Adapted from a review by Bruce Hammonds
In the 1980s a new political ideology infiltrated Anglo American countries. It was a time of dramatic change as democratic welfare states were gradually replaced by what has come to be known as the ‘Market Forces’ approach. This approach is based on small government, valuing self-interest, privatisation, competition, choice and accountability. Also known as a ‘neo liberal’ approach it was believed to be the only way to respond to the dramatic worldwide economic decline. New Zealand was not immune. The 1984 Labour Government led by David Lange was dominated by the Treasury and finance minister Roger Douglas. There was ‘Thatcherism’ in the UK, ‘Reaganism’ in the US and ‘Rogernomics’ in New Zealand. The new ideology was applied across the public service including education. Few were prepared however for the extent of change that was about to take place. In 1986 the potency of the ‘Tomorrows Schools’ reforms hit like an exploding bomb. Following the publication of the Picot Report self-managing schools were born. Now, almost three decades later, an NZCER chief researcher Cathy Wylie has written a definitive and compelling critique of school self-management. Wylie answers the questions: What was the real effect of ‘Tomorrows Schools’? Has the New Zealand School 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 move to self-managing schools. It is interesting that New Zealand was the only country to take self-managing schools to such extremes of local control
and Wylie believes that the resultant isolation was one of the downfalls of the model. When a Government wants to introduce radical reform they often manufacture a state of crisis. The 1980s educational ‘crisis’ was contrived on the basis of the system being too bureaucratic and too centralised, to allow schools to be flexible and to take initiative. Early chapters of the book focus on the years preceding ‘Tomorrows Schools’. Contrary to the political rhetoric surround ing the state of educational ‘crisis’, Wylie shows that at the time New Zealand schools actually enjoyed considerable latitude in comparison to other education systems. They had on-going connections with the inspectorate and the local advisers and curriculum experts in the Department of Education. Further more 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 Wylie writes ‘The inspectorate could also connect the dots’ (p.26) and ‘facilitate useful knowledge building or sharing across schools and with others’ (p.27). An OECD report in the early 80s was full of praise for existing educational provision in New Zealand and did not find any demand for dramatic changes. The report recorded that the evaluators were impressed with the engaging and active learning going on that keeps children motivated to learn more. In
addition, New Zealand students were doing well (and still do), the economy and the role of the state. Prime Minister David on many international measures. Lange appointed himself as Minister of Education which was There were some weaknesses in the system nevertheless. seen as a statement of how pivotal education reform was to the There was no systematic way to support schools nationally. party’s overall agenda. To his credit he did not allow education The locally elected Education Boards looked after property and vouchers to become part of the mix, nor did he invite a level of finance while inspectors focused on educational issues. Both privatisation that would undermine the public education system. were involved in principal A major fault was that there and teacher appointment. Such connected infrastructures was not much thought given There was growing concern to the infrastructure needed to with the failure rate of Māori will make real difference. We have the support the self-management students, communities were of schools and the sharing of not fully involved with experience and knowledge now useful ideas. The general trend their schools and a growing to create the more dynamic schooling was that schools were to be left number of students were not to make their own decisions. being catered for in secondary system that our children need. It is time What eventuated was at schools. Many students were best ‘fragmented freedom’. being encouraged to stay on to give all our self-managing schools Schools in ‘better resourced’ at school because there was a the vital connections, support environments had the local lack of jobs. Secondary schools expertise to do well but selfwere not well equipped to deal and challenge they need to succeed management was ‘sown on with senior students who did uneven ground’. Principals not aspire to advance to tertiary level education. Rather than work and BOTs learnt ‘by the seat of their pants’ and became to resolve the issues of the day and retain all that was good about preoccupied with compliance and the ‘demanding twins’ of the system, ‘Tomorrows Schools’ were ushered in. Education property and finance issues. There was less focus on teaching Boards and inspectors disappeared in the change and advisers and learning. Competition between schools – the result of an were placed with Colleges of Education (later Universities) and emphasis on parent choice – had unfortunate effects. Some employed on contract. In the process connections and collective schools had clear advantage over others. As a result, under selfwisdom were lost. management, you learned to put your own school first. So where really was the bureaucracy and over centralisation The years that followed were demanding as the Ministry that was blocking initiative and creativity? Well it wasn’t all that went on a procedural review spree in an effort to keep up pervasive