An atmosphere of expectancy always surrounds the NZPF Moot. It is the once a year opportunity for all regional presidents to bring their views, debate them with their colleagues and learn from each other. Hearing views from the regions also helps position the work of the NZPF National Executive. This year the theme of the Moot was the Tomorrow’s Schools Review. As is traditional, the Moot was opened by NZPF Kaumatua, Haterei Temo and chaired by award winning journalist and television presenter, Jehan Casinader. Casinader is no stranger to NZPF events and was also chair of the 2018 Moot. In his opening statement, he observed: ‘Just as the last Moot was opened, the Minister was announcing the Tomorrow’s Schools Review. I asked what should this look like? How fast should it progress? Who will it serve?’ These were pertinent questions and helped shape the conversations that followed. According to the Task Force, the Tomorrow’s Schools Review was prompted by the following key points: The system is working for some but not the most disadvantaged. ■■ There is no evidence to say that self-governing schools have helped [the disadvantaged]. ■■ The gap between the highest and lowest achievers has widened. ■■ There is a lack of connectedness between schools. ■■ There are isolated successes but these are not systemic. ■■ Structural and cultural changes are needed and tinkering won’t be enough. ■■
Minister Hon Chris Hipkins addresses the Moot delegates
Whetu Cormick, President of NZPF was the first official speaker to address the gathering saying that the day would be devoted to debating issues associated with Tomorrow’s Schools. He confirmed many of the key points prompting the Review saying: ‘The position we are in now is plagued with inequities, driven by competition, gravely underfunded and overwhelmed by the effects of an inclusion policy which was implemented without appropriate supports. As a profession we are now facing high stress and burnout and our work as professionals has become greatly under-valued. Our job has become steadily more complex and for some, an impossible job to do well.’ He went on to explain that the decile system of equity funding also had negative effects creating a drift of students from low to high decile schools. Low decile schools had lower rolls, with fewer resources and higher proportions of students requiring higher levels of learning support, whilst high decile schools were flourishing. This, he said, resulted in the perverse belief that the decile number was a measure of quality. We also find, he said, that our Māori and Pasifika students have not flourished in this system and we continue to find examples of racism and bias. Schools have not become more culturally responsive or culturally sustaining. He then looked to the Review Report and its recommendations for Governance changes through the introduction of hubs and asked his audience whether they envisaged that hubs would successfully provide for learning support needs, curriculum & assessment and business advisory services, leadership advice, evaluation of schools, employment and appraisal of principals and if they did, whether this would make a difference to equity of learning outcomes? These, he said, were some of the questions he hoped would result in answers by the end of the day.
Time to get down to debating the issues
NZPF President, Whetu Cormick (left ) and Te Akatea President, Miles Ferris (second left) enjoy a moment together with Moot delegates
Minister Chris Hipkins Minister Hipkins opened his address cautiously. ‘There is still deep cynicism about collaboration and consultation,’ he proffered, ‘because you think that Governments decide and just give you the chance to complain.’ To prove that his Government does not behave like that, he continued, ‘We won’t always get it right the first time. We are asking you to design and then redesign. As Minister, I will continue to change when needed. We will only realise our potential when everyone is pointing in the same direction, with a common sense of purpose. Only then can we make meaningful change that will last.’ To demonstrate his sincerity, he pointed out that before he was Minister the profession had sent him some clear expectations. They wanted rid of national standards and charter schools. Once he became Minister, his first job was abolishing both. ‘We do genuinely listen and want to collaborate with you,’ he said. He briefly summarised the process of the past eighteen months in reviewing Tomorrow’s Schools emphasising the collaborative and inclusive nature of the conversations and the breadth of the topics discussed. Trying to re-engage the sector in constructive debate he said, ‘My single plea is I generally find it easy to hear what you don’t support, but I am not hearing what you do support . . . I accept everyone is dissatisfied with the status quo, but there’s no point in a response that just knocks any suggestions for change. We need to work in a collaborative way and work out what good change might look like.’ He pointed out that he has heard the sector’s comments about workload and wellbeing. ‘We have put half a billion dollars, so far, into learning support. We have also put $217 million aside for the roll out of SENCOs,’ he said. The Minister did not shy away from one of the most challenging issues ahead –the desire for parents to know how their kids are
doing. A curriculum, progress and achievement task force has been meeting for several months but the Minister was very clear that their task is not easy. ‘[we want] YOU to tell us what progress tracking is. We need some objective information as well as formative assessment, but we DON’T want the compliancebased assessment we have had in the past.’ He also had a message for principals on employing teachers. ‘The number of beginning teachers on fixed term contracts is unacceptable,’ he said. ‘We must take collective responsibility to support beginning teachers or we won’t have experienced ones.’ He acknowledged that the entry levels for training may need to be reviewed and said he was working with the Teaching Council to address that issue. ‘In all of these processes, I want to hear from you,’ he said. ‘My intention is to engage collaboratively with you in our decision making.’ The Minister took questions from the regional presidents as follows: Question The training needs of overseas teachers is significant. Primary schools get 0.1 for ten weeks whilst secondary schools get 0.1 for twenty weeks. Why the discrepancy? Answer Recruiting from overseas is not my first preference. It’s training NZ teachers but we have to start somewhere and that takes time. I will look at the inequity that you raise and the difference between primary and secondary. Question Policy development occurring through the Tomorrow’s Schools Review shows a focus on two learning pathways – Māori medium and mainstream. To future proof the education system we need to ensure that we look at the diversity of cultures [we have in Aotearoa New Zealand]. Samoan, Tongan, French and more, but
