The Cognition Institute has produced a series of essays entitled Tomorrow’s Schools 20 years on. I’m working my way through and some fit well with my developing thinking for future policy.
We need to remember that it was about bureaucratic change rather than better learning but there was at least a hope for better learning which has only been delivered at the margins. And possibly up to 30% of schools just don’t have the quality of board to provide effective governance.
So it is time for review.
Lets learn from other countries, but we have to remember that just being the best using the current paradigm is not going to be good enough.
We do need to be aware of the drivers of educational achievement, high quality teaching, parental income (longer term educational issue), parental engagement and peer behaviour (including and possibly especially) outside school.
Too often kids power down when they are at school. The question I have been examining today looks at how long we can lock the 21st century out of schools. Clare Curran and I will need to talk more about freeing up attitudes to learning and ICT in schools. And maybe there is enough for another post in that soon.
But we aren’t into change at the margins – we need to understand that the whole game has changed and it will require the sort of rethinking that probably can’t happen at the individual school level.
There is good evidence around the power of the cluster for positive change but it may be that we need to move beyond the geographic groupings – possibly to a range of intermediate arrangements and aggregations.
Possibly some soft federations, some a bit harder and maybe even groupings of schools located around a region or even the country that share philosophy, direction, and even executive leadership.
I don’t like the term chains because of the retail connotation, teams doesn’t do it either, but it does seem to me that we might be able to get a real educational lift by schools working together more.
But we must move beyond Tomorrow’s Schools which is so last century.
A school franchise I love it
Locking the 21str century out of schools? What do you mean?
Interesting thoughts Mr Mallard.
This isn’t a barbed question, and it isn’t specifically about the Labour Party but the policy development framework generally and I would be interested in your feedback.
Why don’t these issues occur to you when you’re in government? When you’re in government do ministers get captured by officials? Do parties need to spend time in opposition and away from the streams of official advice to think outside the square and come up with new policy to make progress?
I think this will be of great interest, but I wonder a couple of things:
- Do you think schools are not meeting the challenges of 21st Century learning? Many primary schools are doing a fantastic job of providing for 21st Century learners.
- Freeing up attitudes? Do explain, I wonder what you exactly refer to?
I agree that in order for schools to move forward, a larger and better attempt at collaboration is required. There is still a sense of competition around and we will never have a system that works well for all students if schools are pitted against each other.
It would be good to see schools of similar understandings and with similar cohorts share best practice from not just close geographic areas but from across the country. The logistics of this are not so easy to overcome, but it is possible, and it has been done.
There is merit in the schools with great boards to work alongside boards whom struggle – but managing this would need to be done carefully – a proper model discussed with the sector and endorsed by them – otherwise it will not work and will create more loser and winner schools.
A small caution about ICT – people tend to forget the large tail in this area as well. There needs to be a proper investment in this area – schools with difficult cohorts struggle enough to ensure that students needs are catered for and spend an inordinate amount of money on staffing and resources to support students just to stay in school, be behaviourally safe and to begin to be successful academically. Many of the families these children come from do not have the ICT resources at home – many are lucky to have a cell phone – and if its got any money on it – thats a bonus. There is a big gap between the kids who have and the kids who have not – and this never seems to be addressed. Schools try hard to plug this gap – but when resourcing for ICT is limited and the ops grant needs to go on supporting kids to be at school – then there is a big inequity in distribution of IT resources. Fundraising is not an option for many schools either.
I think there will be great buy in from the sector as long as they are consulted about policy and it is something that undoes the harm currently being caused – on the bright side – as long as Tolley is in education – your team has a shot at winning over education vote!
I agree it’s time for a review. While some schools are working as great learning communities from the board down, many are not. Many schools are discriminating against disabled students and those with special educational needs because they are not prepared to review their own attitudes, school cultures and teaching. Under the self-managing Tomorrow’s Schools model there is little incentive to do this, especially for high decile schools.
