Editor
Much is said about the policy, regulatory and system changes that hound schools. Principals report they are buckling under the strain of accommodating changes from which they cannot see worthwhile advantages for children’s learning. They lament that mostly they don’t even see a connection between one change and another. The source of discontent lies partly with the fact that changes introduced have no anchor. As NZPF President Denise Torrey says in her column (p.3) there is no strategy for education, no shared vision and fundamentally there is no formally expressed purpose for education. Without these agreed statements, any policy, regulatory or procedural changes are random. They cannot follow a pathway of logic because there isn’t one. Whilst the lack of logic to educational change is bewildering the main source of disgruntlement for principals is the disconnect between proposed changes and the Principal’s goal of enhancing learning. As I write this editorial another raft of changes has emerged from the Minister’s office in the wake of the Education Act review. We have a few weeks to critique the proposals and submissions are due by December 14 (yes, just before Christmas). Talking to media, the Minister singled out a few of the change proposals for notice. These include having five-year-olds start school in cohorts on set dates rather than their fifth birthday; principals and Boards leading multiple schools; giving more freedom and decision making rights to schools ‘doing well’ and closing down those that persistently underachieve. She also drew attention to four controversial policies that are not to be discussed as part of the review. These are national standards, charter schools, the Investing in Educational Success (IES) policy and the Education Council. Further, she emphasised that there will be no increase in the Government’s education spending. What the Minister has excluded from the review says as much about her intentions as the proposals she has highlighted. What will rile principals most about this latest assortment is that none of the changes will assist schools in meeting the challenges they face every day such as the difficulties of managing challenging behaviour, supporting children with complex learning needs or helping children from impoverished backgrounds. Take the ‘cohort’ approach to starting school. How many parents who work full time and have children in full time pre-school care will be thrilled they will be paying fees for an extra term before their five year old can start school? Will the Government be extending the ‘free twenty hours’ subsidy to accommodate these five-year-olds? Will we have another legislation change to allow Kindergartens to be funded to
enrol five year olds? The upheaval for schools is obvious with implications for banking staffing, classroom management and reporting to parents. Settling in children, who by dint of a few days difference in birthdays, have had to leave their best buddies behind in the pre-school would be a further drama for teachers to deal with. The legislative and administrative issues aside, the most upsetting consequence for educators is that the notion of ‘cohort’ undermines the philosophy of individualised teaching which New Zealand schooling is renowned for. This includes maximising the benefits of the tuakana teina relationships. Cohorts on the other hand are more like a ‘factory’ approach treating all children as if their needs were the same. This shows a profound misunderstanding of the way in which good teaching seeks to assess a child’s needs individually and teach from what they already know. Crucially, we have not witnessed a groundswell of parents and professionals calling for cohorts so why the need for change? Authorising principals and Boards to lead multiple schools is also reflective of the standardised approach when, as a society, we seek to celebrate our rich diversity. One of the strengths of our schooling system is that schools have strong links to their communities and community values are embedded in each school’s curriculum. This partnership between home and school helps keep parents engaged in their children’s learning. It is unlikely that parents would welcome their principal taking time out of their school community to run other schools. Given the growing complexity of the principal’s role it is also unlikely that one principal could competently serve more than one school community at a time. Finally, the idea of providing more decision-making powers to ‘successful’ schools and closing down ‘non-performing’ schools is a complete contradiction of the Government’s repeatedly expressed desire to see achievement lifted at the lower end. The arguments that children from advantaged backgrounds start school with a much greater complement of learning skills and thus perform better than those from disadvantaged backgrounds are well documented. The article in this issue by Dr Liz Gordon (p.18) further shows the drift from low to high decile schools, leaving low decile schools with smaller rolls and fewer resources. These factors combined would set them up to be targets of closure. And what would happen to the children from these schools? Perhaps the answer is found in one of the factors excluded from this review – charter schools!