these have no voice in recent documents. There are inequities where Māori teachers are remunerated for their skills, but this doesn’t flow across to Samoan and others. I believe we must not miss these opportunities and make sure we are not just focused on Māori and mainstream. Answer Minister Jenny Salesa is working on Pacific Island languages and that needs more work. That is part of the Budget process now. I’ve been doing work on national languages with the National party spokesperson on Education, Nikki Kaye. The resources for Māori medium are small relative to English medium. English medium resources can be produced by the private sector and Māori resources are not financially viable so we need to look at that. We have a particular responsibility for Māori as our indigenous language. Question [On the subject of] supporting teachers as they come into our schools, a mentor teacher gets time and money to invest in coaching and mentoring as well as release time to spend with them. Modules are useful but we also need time so that the mentors can build the role. That’s what grows the teachers. Answer We put money into the Auckland teachers project and retention from that is high so we are looking at expanding that. It’s a good model but there are huge gaps and we need to learn what works Question What is the future of Communities of Learning (CoL)? There are competing tensions between time, energy and funding.
Answer My view is unchanged. Collaboration is great and we want to see more at every level. I’m not convinced CoL is the best model – that salaries are the best way to drive collaboration. We’ve made no decisions or delved into them yet. Tomorrow’s Schools is first and they will follow. It’s premature to do anything right now. Question On restraint, surely the intention was not to censure a teacher for guiding a child to their seat, or to pick up crayons. There are 1,000 who need mental health services in Northland and we have nothing. What is being done about that? Answer I absolutely hear that the [Restraint] committee got it wrong. I am convinced it is not operating as it needs to. There is fear about what you can and can’t do. We have to fix that. I had a letter this morning from a school teacher concerned that they can only restrain when [a child] is harming themselves or others. So in the case of trashing a classroom, you remove the rest of kids and let them [trash the classroom]. I don’t agree. We have to get the Crimes Act and the Education Act aligned. I acknowledge that is not working. Question My prob is there is no funding review. We can’t consider [changes] without knowing the full core costs of running schools. We buy Teacher Aides with parent donations. We’ve had three reviews in the last twelve years and no change to the policy. Secondly, I have two teachers going through arduous retraining and it’s a joke. They could teach better than most so why are they retraining? They were registered and now want to be relievers.
ARE YOU COVERED FOR WINTER? THE BEST LONG TERM ROOF SOLUTION
MAKE THE RIGHT CHOICE
“Uniport Limited have been a fantastic company to work with – honest, on time, affordable and great communication. We highly recommend Uniport for your School”
• Affordable, cost effective • Walkways, classroom verandahs • Extend your usable classroom space • Protection from Sun and Rain – for Staff & Students
+ SO MUCH MORE . . .
• Outdoor Learning Environments • Strong, NZ Engineered Frame for high winds & snow • Safe & strong polycarbonate roofing • Nationwide Installation outside of school hours
Megan England Ngaere School Stratford
High School Canteen Cover
UNIQUE | AFFORDABLE | SAFE SOLUTIONS
CALL TODAY
| 0800 864 767 | sales@uniport.co.nz | www.uniport.co.nz
Answer The job of Tomorrow’s Schools is also funding, and deciding whether it is enough. The biggest debate in politics at present is tax. If you want more funding, encourage tax revenue! Question Thinking about Māori students. Russel Bishop says that this review of Tomorrow’s Schools won’t help Māori students. What is your view on this? Answer There are Māori strategies and good approaches that work well. Te Kotahitanga is one, for example, although Mere Berriman says the answer is not one single programme and this area will need more money. This is high priority for me and you will see that when the Budget comes out. Question My question is about support for overseas teachers. We were informed there is a contract with Otago Uni. Aside from not knowing the NZ curriculum these teachers don’t know our culture. They struggle with our Māori and Pasifika students. I thought one person assigned to cultural training is insufficient. We need much more of this. Answer Yes, there is a bunch of Kiwi teachers who need this too and we need to get on with it. We need more Māori and Pacific Island teachers as well. Scholarships and other incentives have been undersubscribed, although that is shifting now. I want to do more in that space. The lack of cultural competency can’t just be sheeted home to overseas teachers. It is all teachers. Question No one puts their hand up to lead a CoL. We are on a lot of things. When people criticise the money going to leaders they need to realise it’s an impossible task. I do both jobs 24/7. Answer I understand that. I’m not criticising people who are doing the work or what they are paid but others want more flexibility about how the money is spent. It isn’t sustainable that people do two jobs. As is traditional at Moots, the President of the Te Akatea Māori Principals’ Association speaks to the regional presidents. This year, Miles Ferris had some hard-hitting messages for his audience. Here is what he had to say: Miles Ferris – President of Te Akatea The purpose of the reviews has not worked for Māori and still doesn’t. Reviews result in policies that continue to enforce assimilation. You all have Māori kids in your schools. You may well think your Māori kids are doing fine but are they fluent in te reo? Do you know? Back in the day our tamariki were hit for speaking te reo and so didn’t value te reo. So the next generation lost it. If a Māori child cant recite their pipiha they are not succeeding. Do your Māori students see themselves as culturally valued in your school? Culture is an engrained part of your school, so how is the Treaty valued in your school? Are you upholding the values and truths of the Treaty? Do your children know Māori history? Do they know that our fathers would take care of the babies, raise and teach them and carried them on their backs when they went to work. Are you promoting male Māori as loving and kind? Think of your view of a Māori man. Society does not have a positive view of Māori
