There was a heightened buzz of anticipation as a hundred principals, who lead the Principals’ Associations of their regions, gathered at Wellington’s Intercontinental Hotel in March. They had come to explore challenges and opportunities arising from the speakers’ presentations and from earlier meetings with their own local principals. They would debate these challenges and opportunities later in the day, but, first, they would hear from the speakers.
NZPF President, Leanne Otene
The theme of the president’s speech was ‘principals supporting principals’. In welcoming speakers and guests, Otene acknowledged the work of the regional presidents as a good example of her theme.
‘Whilst continuing to lead your own schools, you provide an organisation through which your local principals can develop and learn, be supported professionally, socialise, and network. Thank you for the work you do on behalf of principals and thank you for the work you do for NZPF,’ she said.
She also acknowledged the success of Te Arahou – The Māori Achievement Collaboratives (MACs) which this year celebrate ten years of culturally transforming school leaders to espouse a Māori world view in their schools.
‘Despite the unquestionable quality of this kaupapa, it is strengthened because it is based on principals supporting principals,’ she said.
The next section of her speech was focused on newly announced Government policies for education. She chose not to focus long on the proposed reintroduction of charter schools, except to say it was a good example of why a cross-party approach to policy making is more important than ever. She emphasised the shameful waste of precious resources as one government introduced charter schools, the next removed them from legislation and now, with a further change in government, they are back on the agenda again.
‘Until we have a strategic plan that lasts longer than an election term, we will continue to face wasteful changes and never be given the chance to embed policies that are worthwhile,’ she said.
The ‘cell phones away during class time’ policy was also quickly dismissed, as she noted that many schools already banned cell phones during class time and provided exemptions were allowed for exceptional circumstances, the policy was not contentious.
She gave greater attention to the policy for one hour a day of reading, writing and math for Years 1–8. Her focus was less on the hour a day, which she again noted was hardly contentious, than that the Minister preferred a single assessment tool for all schools. She reported that in a pre-moot survey of the regional leaders, 80 per cent were not in agreement with a single assessment tool. This issue would be discussed more fully by the regional leaders in their later debates.
Workforce was her next topic and although she said she was not using the ‘crisis’ word yet, the profession is losing experienced principals.
‘There are about 860 new principals and over 40 per cent of them work in small schools,’ she said. ‘Nearly half of those new principals, who are one or two years into the job, intend to leave the role within the next five years.’
She suggested the regional leaders might consider why this is the case, during their debates.
Otene raised two more recent policy proposals: to get tougher on attendance, and to reduce funding for Ka Ora, Ka Ako | Healthy School Lunches Programme. She acknowledged all principals want full attendance but condemned fining caregivers as the way to get young people re-engaged in schooling. She also pointed out the inconsistencies between the policy proposals. Reducing funding for the school lunches programme was unlikely to encourage attendance or lift student achievement.
Last, but most definitely not least, on the President’s agenda, was leadership itself. It is well known that next to teaching, school leadership has the greatest impact on student learning.
‘To have high quality principals means high quality principal support and professional development,’ she said.
Otene noted that our education system has no Leadership Centre to coordinate and deliver leadership supports, PLD and advice, as almost every other jurisdiction in the OECD enjoyed. PLD is sporadic at best, and of mixed quality. There is no clear pathway from aspiring to experienced principalship, and no eligibility criteria for applying for a principal’s position. She was however full of praise for some existing principal support.
‘We do have an excellent cohort of 22 seconded school principals in the Ministry who are working as leadership advisors and provide a valuable service to any principals who seek their support and advice. Feedback from principals they work with is that this service is immensely helpful and principals form respectful, trusting relationships with the advisors very quickly – because the advisors are principals too. This service is “principals supporting principals” and we appreciate the support of the Ministry of Education Principal Leadership Team for their continued development of this service,’ she said.
She also acknowledged the leadership advisors for working with NZPF to develop an induction programme for principals starting in a new school and noted that the pilot for this showed principals appreciate the programme.