but it was in the regulations to do with staffing, with with the new environment and support those schools that property and with resources for teaching. Many principals found were struggling. The Ministry and ERO moved into a cycle of ‘Tomorrows Schools’ an attractive option at least as it pertained constantly reviewing processes and procedures which many to these three areas. They relished the prospect of taking over principals coined the era of CRAP (Continually Revised All the responsibility for employing staff, planning and maintaining Procedures). Charters came and went. Strategic and annual property and procuring their own school resources. plans were introduced. Growing problems with failing schools So ‘Tomorrows Schools’ would tackle some unwelcome resulted in a number of safety net interventions. We witnessed bureaucracy but this came at a price. Key interconnections were the introduction of the New Zealand Curriculum along with lost. Schools and Boards were on their own and this would create NZCEA in secondary schools. These initiatives for all their winners and losers. Too often the winners and losers lined up strengths just added to the confusion. according to decile rating. Schools were clustered but did not work very effectively An overseas observer described the New Zealand approach as together. ERO was seen as the new watchdog and was perceived the ‘earthquake method of educational reform’. Teacher unions as being there to find fault rather than to support schools. The were excluded. Changes were less to do with educational reasons new curriculum with its endless objectives, and arbitrary levels, and much to do with the political determination to restructure was a ‘mile wide and an inch deep’ but conscientious teachers
0800 POTTERS WWW.POTTERS.CO.NZ
did their best to tick off objectives taught. ERO would ensure they complied. Despite all of these changes, the very students, who were to be saved by self-management, continued to fail. Literacy task forces were established alongside numeracy projects, and other ad hoc projects, to try to help failing students. It seemed like benign bureaucracy had been replaced by fragmentation – out of the frying pan into the fire! If the schools were feeling a bit adrift so were other agencies like ERO and the Ministry. They too worked in isolation. Fast forward to 2013 and we find schools in the midst of yet another set of radical reform. The current agenda is like a second wave of the first, only this time it is intent on the wholesale undermining of public education in favour of privatisation. The mechanism is through the introduction of national standards which create the measure for school performance, public league tables or ranking of schools, teacher performance pay, rationale for mergers and closures and introduction of charter schools. In a nutshell it is the corporatisation of education. As in the 80s the reforms follow a neo liberal philosophy only this time they go much further. Ironically, these reforms come just as the 2007 review of the New Zealand Curriculum (NZC) is bedding in. The NZC is world class and the jewel in the crown of the NZ education system. It is tailored exactly right for twenty first century learners with its emphasis on creativity, problem solving and critical thinking. The reforms return the focus back to the 3Rs of reading writing and maths. High stakes have been created around these three because they are the subjects of the national standards. Inevitably the rich and diverse NZC will fade into the background because what is to be measured will become the measure and that will become the default curriculum. A further casualty of the latest reforms is relationships between schools and the Ministry. To be effective and engaging schools and Ministry staff require a high trust relationship. As the reforms have rolled out, trust has been eroded to the point that relationships are now quite dysfunctional. In considering the place of self-managing schools today, the time has come for fresh thinking. Wylie believes the ‘Tomorrow’s Schools’ self-management model took away some valuable practices that a good education system needs to flourish and argues that the weakness of today’s system lie with the connections that were lost back then. ‘In New Zealand, self-managed schools were not positioned within webs of well-informed support and challenge, an environment of knowledge-building in which to solve shared problems and advance teaching practice, well-constructed frameworks of thinking and processing, a shared purpose and responsibility, a good infrastructure.’ (p.3) She concludes with some hard hitting recommendations. Schools, she says, need to ensure all students succeed and realise their unique set of talents. Students need to be equipped with learning competencies so they can 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 of self-managing schools, she says, although ‘Tomorrows Schools’ has certainly enhanced school initiative but has not improved educational opportunities across the board. Any gains have been uneven. Our system, she says, 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. As a result, between 16 to 20% of schools struggle each year. Schools, she says, 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 and how to bring about change. Wylie recommends a network of education authorities to support and challenge schools and nurture the capacity of schools to self-manage. Finally she says, the current fragmentation of government agencies is 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 to 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. Wylie 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.’