men. Māori success as Māori is hard to understand but it will not be fostered in mainstream. We need true bicultural schools so we can become multi-cultural. Educational conversations are about what is not successful for Māori. Our current society is racist and it’s reflected in our schools. There are many statistics to prove it. We will, as Te Akatea, challenge a racist system. We all support improvements for Māori. We will not back down and so we call for our own Māori education system. We expect that call will be honoured. The Moot organisers recognised that it would be helpful for the regional presidents to hear directly from the authors of the Tomorrow’s Schools Review report and invited Chair of the Task Force, Bali Haque and a member of the Task Force, Cathy Wylie to outline the review and answer questions about their report. Bali Haque and Cathy Wylie We are committed to reviewing the recommendations in the report, which is due to the Minister at the end of April [subsequently changed to June]. We are committed to making changes if you recommend them. Our job was to review the current system. We wanted to scale up the good stuff. We believe there is a gap in the system and that is currently filled with regional Ministry offices. That doesn’t work. We know that. They are part of a centralising operation. The Ministry in Wellington is making policy and ten regional offices are implementing it. Schools then do it. Everyone knows the complexities because regional offices don’t know schools. There is a tension for schools. They get frustrated with bureaucracy. The system is top down. We are trying to shift that. Our suggestion is to decentralise the system. If we do things like remove the regional offices and have hubs, which have some degree of decision making because they are crown agencies, we would be scaling down the Ministry in Wellington and devolving more to schools. We know we made some errors. We talked of 125 schools to a hub. We debated whether we should put a number in and so now people think 125 schools? How can that hub work in partnership with schools because we are talking about the hub being nothing like regional offices, DHBs or anything else. We appreciate that there is a fear of bureaucracy because of your previous relationship with the Ministry and that’s not helpful to us. At the beginning of the report we set out the purpose and design of the report. We can’t remain trapped with what is. The system is compliance driven from Ministry offices. I invite you to step up and ask what might be. Whatever the hub is, it’s a trusting model rather than not. You know what we want in the hubs. If we can do that and get hubs close to you and if you trust the people in those hubs to support you then we could spread the changes. We could get schools working together to share ideas. So, when we think about the hub, we express the hub in terms of what we do. Once we describe that, then we can think about how many and how they are configured to fulfil these functions. So how might we get through the next phase? We don’t see a hub as a shining building but as a network of support and the hub would develop organically. Our thinking is that it would take three to five years to develop hubs. Boards would be retained but would share the governance role. On five-year principals’ contracts, we recognise that nobody likes that idea. That is another issue we would look at changing.
Moot participants listen carefully as Bali Haque outlines the major features of the Tomorrow’s Schools Report
The intention was to give principals the chance to move, not have to move. They could re-apply after five years and be re-appointed. Question Why do we need a middle layer? This is assuming that we need another layer. With CoL, another version of forced collaboration, the impact has flowed onto Principals’ Associations. I now know fewer of my colleagues than ever because there is less and less time and less contact opportunity. Now you are suggesting another. Leadership is phenomenal. If you let us come together that’s where the relations will be fostered and develop. A whole other layer is not necessary. Answer All successful education systems are configured similarly. The fundamental idea of having 2,400 schools on their own, with no process to connect across a range of schools, what tends to happen is that some can and some can’t. The middle layer provides systems to enable people to move forward. It would provide business advice, leadership advice, curriculum advice and gives principals more time. In this way the whole network gains. Hubs are not another layer. We are suggesting we get rid of top-down compliance and collaborate and this is the mechanism to do that. Cathy Wylie What will make it work is weaving the interests and talents and drawing on expertise to support leaders. This will mean more time devoted to leadership, lower stress levels and less workload. So, the hub enables far more ways to cope and feed into policy, rather than just having a silo in Wellington. It’s not a layer or a ‘squash down’ thing it’s a fertile ground providing nutrients. We recommend that CoL continue with changes. CoL could
be broadened and we could get a pathway going with more flexibility, so that where you have a common issue to solve, you can work together on it. There would be clusters and CoL would not be as demanding as they were set up to be. Question My question is about parental choice and issues of equity. There is a drift to the higher decile schools. Parents will go to great lengths and we have kids bused all over the place. Private schools have a low share of kids in NZ but would hubs mean parents would then want to support private schools? Answer The section on competition and choice is written carefully. We say choice is important but if it is done in the wrong way you get tensions and might drive perverse outcomes. There is nothing simple in education. It’s always complex we want a situation where some organisation has oversight over what’s happening in communities. At the moment we say one task of the hubs is to take responsibility to ensure the network of schools is well served. The Ministry tries now but there is a lot of interference and it is not effective. We have caps on the number of ‘out of zone’ students you can take. Under the hub system, the hub would examine how zoning impacts on other schools and what percentage of out of zone students is appropriate. That is a process, not a prescription. At the moment public schools compete well with private schools Question [Under the current system] we have ownership and capacity to lead. There is a degree of freedom. Under hubs principals will be employed by hubs. You see hubs working alongside schools but reconcile that idea with the experience of Ministry [regional offices] and with a change of Government. What is the