‘We have been discussing ways that, with the Chief Leadership Advisor, we could plan an accreditation service for all PLD and provide a transparent PLD framework for principals to access. What we lack is a Centre within which to coordinate all leadership support and advisory services. This is an area we are discussing with both the Minister and the Ministry,’ she explained.
‘The Leadership Centre is achievable if we build on the services already in existence,’ she said. ‘NZPF has pledged its support for establishing such a Centre and is committed to working alongside the Ministry of Education to make this a reality.’
Otene closed out her address saying, ‘As leaders of learning in Aotearoa New Zealand, we bear the responsibility of shaping a positive future for our students. The solutions we seek are within our grasp. We need to confront the challenges head-on but let us also seize the opportunity to pave a better way forward.’
Hon. Erica Stanford, Minister of Education
The Minister opened her address saying she apologised she was unable to attend the moot in person but submitted a pre-recorded video which was played to the moot attendees.
In her opening remarks she said student attendance and achievement had declined in recent years and this must stop.
‘We will set clear targets to measure attendance and achievement,’ she said, and added ‘If you can’t measure it, you can’t improve it, and we intend to do both.’
To lift achievement in reading, writing and mathematics, her government has introduced the ‘one hour a day’ policy. ‘Many already do this but we want to see regular, purposeful instruction in reading, writing and math for one hour a day [for each subject].’
The Minister reported that she has established a Ministerial Advisory Group (MAG) to refresh the mathematics, statistics and English curricula and advise on the draft common practice model. They will also advise on phase-by-phase guidance to provide clarity and year by year teaching expectations.
‘This is all about teaching the core subjects brilliantly,’ she said.
She moved on to the ‘cell phones away policy’ during the school day, which is intended to remove distractions.
‘This is not just good for learning but also for healthy social interactions and mental wellbeing,’ she said.
NZPF had sent her questions in advance which she then proceeded to answer.
Q: Has a decision been made on how reading, writing and mathematics will be assessed?
A: We are not quite there yet. First, we must get the curriculum right. Consistent and timely information on progress is vital. We want supported assessment tools that give valid and reliable information for next learning steps for teachers and for parents. I want to drive investment where it is needed and can only do this with good data. Standardising the approach for reading, writing and mathematics across schools means every child progresses and is monitored across the curriculum at least twice a year.
This is not standardised tests. It is a standardised consistent approach across the country that will strengthen consistency and the quality of assessment practice. There is no decision yet. I want implementation to be strong. I want to use the tools that teachers know well, such as e-asTTle and PATs.
We also intend to strengthen teacher training and professional learning and development, she said, along with building access to front line capability supports and resources.
When introduced, we will ensure that implementation is strong, so that assessment can be used effectively to check on the things that matter the most. Helping teachers to actively monitor, respond to and build on learning in a timely way.
Q: How will assessment be supported with PLD?
A: In my view it is crucial that we build the assessment capability of the education workforce. I want to maximise the positive impact that the use of assessment tools and reporting can have in our schools. We’ll also invest in assessment so teachers can continue to grow their use of assessment information. For example, adjusting teaching strategies and identifying additional support needs early and celebrating children’s progress and strengths.
Q: Will the cost of assessment tools be cost-neutral to schools?
A: I do not anticipate that any costs associated with assessment tools will be passed on to schools. I’m taking advice on the approach and the timing of consistent twice-yearly testing of Years 3–8 students and the accompanying support schools will need to build their assessment capability.
Q: Can the Minister confirm that she supports a well-balanced curriculum?
A: The focus on reading, writing and mathematics acknowledges how vital it is for children to be making progress in the core areas and how the skills in them help students access the wider curriculum. I want to also share the importance of cross-curricular teaching and learning experiences in schools. While visiting schools across the country I’ve been so excited to see fractions used when teaching musical composition, literacy through science reports, geometry through sculptures. It’s incredible.
Q: Will the Aotearoa New Zealand Histories Curriculum continue in its present form?