FOR EDUCATORS WHO WANT TO GO PLACES – FASTER
The University of Waikato has introduced a 180-point Masters, giving you the chance to complete this internationally recognised postgraduate degree in one and a half years. Whether you are wanting to enhance the contribution you make to student achievement, develop your professional knowledge or move upwards in your career, postgraduate study at Waikato University offers a wealth of options. 180-point Masters are offered in Education, Educational Leadership, Disability and Inclusion Studies, and Sports and Leisure Studies. And there’s no reason to wait until next year. You can start your study in B Semester (July), putting you one step ahead. Call: 0800 83 22 42 Faculty of Education Te Kura Toi Tangata Email: educ_grad@waikato.ac.nz
www.waikato.ac.nz/education
For Schools
EduNet Q&A ™
May 2013 Andrea Jacobson is the Product Manager for EduNet. An ultra-fast fibre based solution, EduNet connects schools, educational institutions and content providers to each other, offering high speed, cost effective collaboration and uncapped access to the internet. In this article Andrea explains a bit more about the EduNet solution. Why do schools choose EduNet? Over the last six years, we have linked more than 70 schools and institutions together, and because we’ve had so much experience in the education sector, schools trust us to provide a solution for them that works. Plus they can directly collaborate with all the other schools connected to EduNet. Schools are also able to access peered content like Microsoft service, eTV, TV3 and TVNZ directly up to the maximum speed of their fibre connection without having to do this via the public internet.
“EduNet provides the best platform for our students to learn, create and share using high quality online resources.” Daniel Wilson – D.P, Manurewa High School
and collaboration are available. Also make sure that the solution you choose fits in with your overall IT strategy and gives you the flexibility to implement your plans such as BYOD or voice services. Can you tell us a bit more about BYOD? Because many of our schools have been enjoying the benefits of UFB for a number of years, some of them have been running BYOD for a while. Orewa College is a high profile example of a BYOD school that uses EduNet. You can check out the video and written case studies at:
www.vectorcomms.co.nz/about-us/case-studies There are lots of things to consider in a BYOD implementation, but having the right wireless solution and a reliable internet provider are key. You also need to make sure you have enough high quality bandwidth to support your students. So it’s really important that you set and implement policies to manage your bandwidth so that everyone gets their fair share and to ensure teachers have access to the resources they need.
“Having EduNet means that at any one time we are able to have around 2000 devices accessing the internet simultaneously.” Mark Quigley – A.P, Orewa College How does EduNet work with Network 4 Learning? We are very keen to work with Network 4 Learning when the service is available and if possible we will peer in their services so that EduNet schools can access any specialised products they offer.
How do schools get EduNet?
How do you get more information?
EduNet is sold through a variety of Partner Resellers and Integrators, including EduNet partners (who have received specific training from us). Schools can either order EduNet through their existing IT Partner or contact us and we’ll recommend an EduNet Partner that is right for them.
You can either go online to www.vectorcomms.co.nz, email me at andrea.jacobson@vector.co.nz or call me on 09 978 8119. Alternately you can speak to your IT provider and they should be able to provide you with all the details.
What should schools look for in an internet provider for their UFB connection? The key thing is to make sure you’re comparing apples with apples – check out the contention rates and whether peering
“This has impacted how we teach. Our teachers and students now have access to all the best resources, and all the latest information, all in real-time.” Richard Dykes – A.P, Pakuranga College