continual learning system. For the first time there would be a review of the Ministry and a report to parliament so there could be a national discussion and reports to parliament. Question There is a difference between urban and rural s cho ols c omp are d to Auckland. How would that be managed? Secondly, about resourcing, how do we hope to achieve equity? Answer We are conscious that every area is different. We agree that we should never have put a number on the hub. In Southland that[125 Chair of the Tomorrow’s Schools Task Force, Bali Haque, brings the realities of his report to the regional schools] just wouldn’t work. presidents We would have to think mechanism that protects the idea you have about generous and about the configuration for the different areas, what the needs benevolent hubs working with sector? are and what support would be needed. We are thinking there’s Answer got to be co-construction with local people. We are unique and there is no fear of losing autonomy. We To develop capability in rural areas in three to five years we don’t want to go there. The Scottish are talking about giving must get underway with a real workforce strategy. We need to see their principals autonomy. We’ve already got that. If we did this more collaboration in schools and grow potential and leadership. what key things would you lose? We’ve worked hard to make A national achievement analysis to improve learning would also sure principals and Boards have the opportunity to get on and help and we need to give more time to schools to do this work. do their stuff. You ask is there potential for the hub to reach in Changes are needed to equity resourcing. The hard question and tell you what to do. is how to get the analytics right? We realise that we have been One function of the hub is to ensure bad things don’t happen. putting half the resource into equity funding that other OECD There is a huge variety in the quality of boards, but they also countries are putting in. The system is under-resourced. We agree provide support. Protections? The Education Act will have to be trying to do more with the same is difficult. rewritten. If you look at the State Services structure, the current Question Boards are written in especially for schools. We would specify the We desperately need changes to the Learning Support model. role of the hub in the legislation. The role of principals would be You’ve embraced a new model and it is well conceived but there in there and principals would continue to speak out. We say we is an issue in that when we start digging to get the detail it’s not want to be involved in that process so the idea of bureaucracy there. When we find complexity and deeply entrenched needs, running away [with its own agenda] can’t happen. But there is it will cost a huge amount of money. What we need is to design always a danger because Governments can change the law. how to support these needs and the infrastructure to do it. We We have spoken with the National party spokesperson on need the universities on board, the special schools and we need education, Nikki Kaye and we stand a better chance if there is release time. My question is where is the money coming from cross-party support. to do this? Answer Cathy Wylie I agree with everything you’ve said. Resourcing is so hard. The We have recommended that ERO finishes. There is no value in problem is I can’t answer the resourcing question. But I will say ERO doing periodic reviews of schools. I think there is one message screaming at us. People are angry The Education Evaluation Office (EEO) would evaluate and desperate and at their wits end about Learning Support and the hubs. One of the intentions is about relationships and disabilities. co-constructing with you in a helpful way. This will make the There is such a broken system. There will be resourcing but education system richer. That’s a safe guard. So, EEO would that takes determination from both Nikki Kaye and Minister come to schools to see if the hub is connecting and forging those Chris Hipkins to do this. We don’t think we can assume it will relationships. be done. There are so many demands on the money. Another less obvious outcome is that we are reorienting the We think it will be best to implement the Learning Support Ministry of Education to make sure NZC is at the centre. We plan through a phased approach. We don’t want to see cherry are thinking about weaving and how people relate on important picking, but if it’s carefully phased in, the cost pressures are things. There needs to be a regular forum where hubs’ disability alleviated. groups come together. There would be continual review in a
Question I think the report is based on assumptions and not on evidence that says this is the best way. Wh at w i l l hu b s d o to schools? Who will govern the hubs? Will the governance be appointed? Will they be appointed by the Minister? Unless there is massive amounts of funding, we could be worse off. Answer You put us in a difficult position because you want guarantees and we can’t give you that. Where we are now is not sustainable. There is evidence about inequity and schools. What you are saying is, the current Task Force member, Cathy Wylie, listens thoughtfully to the regional presidents’ questions frameworks can fix that. If we keep doing the same thing we will get the same results. This is the point. expertise in this country who want to be good critical friends. We The situation we have at moment, has been generated and said Leadership Advisors would draw on expertise but use hub conditioned over thirty years. Take ERO and compliance, for money to contract in expertise too from universities and other example. The hub view, for us, is about school improvement. experts. There