After 20 years it is very timely that a major review of the so called “Tomorrow’s School” is undertaken. I would suggest that your figure of 30% of schools not having boards of good quality is far too low regardless of the spin that comes out from NZSTA. I suggest that there is a huge gap between the views and opinions of the enthusiasts in NZSTA, and what actually happens in schools around the country. Many claims were made in 1989 of the benefits that would accrue from the changes, but has a major review ever been undertaken to substantiate these claims?
Where a school does have a good board, that only exists until the next election cycle when it is ‘back to the drawing board”. In my experience, the bulk of school governance is carried by principals and office staff. To be fair to BOT members, they have been given a huge responsibility, which keeps increasing with each new NAG. This which makes no allowance for the fact that they are volunteers trying to do the best for the school, in spite of having their own working and personal lives to deal with. If my memory is correct, the original Picot Report that kick started all this allowed for BOT members to be paid to meet during the day, not as volunteers in the evenings.
Further to this, the rapid changes in schooling required for the 21st century are keeping teaching staff busy enough, trying to ensure that curriculum delivery meets the needs of the children. If it is difficult for those in schools, then it is clearly difficult for the wider community to develop that understanding. In spite of this, we are asking them to sit in governance positions on school boards, to make decisions that will affect children for the rest of their lives, without the understanding of the educational issues. While the old education boards system would be far more unworkable and undesirable, it is timely to look for a different model that retains the best of the present system yet works far more efficiently. Far too much valuable time and effort is spent by BOTs and principals on accountability and other non-educational issues, which impacts on the the time and energy available for the real job – providing the best possible 21st century education for the children. The time has come for a major rethink!
Possibly some soft federations, some a bit harder and maybe even groupings of schools located around a region or even the country that share philosophy, direction, and even executive leadership.
Interesting idea. Sounds like what Allan Peachey was advocating in What’s Up with Our Schools. Perhaps you guys can find common ground?
Didn’t it occur to you Tim that these issues did occur to them in government? Doesn’t mean that they had time to do the necessary research, development and legislation to implement them.
It wasn’t an aggressive question DTB. I would have thought with the many hundreds of policy analysts across the Ministry of Education, Treasury and other education bodies that if there is ever a time to do the research and analysis it is when you are in government. Which is why I assumed that given Mr Mallard was part of a government for nine years, these conclusions didn’t occur to Mr Mallard otherwise he would have advanced them when in Government.
The point of my post wasn’t “why didn’t you do it over nine long years”. It’s about the conservativism of government and whether the monopoly of advice from the public service may stifle innovation in policy development.
I haven’t read it, but from what I’ve heard if you are interested in this sort of thing Trevor then you ought to read Ivan Illich’s Deschooling Society.
Raven – read it years ago might have another look. Might apply a bit more to earlier posts.
And Tim it was an area that we thought about and developed policy on in government – put a lot of resources into board training and interventions. but I think that the 20 year mark is a good time for more fundamental review.
Institutions tend to be conservative be they public or private. In fact I’d say private ones are more conservative than public ones. This latter may have something to do with having elections every three years.
Boards of Trustees are redundant. Their role has now been so narrowly prescribed – and in the end they are just the whipping boys if the school does not shape up on the league table or if they have a mishap of some kind.
The Ministry of Education has over the years made the School Trustees and their Association dance to their tune in perfect time.
Yes Trevor, review Tomorrow’s Schools by all means but don’t start with these volunteer parents. Start with the Education Review Office – a story of shame if ever there was one. Masters of hindsight, amateurs of foresight! Most schools can tell what kind of review they can get at the first encounter? Independent?
Tomorrow’s Schools is now a ritualistic nonsense. Political claptrap. And it is the agents of the state – Minister, Ministry, Education Review Office, School Trustees Association that have been dancing to the same tune – and taking us all on a joyride.
