 |
| Time for a new wave of change! |
In the 1980s a new political ideology
swept through Anglo American countries. It was a time of dramatic change as the
democratic welfare state was replaced by
what has come to be known as a ‘Market Forces business oriented’
approach based on
small government, valuing self-interest, privatisation, competition, choice and
accountability. This neo liberal approach was believed to be the only way to
cope with dramatic worsening worldwide economic circumstances. A common phrase
at the time was TINA (there is no alternative).
New Zealand was not immune. The recently elected Labour
Government led by David Lange was influenced by finance minister Roger Douglas
and the Treasury. ‘Thatcherism’ in the UK, ‘Reaganism’ in the US and ‘Rogernomics’
in New Zealand – continued by National’s Ruth Richardson and alive but not so
well today!
The new ideology was applied across
the public service and education was not immune.
In 1986 an ‘earthquake ‘hit education
in the form of ‘Tomorrows Schools’; following the publication of the Picot
Report self-managing schools were born.
 |
| Cathy Wylie |
Cathy answers the questions: What was
the real effect of ‘Tomorrows Schools’? Has the New Zealand Schools system
improved as a result? And what changes are needed now to meet our expectations
of schools?
People who were principals during the
transition (as I was) will find the book enlightening and younger principals
will learn that a lot of shared wisdom was lost in the process.
It is interesting to find that New
Zealand was the only country to take self-managing schools to such extremes of
local control and now Cathy believes that we have ‘made self-management into a
barrier’ if we want all students to be treated equitably. Keep in mind our growing ‘achievement
gap’.
The impression given at the time was
that the then system was too bureaucratic, too centralised, to allow school flexibility
and initiative.
An early chapter Principals focuses on the situation before ‘Tomorrows Schools’.
Contrary to the myth being spread by those propagating change schools enjoyed considerable latitude in
comparison to other education systems. They had on-going connections with the inspectorate, the
local advisers and curriculum experts in the Department of Education and
teachers often belonged to networks of teachers developing and trialling new
ideas.
Inspectors and advisers could
‘connect individual teachers with expertise ….. They knew where good practice was occurring…they
could identify and encourage talent’. All schools had liaison inspectors and
inspectors arranged for teachers to visit other schools and to develop and
share ideas. As a result there was a healthy cross fertilisation of ideas. As Cathy writes ‘they could connect the
dots’ and ‘foster collective strengths of teachers working together’.
An OECD report in the early 80s was
full of praise for existing educational provisions and did not find people
wanting dramatic changes and was impressed with the engaging and active
learning that keeps children motivated to learn. New Zealand students do well and
still do, in international testing
But there were shortcomings. There
was no national systematic way to support schools. The locally elected Education Boards
looked after property and finance while inspectors focused on educational
issues. Both were involved in principal and teacher appointment. There was
growing concern with the failure rate of Maori students, communities were not
fully involved with their schools and a growing number of students were not
being catered for in secondary schools as students we were encouraged( by lack of jobs) to stay
at school longer.
Education Boards and inspectors
disappeared in the change and advisers placed with College Of Educations (later Universities) and employed on
contract. In the process connections and
collective wisdom was lost.
So where was the bureaucracy and over
centralisation that was blocking the initiative and creativity of the system? It was in the regulations to do with
staffing, with property and with resources for teaching. ’Tomorrows Schools
certainly had its attraction when it came to these issues. Responsibility for
such areas really appealed to principals.
‘Tomorrows Schools’ would tackle
bureaucracy but this came at a price. Key interconnections were lost. Schools
and Boards were on their own and this would create winners and losers.
An overseas observer described the
New Zealand approach as the ‘earthquake method of educational reform’. Teacher unions were excluded.
Changes were less to do with educational reasons but with political determination
to restructure the economy and the role of the state. David Lange, as Minister
of Education, at least did not allow education vouchers or privatisation to be
part of the mix.
It seems there was not much thought
given to the infrastructure needed to support the self-management of schools
and the sharing of useful ideas. The general tenor was that schools were to be
left to make their own decisions.
What eventuated was at best
‘fragmented freedom’. Schools in ‘better’ environments had the local expertise
to do well but self-management was ‘sown on uneven ground’. Principals and BOTs learnt ‘by the
seat of their pants’ and became occupied with compliance and the ‘demanding
twins’ of property and finance issues and less a focus on teaching and
learning. Competition between schools –
the result of an emphasis on parent choice had unfortunate effects. Some
schools ‘had the upper hand’. As a result self-management put one’s own school
first.