A: The Coalition Agreement commits the government to reviewing the ANZ Histories curriculum. But I want to be clear here. I support the compulsory teaching of the ANZ Histories in our schools. I also believe, as I have said, that any ANZ History curriculum must have an important duty to talk about the Treaty of Waitangi and our Māori history. This will not change. But it’s about balance and I want to be able to share all our stories. The NZC needs to serve as a comprehensive guide for teachers and parents, outlining what learning should be taking place in our classrooms each year. It should be evidence-based knowledge, rich, and internationally comparable. I also want to make sure, in the Social Sciences curriculum, that there is room for all the curriculum areas as well as history.
Q: Can the Minister give us an assurance that the Ka Ora, Ka Ako – Food in Schools programme – will continue?
A: The answer is that we have not yet made any decisions on future changes to the healthy school lunches programme. But this government supports the programme. We want to make sure we are reaching as many hungry children as we can and getting the best value for money out of it. The future of the programme is currently under consideration as part of Budget 2024 processes.
Q: Can the Minister confirm that the Curriculum Advisory Centre will be maintained and developed and that advisors will be available to work with schools?
A: The answer is yes. We have our Curriculum Centre in the Ministry, and we also have over 60 curriculum leaders in the regions and across the country. We intend to build on those numbers.
Q: What plans does the Minister have to build a sustainable workforce?
A: I want to let you know that this is one of my key five priorities that I will focus on in this term [of Government].
We know that the single most important thing is the quality of the teacher in front of the child and the quality of leadership in the school. If we are going to get 80 per cent of our kids to curriculum [levels], we need to invest in our teachers and our leaders. We are already planning on how we can attract and develop great teachers and leaders. I am keen that we identify early on in your careers – potential leaders – and invest in them so that we have a pipeline of amazing leaders ready to be principals. We are also looking at what we can do to support in-service principals.
With teacher development we want to make sure that ITE is high quality – that ITE providers are providing teachers with the skills and tools that they need like structured literacy and science of learning information. We’re also keen to make sure that in-service teachers are getting high quality, targeted PLD.
We want high quality, rich curriculum knowledge. [We want to] set out year by year what needs to be taught and support our teaching workforce.
The Minister’s five priority areas to focus on in this term of Government
-
Develop the Education Workforce of our Future
-
Teachers are the backbone of our education system and if we want to see a positive shift in student outcomes we must invest in our teaching workforce.
-
Consistent Assessment Tools
We are interested in making sure we have, and are investing in, consistent assessment tools so we can support teachers but also know, from a central point of view, where we direct resourcing so we can catch learners before they start to fail.
- To establish a knowledge rich curriculum grounded in the science of learning
The curriculum should challenge and empower our learners, support teachers, and ensure every child can fulfil their potential.
- To implement a more consistent mode of monitoring student progression and achievement
To lift student achievement, it is crucial that we implement a regular and more consistent assessment of student progress. This will enable our teachers to provide more support for the learning needs of our students.
- To effectively target learning support interventions
The provision of learning support has been a key issue raised by me, by you, by parents, by teachers and by the education sector. There is no quick fix to this highly complex systematic problem. My focus will be to strengthen early intervention, strengthen our curriculum and to increase the use of evidence-based teaching practice. To do all this I expect to make use of high performing data and evidence to inform decision making.
Throughout my key priority areas, it is crucial that we make better use of the data and analysis that we have available to understand what works, invest in the most effective services and to support our students. Education is a vital tool of social mobility for our young people, and it is the key to breaking cycles of intergenerational poverty. No matter what school you go to, who your teacher is, where you come from, where your family comes from, every young person deserves the right to experience success.
The minister concluded saying we face some big challenges but that with our support she is confident we will meet them.
Bali Haque
Best known to school principals as Chair of the Independent Taskforce that reviewed the Tomorrow’s Schools*’* administration document in 2018, Bali Haque was guest speaker at Moot 2024. He is also a regular commentator on education, most recently noting that the present ‘silver bullet’ reform approach will not fix the problems of education.