Tolley in the House today tried to claim that Parents supported the changes to the National Standards, this is a lie.
http://tumeke.blogspot.com/2009/11/education-minister-fails.html
Trevor’s been talking to the NZEI and PPTA who are adamantly campaigning against tomorrow’s schools. The unions don’t like being subservient to parents and other “outsiders” who sit on boards, they want to promote their educational elitism by turning back the clock to the days when the Ministry ran everything and it was all a closed shop even more than it is now.
Swampy. I would be surprised if parent boards are the main issue for NZEI and PPTA. Parents support their kids in most cases and support the teachers in doing so. No, it is the government and education bureaucracy they should target as Richard indicates above. Boards of Trustees are on a very short leash. Something needs to be done about the ineffective and self-serving infrastructure.
Tomorrows Schools. A step back and away from what had been the mainstay of NZ education.
If you remember it was Lange (who was frustrated in not being able to get his daughter’s teacher sacked ), who changes the system. He openly admitted this on National Radio a few years ago after he was out of office.
One of the reasons given at the time of implementation was the saving of money in ditching the Education Boards. Lange also admitted in the same radio interview that it ended up costing them much more with the new system. ( Tomorow’s Schools )
His personal beef with the teacher festered as he tried to get his own way. In his words, he tried to get rid of her through the system and found he couldn’t so the answer was to change the system.
Picot who was a private school walla, helped Lange work out a system to replace Educations Boards and change the role of School Committees to a group of parents with more power.
This would of course suit some of the other cabinet Ministers at the time who were right into reducing Government such as the infamous Douglas and others who has shown their true colours since..
In closing down Education Boards they managed to succeed in getting rid of all the people who new how to run education and every aspect of schools. ( another Lange admission ) Holes were left everywhere including truancy tracking which lay open for many years.
The Education Board’s School Inspectorate were the managers of Teacher and Principal performance. Any weakness in a school was dealt with professionally and swiftly. Teachers or Principals could be supported, sent to courses of which there were many, mentored or transferred, as necessary. Some were eased back to a level where their competence was better fitted.
Teaching positions were based on grading and a strict procedure at Education Board level. No cronyism as we see today or a Principal’s fancy.
Lange did some good things but his folly was Education.
The Education Boards employed Professionals of the highest calibre selected from experienced Principals to act as their Inspectors. Schools were assigned to a small team of inspectors who helped with management and guidance within the school so frequent contact was normal. Every three years an independent team of inspectors went through the school and every class room not only noting and advising but reporting to the parents through the elected school committee. Teacher also were inspected individually for appraisal in the form of grading. This grading was used for job application and so was documented with a rating and comments is various areas of professional achievement.
All gradings as they were known, went through a comparison process with others throughout NZ so reliability of standards were secure. Inspectors were not always enjoyed but they did a great job for schools.
Schools were supplied with equipment and extra could be bought at minimal cost due to economies of scale. Curriculum Advisers in each Education Board area visited schools as well as responding to requests.
In service training was run by Ed Boards and gave teachers a great opportunity to attend a variety of courses and mix with teachers from other school thus an important cross fertilisation of ideas and practices were shared and mentored. National courses were also run with Educations Boards collaborating.
School buildings were maintained by Educations Boards with their own expert staff managing all work. ……………And much much more.
All that has been lost and the quality of decisions surrounding school management has dropped accordingly.
Village politics has entered the running of schools which are becoming political footballs.
Principals spend a lot of time organising and pandering to Boards of lay people with their own unqualified opinions on how things should be done.
Favouritism and local choice in recruiting staff means the best staff are not always selected and variety of mindsets is diminished. Ghetto mentality can prevail.
The puppet body STA is a joke. School Boards are meant to be a Parent / Staff partnership but STA is doing what National has told them to do and backed Govt’s present folly. The two unions have extreme difficulty working with STA with its political bias.
Advice given to Boards by STA on employment matters is often wrong and incomplete with little regard to negotiated employment agreements.
ERO is very destructive with its published reports. Schools spend too much time and effort keeping all the paperwork right for ERO. ERO is not designed to assist schools and promulgate development.
Parents do not have the expertise or experience in education at a professional level.
