School Lines Yesterday’s – Today’s – Tomorrow’s Schools Selective memories, more myth making and opinionated panaceas
Lester Flockton feedback, feedforward, Feedup, feeddown lester.flockton@otago.ac.nz
New panaceas are being fermented in the brewing pots, and again the brewers seem to be over-represented by a small quarter of vocal researchers and academics – people whose profiles depend on “pop” (publish or perish), patronage, and a populace that is either indifferent or lacking in time or ability for rigorous critical analysis of their claims, opinions and recipes.
Measurable outcomes prescribed from above have become for some (not me) the single-minded view of the purpose and effectiveness of schools. A Leadership academic claims, “The self-managing school model should not be treated like a sacred cow – it needs to evolve to meet current needs”. A Literacy academic told Radio New Zealand last year that more central control over schools was needed for standards to improve. A Schools researcher recently suggested in the “opinion” page of our daily newspaper that a national network of around 20 education authorities be established and responsible to a national director who would be part of the senior leadership team of the Ministry of Education. “Each authority would have ultimate responsibility for the quality of the schools in their area . . .”. (Ultimate responsibility usually leads to ultimate control!) The common assertion is that Tomorrow’s Schools have had their day. The fomenters claim they are not suited to achieving current educational goals, with too many boards, principals and teachers struggling to “measure up”. The assumption is that “current goals” (e.g. five out of five students succeeding according Ministry measures and regardless of realities) are a valid and balanced basis for judging whether today’s school system is working. There are repeated claims that Tomorrow’s Schools have not led to any system-wide gains in student performance or learning, new approaches to learning, or greater equality of educational opportunity. But were these the intentions of Tomorrow’s Schools in the first place? It seems that failure to measure up in raising student achievement is now very conveniently the fault of principals and teachers, and more particularly Tomorrow’s Schools, which means ‘self-managing schools’. There are two flawed assumptions behind such views. One is that education should be driven by
instrumental purposes (measurable outcomes on a narrow range of educational outcomes) and that other purposes highly relevant to modern times are of lesser priority or importance (e.g. key competencies, values, the Arts, Social Sciences, etc.). Measurable outcomes prescribed from above have become for some (not me) the single-minded view of the purpose and effectiveness of schools. The other flawed assumption is that student achievement or lack thereof is almost entirely the result of their teachers and school leaders. Tacking along this line, Ms Parata, the “smooth communicator”, claims “too many kids are falling behind because they are not getting the quality teaching and leadership that all the evidence tells us makes the difference for Maori and Pasifika learners, those who come from low socio-economic homes, or have special needs”. Such nonsensical quarter-truths
are either political deception, sheer ignorance, or most likely a a return to more central control over schools administered by combination of both, particularly since in truth “all the evidence Government bureaucrats and committees will really fix the sotells us” that factors outside of called problem? As Eisner (2003) the school account for around the idea that policy I know no safe depository of cautions, 75 percent of the difference in can be prescribed from on high, students’ achievements. the ultimate powers of the society issued ex-cathedra, and lead to So is it fair and reasonable to improved outcomes, is delusionary. suggest that Tomorrow’s Schools but the people themselves Moreover, David Lange, Prime are the underlying problem amidst Minister and Minister of Education all of this? It seems that too many “opinions” on this matter are responsible for introducing Tomorrow’s Schools, chose to quote accompanied by a yearning to return to structures and conditions Thomas Jefferson on page one of the policy book that set out the akin to those that operated under yesterday’s schools. But let’s direction for the reforms: be honest. While some were good, others most certainly were I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the not. Let’s not be fooled into thinking that Yesterday’s Schools society but the people themselves; and if we think them were all rosy. Far from it! Selective memories and legends from not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a times past invariably lead to a lot of myth and mischief making. wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from New Zealand is a very different place to what it was 25 or them but to inform their discretion by education. This is so years ago when Tomorrow’s Self-Managing Schools were the true corrective of abuses of Constitutional power. introduced. To suggest that the system needs to change is to wantonly deflect attention away from the real problem – the Jefferson also said “a government afraid of its citizens is a social and economic conditions that have been newly created in Democracy. Citizens afraid of government is tyranny!” Don’t our society since the inception of Tomorrow’s Schools in 1989 – be afraid to expose nonsense and make truth known – and be conditions that directly impact on the capacity of at least one in wary of the smooth communicators! five students to benefit from and respond to quality education. The Children’s Commissioner reports 270,000 children in NZ live in poverty, including 40% Pacific children and 27% Maori Reference children. It is no co-incidence that such numbers match up to 1 Eisner, E.W. Questionable Assumptions About Schooling. Phi the numbers of students who are not succeeding in school. It Delta Kappan, May 2003. pp. 648–57 is time the public woke up to this, and for truth and fairness to enter the debate. After all, who is naive enough to believe that
0800 POTTERS WWW.POTTERS.CO.NZ