is an opportunity to offer principals pathways into It promotes the hub having a school evaluation role not a systems leadership through revolving roles compliance role as we’ve had with ERO. If we can’t imagine Question possibilities for change its sad. Was building trust part of the new future? Question Answer I think this is a hopeful document. What did wellbeing, success That’s an easy question. The current situation is that we are and engagement mean for the Task Force? in a big hole. The Ministry people have a frame in their head Answer which is not working in schools and we need to make it work I think one prob we have is we don’t have consensus about what in schools. There will be accountabilities to make the Ministry success is. We used to have national standards data and NCEA compliant. We are saying we must get closer to schools. It’s not data but no commonly agreed definition of success. The purpose rocket science it’s about relationships. It’s about knowing and of the EEO is to have that conversation to take to communities understanding your teachers. We propose to create hubs and put and ask what is a successful child? Then they would document people in who understand your school. That can’t be done by a that. That is the first thing that agency would do. We would want centralised system. We don’t currently have a devolved system we schools to provide data on those things which the hubs would have a top down one. That’s why hubs would be crown entities. collect and that would go to the national level. Then we can say Question whether its meeting expectations or not. We need common If schools or CoL are innovating and we have compliance agreement to report to parliament. and accountabilities and funding issues, there are constraints Question and levers. How would we create safeguards for hubs, schools Recommendation 15 says the hubs will ensure there will be and CoL and then how do we measure the system for everyone? special schools. What will their role be? Answer Answer We would ask, how do we know it’s working? Was it a success? The thinking has moved on and special schools have been We would want better information about systemic outcomes, changing. Special schools also work with mainstream schools relationships and processes and the well-being of people working and they are a resource for them. So they are already part of in the system. the system. There will be ways and tools to use. Hubs would have Question discretionary funding. We have retirement happening and need quality leadership There will be continual freedom for schools to do things out of after us. How will the hubs help with that? their own funds, like PLD. With innovation, schools may have Answer to go out on a limb and that sometimes draws criticism which There is a proposed Leadership Centre which would be located makes schools risk averse. within the Teaching Council. The Centre would be working with Question Leadership Advisers in the hubs and supporting them. We have Is it all a pipe dream without the resource?
Answer I think it will need more resourcing. We are releasing resourcing with some of these reforms. We would be disestablishing the regional offices. But it will cost more than that. The main criticism is we don’t have costings but that can’t be worked out till after the consultation phase. You could apply that argument to any reform. Our answer is we will need to be clever and have phased implementation. If there is cross-party agreement, then we can plan for the next three or more election cycles. The Minister gave no constraints. In conclusion, Bali Haque said that one thing about consultation is we will tweak and change some things. We will be saying that this is a network of initiatives that go together. I don’t think you could have a leadership strategy, for example, without the hub. Most of the changes are dependent on having organic hubs. The second half of the day involved the Moot participants debating different aspects of the review and sharing their conclusions with each other. All of this information was analysed and collated into one document which appears below. This feedback, together with the feedback from our NZPF survey, formed the basis of the NZPF submission which you can access from our website: http://www.nzpf.ac.nz/submissions.html Review of Moot Feedback Q1: What are the strengths and weaknesses of the school governance model (Boards of Trustees) introduced through the Tomorrow’s Schools policy of the 1980’s? Weaknesses Many of the weaknesses mentioned are also mentioned in the report: Board members don’t necessarily have the capability or skills to perform the complex duties required. ■■ There can be confusion between the role of governance and the role of management. ■■ Māori and Pacific representation on boards is limited. ■■ Too many schools are not performing at expected levels. ■■
Q2: If Boards of Trustees remained, but with diminished responsibilities, what responsibilities would they retain? In agreement with the report, principals mentioned these responsibilities: Be responsible for local fundraising Provide input and approve the school’s strategic plan ■■ Appointing the principal ■■ ■■
In contrast to the report, or not mentioned in the report, principals mentioned these responsibilities: Budget allocation and management (the report assigns this duty to hubs). ■■ Employment of staff (the report assigns this duty between hubs, boards, and principals). ■■
■■
To support principal hauora.
Two out of five post-it notes and the group answering Q2 during the moot, stated, in agreement with the report, that Boards should provide advice to the principal on matters related to curriculum and assessment. This is in contrast to responses to Q4 on the NZPF’s survey, which found 67.2 per cent of respondents disagreed that ‘Boards of Trustees with diminished responsibilities would provide advice to the principal on matters related to curriculum and assessment.’ This mixed finding is further clarified in Q3 below. The principals answering this question also stated that the boards should not retain: Health and safety compliance. ■■ Contracts: cleaning; IT; maintenance; and principal appraisal. ■■
These points are in agreement with the report.
There were other weaknesses mentioned that were not specifically mentioned in the report:
Q3: What are the pros and cons of Boards of Trustees advising the principal on curriculum and assessment?
Higher socio-economic parents can dominate the board. Boards are being strongly influenced by principals. ■■ The idea that if you ‘pay peanuts, you get monkeys.’