I am not knocking parents and their point of view but the weaknesses of this system has been well known from its application in the US where the model was borrowed from.
The greatest thing about Tomorrows Schools for a Govt is that schools are divided. STA is captured by the MOE. Parents and BOTs have very limited options outside of STA.
Education Boards fought for funding changes and were a powerful lobby for schools.
They were elected by School Committees who were made up of parent voted in by local school elections.
A democratic system with solid structures and clout.
We were sold a lemon by a man with personal problems as much as I like other things he achieved for NZ.
Actually John W – while the ‘old system’ has its merits, there were plenty of downfalls as well (rose coloured glasses anyone?) – I dont think we want to go back to a system where principals have no say over who gets placed in their schools, or back to a completly centralised system (esp in terms of some of the donkeys who head parts of this system)where you can not even decide what kind of resources you buy or what colour you school roof can be.
I do not disagree re the issues with bots – they are laypeople and sometimes people with hidden agendas get elected and its a shambles (or worse still, people who have NO idea) – but scrapping them to go back to the ‘old days’ is not the answer either.
Paul your point concerning Principals is taken. There is tremendous pressure on Principals with the new system and little support.
This also has another edge for staff and appointments of both Principal and staff.
Things should change for the better with time if there is political will to do this. Addressing desirable change needs to be an ongoing task.
The point being that change should be made for better education of children in a fair and well managed system. Continuity is an issue and professional leadership sits with the Principal in many schools at present. Staff needs are often subservient to a busy Principals goals.
It is teacher’s who make a difference for the kids and that should not be forgotten.
Select and train them well, provide widely based professional leadership and opportunity, resource adequately and above all recognise how the best can be drawn for the personal strength present.
People are different naturally and a range of abilities, ages, experience and differences is healthy in school staffing.
Business management culture is hardly applicable to our schools.
@JOhn – I don’t entirely disagree with what you say – however, schools, while not for profit, are also not for loss as well, and the modern principal needs to not only be an excellent practioner, but have the ability to manage the administrative aspects. THe most impt skill they bring should be about people and relationships becauses schools and the community they serve are very diverse places.
A big concern is the appt of principals – we are going to see a real crisis in princpalship soon as most principals are in the over 56 age bracket – with many due to retire. Not only do we need to start to groom potential leaders (and Lab were doing some good work around this) but we also need to make sure that the appt of principals is a more robust process. There is still a massive glass ceiling in terms on woman principals – for some stupid reason bots seem to think that the bloke will be better at behaviour mangtment, will play ’sport’ with the kids and generally be better. This mindset is just rubbish – and it needs to be addressed. At least the ‘old’ system took the people who would be good for the job and make it happen – I don’t know how in todays world this can be fixed – it will be interesting.
paul couldnt agree more but I wonder if we have to be careful of taking great teachers and making them Principals? Great teachers ought to be teaching and paid accordngly, so that they dont see Principal as the only way to “advance”.
In french legal system, in a nutshell, lawyers choose if they want to go into practising or into judiciary, they are then trained accordingly. Maybe we could look at doing that, if we are not already?
Paul and Tracy – I agree with what you have said and there are many concerns. Perhaps a perfect system will never be designed. Change is often based on what seems to need attention with any current system.
There is danger of patchwork with such approaches.
The view from any role within schools provides insight to some of the perceived barriers experienced. The picture changes with a shift in roles as much as it can moving from school to school.
After BOT Governance coming into being in 1989 there was a change in appointment emphasis.
BOTs had little means of referencing the qualities of applicants and it was common for written evidence provided by the applicant to hold much weight in the selection process. The person who could sell them self well often was successful. Being good at your job was no longer how you succeeded with your career.
Although BOTs may invite other Principals to assist in appointment processes unfortunate outcomes can and have occurred.
The thorough system of Education Board grading gave more objectivity and the appointment processes were monitored by union representatives and school committee representatives. Actual school Committees were also invited to comment on initial selections before they were confirmed.