The years that followed were
demanding as the Ministry chopped and changed to keep schools viable. It was an era of ‘CRAP’ as the Ministry and ERO ‘continually revised
all procedures’ Charters came and went. Strategy and annual plans were
introduced. Growing problems with failing schools resulted in a number of
safety net interventions. The introduction of the New Zealand Curriculum was
rolled (and NZCEA in secondary schools) added to the confusion. Schools were
clustered but schools took only what they needed. ERO were ‘the watchdog and
scold’. The new curriculum with its endless objectives, and arbitrary levels,
was a ‘mile wide and an inch deep’ but conscientious teachers did their best to
tick off objectives taught. ERO ensured they complied.
And for all this, the very students,
who were to be saved by self-management, still continued to fail. Literacy tasks forces were
established and Numeracy projects, and other ad hoc projects, to try to help
failing students.
Benign bureaucracy had been replaced
by fragmentation – out of the frying pan
into the fire! ERO and
the Ministry worked in isolation. The Ministry has become risk averse. It needs
a more effective engagement with schools but there is no longer the trust necessary.
The ‘too hasty and undercooked’
National Standards, a throwback to earlier days, are being imposed – the worse sort of centralisation
and schools were bullied into supplying their data to the Ministry. Ironically schools that resisted were
showing initiative and developing the creative programmes (based on the revised
Labour introduced 2007 New Zealand Curriculum) that underpinned the ethos of
self-managing schools. On the horizon lie league tables and national
testing – issues that will narrow the curriculum and encourage teachers to
teach to the tests and down play the creative arts. What is to be measured will become the measure
– will become the default curriculum.
The time has come for fresh thinking.
We ought not to have asked schools to stand alone without being part of a
supportive school district. Other countries have shown the success of supportive
infrastructures to both support and share ideas. Schools can no longer work in
isolation reinventing the wheel – too many schools ‘do not know what they do
not know’.
The current focus on school failure,
the ‘achievement gap’, has increased markedly as a result of market forces
ideology which has widened the ‘winner loser’ gap. Schools can always do better but
can only be truly successful if a more communal narrative (ideology) replaces
the current emphasis on self-interest.
Cathy concludes her book with some
hard hitting recommendations.
Schools need to ensure all students
succeed to realise their unique set of gift and talents, equipped with the
learning competencies to thrive in the uncertain times ahead. ‘The current New
Zealand schooling system,’ Wylie writes, ‘cannot meet these expectations’. We have not been able to make the
best about self-managing schools…..Tomorrows Schools has certainly enhanced
school initiative…..(but) on their own they are not sufficient to improve
educational opportunities and outcomes across the board…..it has been too uneven.
It has yet to reach all students. Our
system lacks the national and local infrastructure of connections to share and
keep building effective teaching practices so that schools can do what we ask
of them…The Ministry has largely played a hands off role’ providing one
size fits all solutions relying on ensuring schools comply to regulations..
Between 16 to 20% of schools struggle each year’.
Schools need the’ opportunity to
learn from their peers in other schools…There is an unmet need for cross fertilisation
that the inspectors and advisers once played, such as arranging inter-school visits so that
teachers and principals can see more effective practices and have the
opportunity to discuss how these practices work, how to bring about change’.
‘We need a fresh approach. We need to
construct a network of education authorities that support and challenge schools….in
ways that make more of the schools than schools can make of themselves – ways that
nurture the capacity of schools to self-manage. ‘We haven’t the time or the
money to reinvent the wheel.’
The current fragmentation of
government agencies are counterproductive. ‘The past 33 years have shown limitations of
positioning each school as a separate island. It will be connections that
increase the effectiveness of our schools.’
What is needed is ‘integrate the key strengths of what was lost with Tomorrows Schools….This
means more than tweaking our current structures and ways of doing things. It
means changes in the government agencies and some changes for schools and
boards… I suggest more challenging
support at the local level, more connections to share and build knowledge and
more coherence between the different layers of the schooling system.’
Such connected infrastructures will
make real difference.’
We have the experience and knowledge now to create the more dynamic schooling
system that our children need. It is time to give all our self-managing schools
the vital connections, support and challenge they need to succeed.’
(To appreciate the full message best
to read the book particularly the recommendations)