Pros
■■ ■■
Strengths Like the weaknesses, many of the strengths mentioned in the report were also mentioned: Boards represent their communities. ■■ Boards provide a sense of autonomy. ■■ Boards have the freedom to innovate and enact a shared vision. ■■
Other strengths mentioned that were not specifically mentioned in the report: A cheap governance model (although this was mentioned in the report as a weakness). ■■ Board members are motivated to perform their duties well because it affects their child or children. ■■
From the NZPF survey, a total of 37.1 per cent of survey respondents thought the Tomorrow’s Schools model of one school, one Board of Trustees, was not the best governance model and/or the model should be changed. On the other hand, 42.4 per cent thought the Tomorrow’s school model was the best governance model and/or it should not be changed.
Boards provide a different perspective and knowledge (both cultural and localised). ■■ Boards can think about how curriculum decisions impact the students. ■■
Cons Many of the cons mentioned were also mentioned in the report: Boards don’t always represent the make-up of the community (or students). ■■ Boards don’t necessarily have the knowledge, skills, or educational expertise to advise the principal on curriculum and assessment (all four post-it notes, and the group discussing this question during the moot, mentioned this con). ■■ Lack of equity across schools. ■■
There were also cons mentioned that were not mentioned in the report:
It’s a full turn-out of regional presidents for the 2019 Moot
Boards might want assessments that are easier to understand (like quantitative measures), which would be a step backwards for students ■■ The term ‘advising’ here is unclear. How would that be different to partnership and collaboration under the current model? ■■
Q4: Should all schools either retain Boards of Trustees or relinquish them, shifting all current Boards of Trustees responsibilities to the Hubs; or should schools have a choice? The group who answered this question during the moot thought that schools should retain Boards of Trustees, and identified the responsibilities that boards should have (these answers are consistent with what the group who answered Q3 wrote). One post-it note said schools need choice. Another post-it note said ‘all in for everyone,’ presumably meaning that all boards are relinquished. Q7: What are the disadvantages of principals being employed by Hubs, on five-year contracts? This group provided both advantages and disadvantages. Advantages Potential for mutually agreed upon changes for principals ■■ Potential to share good practices (as mentioned in the report). ■■
Disadvantages 5 years is not long enough to create sustainable change. Instability and big life changes for principals. ■■ Not enough detail in the report. For example, will principals retain their salaries? ■■ ■■
Also, from the NZPF survey (Q10), the introduction of these 5-year contracts was deeply unpopular, with a total of 71.1 per cent against the idea.
Q5: How could hubs provide better services and support to schools than regional offices? Hubs could assist with property, administration, health and safety, police vetting, school buses, financial assistance, and legal advice. ■■ Support with providing relief teachers. ■■ Leadership support for principals. ■■ Create a pool of resources to cut costs. ■■ Hubs should ensure equity of services and delivery across the country. ■■ Hubs should be localised and understand the needs of the community. ■■
These findings fit with the responses to Q5 in the NZPF survey, which showed 64.1 per cent of respondents thought schools should choose whether the hub assisted with property management, accounting, human resources, and health and safety. The report states that principals/tumuaki really want to see the Ministry engage more with schools, if it is done in a way that supports their work. This group gave clarity to the type of support principals wanted. Q6: Why should hubs be based on the number of students rather than the number of schools? Equity. For example, it wouldn’t make sense to have the same number of schools in a large urban population and a rural population. ■■ The hubs need to be responsive to local needs and understand the community. ■■ Hubs should be based on a number of different factors. For example, number of students, demographics, geographical location, and needs. ■■
Also in the NZPF survey, 48.2 per cent thought hubs should be based on the number of students and 23.6 per cent disagreed that hubs should be based on the number of students. In addition, 28.2 per cent of respondents neither agreed or disagreed.
Q8: What are the responsibilities that you would want a new independent Education Evaluation Office to perform, and what would you NOT want them to perform? Many of the responsibilities mentioned by the group were identified as solutions to current problems with ERO in the report:
Intermediate strengths ■■ ■■
The schools are set up for adolescents. The schools are very focused.
■■
To review hubs based on national priorities. Focused on improvement and empowering hubs. ■■ Work with and support schools by providing schools with resources (not judging schools). Three out of the four post-it notes also made this comment. ■■ Review student progress, wellbeing, and culture of school. ■■ Hubs should not be exposed to reviews based on narrow data, with a ‘compliance mindset.’
Intermediate weaknesses
■■
■■
Many of these agree with the report, which states that the Ministry of Education needs a greater depth of educational expertise and should be far more focussed on outcomes, processes and relationships than on audit and risk (p.117). There were some apparent disagreement/contradiction within this group: One point stated that EEO should have agreed upon processes across all hubs, another said each hub would need to create their own picture of what a successful student look like.
