
Secondary Education, Mr Arthur Buchan. Some parents were enthusiastic,
especially those with daughters. Old boys were not. Nor were the Principals of
the Agricultural High Schools, which was understandable as there were problems,
not least being responsible for a co-educational boarding school. Remember, the
private sector at that time had not taken the plunge, either.
Ways and
means were the biggest hurdles. Detailed submissions with plans for courses,
staffing, accommodation, finance; conferences with architects, treasury
officers, parent groups, the Teachers’ Federation, legal officers, the Public
Service Board (over changes to working conditions and new positions) – it all
seemed to go on for years, but we were ready with our approvals by 1976, having
persuaded two principals, Mr James Hoskins and Mr Reg Clarke, and their staff
to join the venture and were to begin in 1978. Those two were Hurlstone and
James Ruse (a day school). Hurlstone would take boarders and day-pupils.
There was
resentment as well as co-operation even in the two pilot schools. I draw a veil
over the sources of active opposition: they were hostile, often petty and
spiteful. I still wear the scars but I hope the girls do not. I cannot resist,
however, mentioning some of the objections Hurlstone raised. Tradition was, of
course, invoked. Introducing the girls would dilute the academic standards. The
school’s sporting achievements would suffer at carnivals and in competitions so
that the school would never win again. Girls would keep boys out by taking
their places.
We decided
to introduce some seniors and juniors simultaneously for mutual support and to
bridge all years more quickly than starting in Year Seven. Staff applications
were called for; a special post at executive level was created and Ms Elaine McVicker was chosen from those interviews. Staff training
sessions were held (for many staff had been to ’all-boys’ schools and taught
only in boys’ schools). Duty rosters, policies and procedures were all worked
out after I took up the post of Regional Director of Education in the
In all the
negotiations and planning, I had outstanding support from Mr Frank Sinn,
Regional Secondary Inspector and Mr David Rowlands,
the Agricultural Inspector who were my valued advisers and lieutenants who
presided over the transition.
I want to
pay tribute to the pioneers in both schools, especially those girls. They threw
themselves into their studies and all aspects of school life. They brought
enthusiasm and new skills and interest; they learned and they gave new depth to
the school. They achieved high standards and won acceptance and respect, not
without certain difficulties.