He introduced his audience to the concept of ‘subsidiarity’, explaining its meaning as:
‘Nothing should be done by a large and more complex organisation which can be done as well by a smaller and simpler organisation.’
He used an example from the Secretary for Education, Iona Holsted who would say any system must be tight on objectives, loose on how you get there and tight on accountability. The question is, what should be centrally controlled, and what should be left loose?
He gave the example of school property. Should school buildings be bespoke and architecturally designed or bog-standard blocks and every school gets the same? These are complex issues, contested, political and not binary choices. Balance is required and identifying who is in control can also be complex.
Principals and Subsidiarity
Leadership support for principals is poor and decisions are made by principals and their non-professional Boards. Should this be the case or should this be more tightly organised? he asked his audience. He noted that in one of the most devolved education systems in the world there is no prescribed PLD.
He moved his focus to PGCs asking if they were a useful way to show that we make principals accountable. ‘We are loose on how we do it,’ he said.
Principal appointments were next on his list, and he again asked, do we have the subsidiarity balance right? We currently leave the whole decision to non-professional Boards of Trustees. Sometimes very poor decisions are made. Alternatively, he said, would we want that duty centralised? And if we moved to directed principal training, would it be any better? These matters are not binary decisions, he said, they are wicked [complex] problems.
Similarly, he said, it is bizarre that we talk about improving achievement, yet we leave it to the chance encounters of 2,200 Boards and principals. Teachers are key to school improvement, he said, but how well are we training them, when we are now talking about the science of learning? PLD is loose and what is in the system is laissez faire and privatised.
If we contrast our system with Singapore, we see ITE is delivered by one national institute. Entry is competitive. They choose one of three pathways – teaching, principal, or a specialist pathway. Teacher induction is managed centrally by the Ministry and appraisal is undertaken nationally. Teachers receive 100 hours of PLD, which is led by one national institute. Clearly this is an example of a very tight system.
We have a diverse population unlike Singapore and, as a country, Singapore is very centrally controlled. Looking to Singapore does not make it right for us. Would one ITE work in NZ, given we currently have 25? How much flexibility should there be and how should we monitor performance? A poorly performing teacher is an emergency in school, but how do we deal with that? There are more questions than answers.
The last Government said the school curriculum had been left too much to chance and began the Curriculum Refresh process which was intended to fix that problem. The current Minister is thinking similarly, but applying the lens of subsidiarity, should the Government be telling the profession what to teach and how to teach?
Research suggests that in developing countries, mandating testing can be helpful. But in developed countries like NZ, mandating content with a testing regime will limit the curriculum.
A curriculum refresh may help, but what is really needed is much more high quality PLD.
Evaluation and assessment
The Minister talks about assessment a lot saying you can’t do anything without data. Testing and evaluation are needed, but if you apply subsidiarity, will testing every student in the country get what you want? Currently, our data comes from NCEA, PISA and national monitoring. But the current system does not produce enough data. Perhaps increasing the sample size for national monitoring would be a better answer?
Conclusion
Subsidiarity is important because we must question where the call is made between local and national. The demands of localism are important but what are we missing?
‘In NZ we run a massive experiment of 2,200 individual schools and Boards,’ he said.
‘If we don’t sort this right, we will continue to get the same result over and over again.’
‘A long-term plan would be a very good start,’ he said.
Q: In an Area school with all ages and full immersion the balance for me comes with getting a reliever. All decisions are influenced by unions. There is the student-centred view and then the union teacher-centred view.
A: Unions have responsibilities. The difficulty is constantly getting political waves going through and unions usually oppose, when sometimes there is an opportunity for discussion.
Q: We have principals who are going into schools, and they are not ready for school leadership. We are setting them up to fail. In Tai Tokerau, one third of principals are year one or two. Some schools have had five principals in five years. The average time as a principal in our region is two and a half years. What will be kept at a local level and what is done nationally is the crux of our problems.
A: Principals can be their own worst enemies. They are used to local control and that is where most support doesn’t work that well. We resist loss of control to the Centre. The Ministry doesn’t have the levers to do what they want to help. Principals are on their own and collaboration is not facilitated.