Middle school strengths
Q9: What are the advantages and disadvantages of hubs monitoring and publicly reporting student success, wellbeing, and achievement? Advantages Public accountability and public can have faith that principals and teachers are doing a good job. ■■ When a hub measures a successful practice, that practice could be shared with other schools. ■■ Families and communities are interested in how students are doing at school. ■■ An independent voice that would be consistent across schools. ■■
Disadvantages Monitoring could cause ranking of schools. ■■ Students may move on to schools with higher ratings. ■■ The data used to measure success might not be reliable. ■■ Data collected across large hubs may be meaningless to a single school community. ■■ Data could be used to name and shame. ■■
In addition to these advantages and disadvantages, this group also wanted to know how wellbeing and success would be defined. Also, how would this reporting impact on Principals’ wellbeing? Q11: If the hub does not manage and review the school network, what entity can do it better? A revitalised Ministry of Education with competent people, and people who value the profession. ■■ No other entity could—it would just be ERO. ■■
This group then focussed on other issues with hub, which are captured by the answers to some of the other questions. Q10: What are the strengths and weaknesses of a two-year intermediate school (years 7 – 8) option? How would a middle
school (years 7 – 10) be a better option?
Not enough time for students to make and gain relationships with teachers and peers ■■ Trying to keep a sustainable roll when there is a 50 per cent change in students each year is difficult—and leads to competition between schools. ■■ Year 7/8 intermediates can be a volatile time for students who are already going through significant changes.
Would be better because Year 9 and 10 does not fit in with NCEA. ■■ Can focus on the young emerging adult. ■■ Middle school is better than intermediate because ‘mob mentality’ is reduced. ■■
Middle school weaknesses How do we retain quality teachers in primary and middle schools when pay conditions are so different? ■■ Two people (post-it notes) said they preferred a full primary instead of an intermediate because a full primary can add leadership opportunities and improve emotional wellbeing and self-esteem. ■■
In the NZPF survey, Q18 suggested that the majority of respondents supported eliminating intermediate schools. But, 4.5 per cent of respondents explicitly stated in the comments that they did not support eliminating intermediate schools. Q12: What functions/services/PLD would you like to see provided by a Leadership Centre? Release for PLD support. Support for TAs and specialist teachers. ■■ Leadership mentoring/supervision (including mentoring from experienced principals). ■■ Research based practices. ■■ Coordinating educational speakers and seminars. ■■ Finance training. ■■ Principals overseas exchanges. ■■ Support after FTP completed. ■■ Culturally appropriate pedagogy and awareness training (including Te Reo). ■■ Training on Health and Safety Work Act. ■■ HR training. ■■ Study leave. ■■ School plan and goals. ■■ Wellbeing for leader. ■■ Leadership pathways for experienced principals. ■■ ■■
Q13: What are the advantages and disadvantages of applying an equity index of 6 per cent to schools with the greatest disadvantage?
Advantages ■■
Resources would go to schools in need.
Disadvantages Should focus on children, not schools—there are ‘at risk’ children at most schools. ■■ 6 per cent may not be enough. ■■ 6 per cent of what? It’s likely to be a low amount. ■■ Funding for all schools needs to increase. ■■
This group also had the following questions: How will disadvantaged schools, or students, be identified? ■■ Is this extra funding, or will this be taken from other schools? ■■
Analysis Recommendation 1: The report did mention that community input and vision are important, but this was not reflected in Recommendation 1. A total of 7.7 per cent of respondents in the NZPF survey were concerned that schools would lose community input and identity, and the moot responses showed that Boards of Trustees are important for giving community input. Therefore, under Recommendation 1 (subheading 3) ‘local community and local cultural needs and goals’ should be added. From the NZPF moot and survey, principals support the removal of 3.2, which states Boards of Trustees are responsible for ‘localised curriculum and assessment practices.’ This point conflates localised community input with curriculum and assessment advice. There is support from principals for localised community input but not for curriculum and assessment advice (as evidenced by the responses to Q4 in the NZPF’s survey). In short, the report should replace 3.2 ‘localised curriculum and assessment practices’ with ‘local community and local cultural needs and goals.’ Based on the feedback from the moot, Recommendation 1 should also state that Boards of Trustees are responsible for the budget and principal hauora. 3.3 does not capture the voluntary nature of offloading health and safety compliance, property, and financial support to the hub if required. As it is currently written, the report puts these responsibilities on the Board of Trustees and principal. Recommendation 2: The Role of Hubs and Boards of Trustees There needs to be more clarity on the relative roles of Boards and Hubs. More specifically, how is autonomy and freedom of the board balanced with the responsibility of hubs to lift the quality of teaching and learning across the system? This seems to be a key issue because many respondents mentioned losing autonomy (4.1 per cent) and losing community input (7.7 per cent) on the NZPF survey. Part of the solution to achieve this balance is by defining the roles of the boards and hubs more carefully, so that the model addresses many of the issues mentioned in the report and during the moot. For example, the report mentions (p. 41) ‘there is no requirement for boards to seek outside support for these important decisions. Many boards do involve advisors in their appointments, but we heard that not all advisors are of
NZPF Kaumatua Haterei Temo opens the day with a karakia
