The Hidden Politics of Tomorrow’s Schools from a Parent’s Perspective Brigit Manning Havelock North – brigit.manning@gmail.com
It is tempting to feel sorry for the teaching profession which often seems caught between a rock and a hard place. But this is a mistake! If any profession has the talent, energy and organisational ability to advance change for the better, then it is the teaching profession. So the next question is: why do they not use their talents to help themselves? There are at least two reasons. In my opinion, a giant drama triangle, often called the persecutor/victim/rescuer cycle, exists between teachers, the Ministry of Education and parents, energised by their coinciding and diverging interests. The net result of this public game is an undercurrent of discontent and this is what makes the education sector so vulnerable to narrowly-supported and unpopular political initiatives – of which we have seen so many in recent years.
supporting schools? Does it spend tax payer money well? Could it do the job better? I believe it is time to change the focus from scrutinising teachers and children by way of complex and suspect assessment systems, and, amongst other things, do a whole-of-life analysis of the teaching career, asking questions such as:
So how does this drama triangle work? The interests of the Ministry and those of teachers are clearly aligned in one area: The Ministry, with its central direction of all state and integrated schools, saves schools from the extremely difficult task of reaching consensus with parents over the myriad issues which must be decided upon in the running of schools and the teaching of children. At the same time, Tomorrow’s Schools gives them considerable freedom to decide what and how they teach. These two facts provide a huge disincentive against working for changes that would enable schools and teachers to engage with their communities in the same way that other organisations serving their communities do. It is much easier to deal with a Ministry than to achieve consensus within a community of parents, which in the state system can be very diverse. Another unhappy reason that change for the better is not progressed from within the system is approval and the seeking of it. In a strictly hierarchical way, the Minister of Education sits at the top, then comes the Ministry, then the principals of schools, colleges, kindergartens etc., followed by teachers, students and parents. Being low down the chain places parents on the back foot in their dealings with schools. Yet it is parents providing both the children and the funding. They should be regarded the valued customer in every interaction. The forward path for education in New Zealand, I believe, is to move away from this centrally-controlled approval system." This top-down flow of approval creates a climate where engagement on equal terms between school, staff, parents and the Ministry is impossible and effectively prevents anyone from finding out how the Ministry performs its role of supporting schools. As a parent and tax payer, I would like to see the Ministry playing a vital, proactive supporting role in the job of teaching and managing schools – and it may well do so, in a low-profile way, whereas it fulfils its testing and auditing/review role quite publicly. So what kind of a job does the Ministry do in its role of
Unfortunately the prevailing currency of approval prevents these kinds of questions being asked by people within the education system. But they should be asked. Our country can aspire to be the best place in the world to be a teacher – and just think what this would achieve – quite quickly. Under Tomorrow’s Schools, schools are required to consult with their parent communities on strategic direction at fairly infrequent intervals. I have been astounded to find a complete lack of strategic thinking by the board of one state school as it fulfilled its requirement for consultation with parents for a strategic plan. I now believe that the requirement to consult with parents over strategic plans is inappropriate. Strategic thinking derives from war and commerce and is directed towards simple binary outcomes of winning or losing, profit or loss. Any public education initiative is a multi-faceted undertaking that requires a broader, deeper and richer frame of reference. The board of this school chose to ask questions about parents’ values. A quick look at other schools’ web sites shows that it is not alone in this approach. This is where religious and special character schools have a huge advantage over state schools: they attract a parent community in which there is already a consensus of values and beliefs. Generally, they enjoy the trust of parents who are very grateful and supportive. While state schools look ultimately to the Minister of Education, religious and special character schools have a higher calling that is respected by parents. Small country schools also have a parent community united, in this case, by its lifestyle choice. Large, high-decile city schools with diverse communities and lower Government funding find themselves in a most unfortunate position. The interests of the Ministry and of parents are meant to coincide in seeking the best education for our children to the benefit of all. But this is far too simplistic. The Education Review Office can ensure that tax payer funds are not over allocated (this is different from ensuring that funds are well spent) and that all kinds of legislative paperwork
How are new teachers supported? Can we create career paths for senior and retired teachers so that they can offer hands-on support and mentoring to new teachers within the regions in which they have spent their working lives? ■■ Who can help in marking assignments so that all student work is read and recognised, and the class teacher alerted to each child’s learning needs? ■■ ■■
are complied with. But the ERO cannot determine whether a school is providing the best possible education for my child, which is the central question of all parents. The diversity of education needs within families, let alone amongst wider communities, prevents any central office from meaningfully contributing to this question. In any event the ERO role itself must surely now be considered for review with the advent of national standards and the ability of anyone to review a school or a teacher’s performance online. Disaffected parents and students can quickly and anonymously lacerate the reputations of teachers and schools according to how they feel at the time. This is something that no Ministry can protect teachers from and underlines my central argument: the relationship between schools and parents has to change – and this change needs to be driven by people who understand the teaching profession. To illustrate my point I refer to the case of the teacher who routinely calls meetings of class parents and, when dealing with individual issues that are raised, does not assume responsibility for solving issues presented but seeks contribution from the parents present. This takes courage. It affirms the capabilities of parents and builds on their strength as a unique community. Parents receiving this level of support are unlikely to resort to the internet to vent frustration – rather they are more likely to support other parents in their hour of need. The teacher in this example observes that parents are adults after all who have much to offer – not just in fundraising, school outings and telephone trees, but in dealing with the really difficult challenges of raising and teaching children. This teacher was able to draw on the strengths within the parent community because she had created a forum for the sharing of ideas and concerns by holding a parent meeting each term.
This takes time and energy. I would prefer that more teachers’ time and energy was directed towards active engagement with their parent communities, and less spent jumping through administrative hoops set by the Ministry. But do teachers want to actively engage with their parent communities, or would they rather continue to allow the Ministry to hold teachers and schools accountable on behalf of parents and tax payers and accept the administrative overburden which goes with that? Equally, do parents wish to address the really big questions about what treasures from our educational heritage we wish to keep, and which must be relinquished to make way for the everexpanding fields of skill and understanding now at our disposal? Change arising from within the education system is one petal of an unfolding flower, if it is to bloom in full, this must be matched with a simultaneous growth within the communities and society that schools serve. Improving the performance of our schools, teachers and children will best be achieved by all parties wholeheartedly considering options that remove stress, resolve conflict and release energy – not by tinkering with mechanisms for assessing and comparing teacher and student performance. I received my state school education in the 1970s and early 80s. It continues to serve me well and I am grateful for it. About the Author Brigit has studied earth science and journalism and held various roles in news reporting, marketing and PR, before finding her niche in technical and business writing that she has occupied for 18 years. Between contract assignments and parenting responsibilities, she enjoys writing about the education system.
S P I R T L SCHOO S R E L L U F WITH
09) 367 9111 For more information visit Fullers.co.nz