The observation of preference for a male Principal at some schools really just reinforces the need for thorough appointment criteria based on track record rather than salesman ship or strange local preferences
I have also seen the opposite where a lesser qualified candidate was given preference over a more successful and experienced applicant because of the gift of the gab and the personal activism of 2 BOT members on the appointments committee. In spite of a lot of support being given, the new Principal was unable keep a good school running and rolls dropped. Eventually she resigned and left teaching. Meanwhile the very disappointed candidate finished his Career in a smaller school having missed his chance. A tragedy for all involved including other staff hundreds of children. That case would never have happened under an Education Board.
The high number of younger Principals appointed at one stage do present a different problem. As their time has moved along many of them find little chance to move up to larger schools because of the dynamics of appointment.
Young, male, smooth talking and I suspect sporty is the image.
The best person for the job should be the only criteria and that is very difficult to achieve objectively.
The grading system used by Education Boards now long gone has not been replaced with another objective system of comparison.
Training for Principals to be was given more depth by Education Boards who could seconde promising prospects to temporary positions for experience. They would be assisted and monitored. Courses were run by the inspectorate on a variety of facets of leadership and administration. Some Ed Boards also set up middle management groups under the wing of the inspectorate. These groups were in training and exploring various styles over several years.
Advisory groups to the District Senior Inspector dealing with curriculum, special education, intermediate schools, science, use of computers and many other centres of interest; gave feedback and often direction from the practicing teachers. Interchange of staff between schools was also arranged to promote new approaches.
The new role of Principal in Tomorrows schools is not without difficulties and massive loss of previous support .
It may not be so evident to a busy Principal but staff also have less opportunity for training and schools are more isolated from each other.
I am not intending to criticise present practices as Staff in schools do a terrific job. New responsibilities are dumped onto schools each day by all and sundry.
The point you make Tracy about good teachers ( often the best ) leaving the classroom for administration is very real. Some are ready to change their role and are well equipped to do that. Other move on for financial advancement and do not always enjoy the stress.
Some Principals find difficulty with their BOT or factions represented and their functioning as Principal is compromised. Getting out of such situation is difficult and chances of moving to a new school very much diminished with today’s system. Popularity or the reverse with sections of the community may have nothing to do with managing a school well but certainly can affect future employment prospects. Similarly a staff member who drops out of favour with a Principal for what ever reason, can find future job prospects elsewhere unlikely.
In the past successful Principals and good leaders with high professional standing could move into the Inspectorate and use their influence across the local school system. This helped to make spaces for upcoming Principals and gave the profession a further level.
Now ERO provides a few places in an narrow and unpopular role.
The Ministry of Education has not really appeared in discussion so far. Perhaps comment on that would be of interest.
I have mention many things above as Trevor was in teaching for a while but may not have had lot of exposure to some of the Education Board functions.
One of the other issues I think is that there is such a competitive model nowadays that isolates principals further – not too mention the whole high vs low decile issue.
In saying that, there are some very very good principals – and a number of gen x coming through that are going to breathe a great breath of fresh air into the profession.
@Tracey – I hear your point, but not all great teachers are also ok for principalship – but the ones that are interested, and the ones that are ready should be trained by their principal and senior team – a great teacher with leadership and people skills are the best to get into principalship as they transition from a player role into a coaching role. Its the good coach that makes the difference on a team, and a good coach is usually someone who knows (in education terms) what good teaching looks like with a great knowledge of curriculum.
@John – true re the gift of the gab – and then they get the job and fail. Worse I think are the bots that promote very very young and inexperienced teachers – they are setting them up for failure. Esp when they actually dont have the experience in the curriculum to know what best practice looks like. I know a guy who was appointed principal of a small rural school in the North – he was also a beginning teacher but the community knew him (he had lived there most of his life – older and got retrained) and thought he would be good. I remember him telling me that he was now a beginning principal who was also not fully registered because of being a beginning teacher. NOW that is just plain stupid and an example of the failings of our system as it currently stands. And there are plenty of examples.