sufficient calibre and that boards don’t always utilise the advice they are given.’ Moreover, the report states that much of the support for boards is on a voluntary basis, and many schools choose to forgo support because of the public stigma of being a school with problems. Yet, Recommendation 2 does not address these problems. The recommendation does not state that at any point support from the hub is mandatory. Many of the clauses describe support from the hub as voluntary and that hubs and boards should collaborate on many decisions. Also note that the recommendation states that ‘Education Hubs have the power to dismiss school boards.’ Although, the way Recommendation 2 is currently stated will allow flexibility for schools, this may not be a desirable attribute if the school wants to avoid support because of the associated stigma of being a school with problems—a decision that is ultimately about reputation than student learning outcomes. Therefore, Recommendation 2 should clearly define when boards have the ability to choose support and when board must receive support from hubs. Another concern is this flexibility of the boards to take up support might be unduly influenced by the hubs ability to dismiss school boards where necessary. There needs to be more clarity on which situations hubs can and cannot dismiss boards. From a psychological perspective, the report should consider work on the Dunning-Kruger Effect, which is the inability for people to comprehend the skills and knowledge they don’t have because understanding these knowledge deficits involves knowledge itself (For a review see Dunning, 2011). This research questions the ability of boards to objectively evaluate whether they have the necessary skills to perform their duties or seek outside help. The Implementation of Education Hubs There were mixed results for Q1 on the NZPF’s survey, which asked if ‘the Tomorrow’s Schools model of one school, one board of trustees, is the best governance model for NZ schools and should not be changed.’ The results showed 42.4 per cent agreed, 37.0 per cent disagreed, and 20.5 per cent neither agreed or disagreed. In addition, 4.1 per cent mentioned in their comments that boards are working, and 3.6 per cent mentioned they did
Monitoring the performance of schools and public reporting It’s clear from the disadvantages listed in response to Q9 that more clarity needs to be given when the report states that ‘Education Hubs would publish an annual report with aggregated data . . . ’ In particular, principals are concerned that data could be used to rank, name and shame, and cause students to leave certain schools. Of course, if only publically released data are aggregated in such a manner that would make identifying a single school impossible, then those concerns are addressed. But, this point needs to be clearer. Recommendation 3 and Recommendation 30: There needs to be more clarity about how the EEO will measure success. This recommendation should capture some of NZPF President, Whetu Cormick is delighted to meet up with Auckland Primary the issues with ERO outlined in the report. Principals’ Association president, Helen Varney For example, in the report and during the not like the idea of hubs. In addition, 2.7 per cent of respondents moot, the problem of ERO using narrow measurements to thought there should be no changes to successful schools. review schools was mentioned. Principals wanted things like Based on these findings, the report needs to give concrete meeting teachers and listening to students to be part of the EEO’s details on how Education Hubs would be implemented. If, like measurements. But it is not clear in Recommendation 30 what the report mentions, this is a gradual implementation process, these measurements will include. which schools will be converted to the hubs model first? If hubs are implemented and measures of success decrease, could the Schooling Provision school revert back to a one board, one school model? More Recommendation 7: broadly, how can the report’s recommendations be adjusted, so The NZPF survey results (Q18) suggest that there might be the views of the 42.4 per cent of NZPF respondents are taken majority support for eliminating intermediate schools. But, into consideration? Perhaps those principals sceptical of hubs strong agreement on this question might also represent support could be asked what evidence or conditions they would require for the other models mentioned (for example, full primary). in order to change their minds. For example, perhaps there is a From the moot, it is clear there are mixed views. Therefore, to trial period with a smaller number of schools, and the results of represent these mixed views, only convert those intermediate that trial is reported to principals to disseminate. schools to middle schools if they support the decision. How will hub size be determined? More clarity is needed around how hub size is determined. The report states that ‘the exact number and configuration of these Education Hubs would need to ensure that each Education Hub was able to work in close partnership with all of its schools.’ The report also states that hubs would oversee 125 schools on average, but the exact number would depend on location and need. Based on the feedback during the moot, the exact size of the hub should also be determined by number of students, demographics, and geographical locations. Also, based on the feedback, each Education Hub should also ensure that they are responsive to local needs, that they understand the community, and that smaller schools are not forgotten in large hubs. 5-Year Principal Contracts More detail is needed about the 5 year contracts to take in to account some of the potential disadvantages mentioned in response to Q7 during the moot. Specifically, how is principal hauora managed during transitions between schools? And how much of a say do principals have in when and where they are relocated? Finally, why does the report propose 5 years? What is the justification for this timeframe? Many principals thought 5 years wasn’t long enough to create change.
School Leadership Recommendation 22: This recommendation outlines, in general terms, the role of the Leadership Centre. The response from the moot provided specific things Principals want from a Leadership Centre, which are mentioned in response to Q22. Resourcing Recommendation 24: The report states the 6 per cent would be of the total resourcing provided to schools in New Zealand, which helps answer some the questions raised during the moot. But more clarity is needed about how the disadvantage index is calculated. What are that factors used to classify students as ‘disadvantaged’? Many principals at the moot, and 10.9 per cent of principals in response to the NZPF’s survey indicated that more funding across all schools would be required to achieve the report’s recommendations and goals. Recommendation 25: Clarity is needed whether this allocation alignment is for primary, middle, and senior schools—if those transitions were adopted.