We sometimes act independently, not considering others. When international student numbers declined, some principals recruited ‘out of zone’ students to make up the numbers. This is not thinking system wide.
Q: Principals start with a tight system around them [Beginning Principals Programme] and then nothing. Do beginning principals need a tighter system for longer before loosening?
A: One recommendation from the Independent Task Force on Tomorrow’s Schools was to establish a Leadership Centre, which would be a conduit for research and support across [your leadership] career. The idea of the leadership advisors was that there would be a constant exchange of information from the Leadership Centre to the principal regional bodies. This all fell apart with the dispute between who would host it – the Ministry or Teaching Council.
Q: We have been calling for cross-party decision making for education for years. What do we need to do to achieve this?
A: I addressed SPANZ last year and they were having the same debate. Principals’ national bodies hold enormous power together with your local associations. This will happen if school leaders demand it. You need a nine-year plan that crosses all education levels. The current Minister, Hon Erica Stanford and former Minister Hon Jan Tinetti have said positive things about this. Make it a priority.
The Independent Task Force reviewing Tomorrow’s Schools consulted with all political parties and got close to some consensus.
Bruce Jepsen – Te Akatea President
Jepsen opened his address calling for changes and opportunities that will benefit all.
‘As [education] system organisations we can work together to support a common vision,’ he said.
He was clear that his vision would be driven by Toitū Te Tiriti – Honouring the Treaty and referred to Kīngi Tūheitia’s hui-ā-motu earlier in the year, a call for us all to unify and protect the mana of Te Tiriti.
Jepsen then put a series of questions to his audience to prompt some critical thinking.
‘The Minister has called for balance. Ninety per cent of tamariki Māori learn in mainstream schools. What has happened to them since Te Tiriti o Waitangi was signed?’
‘How can we have an equitable world class education system, when mainstream education has never been equitable for Māori?’
‘In the 1800s Māori had all the authority. As tauiwi arrived, the British moved to take control of our people. Our chiefs worked on governance that would retain independence for Māori. This was all prior to signing te Tiriti,” he said.
Through a series of diagrams Jepsen demonstrated that through te Tiriti, Māori gave the Crown Kawanatanga or the right to govern, but at the same time guaranteed Māori tino rangatiratanga or complete control over their lands, dwelling places, and all other possessions. He demonstrated where kawanatanga and tino rangatiratanga intersected, noting that the lived reality for Māori today is a complete imbalance with the kawanatanga sphere hugely dominating the tino rangatiratanga sphere.
Returning to the challenges and opportunities he asked, ‘What has happened for equity in terms of mainstream education for Māori?’
He asked the principals, ‘How are you changing the power and authority across these two spheres? The future of tamariki is decided by your leadership.’
The education system is set up for pākehā success, not Māori success, he said and until we have equity for Māori we will not have a world-class system of education. We must aim for a balance of kawanatanga and tino rangatiratanga to be the reality, he said.
Saane Faaofo Oldehaver, NZPPA President
President of NZPPA, Saane Faaofo Oldehaver, is currently seconded to the Ministry as a leadership advisor for Pacific Island principals. Her address challenged principals to provide an education to Pacific Island students that was commensurate with their cultural aspirations, beliefs, and practices.
‘All levels of data show that both Māori and Pacific Island students are failing in our education system. There is an opportunity for us to reflect today and NZPPA gives you a plan to help you take a culturally appropriate approach to teaching Pacific Island students,’ she said.
‘Our motto is that the pathway to leadership is through service,’ she said. ‘As our children navigate their way through school, they are an extension of their family, which is all important in Pacific Island culture.’
Pacific Island people are unique and learn differently. That is why we have the Tapasa, the Ministry’s Pasifika Education Plan and NZPPA has developed Tautai o le Moana for principals to learn about our culture and adopt a Pacific Island world view when teaching Pacific Island children, she said. It is a PLD programme developed and delivered by Pacific Island principals.
‘This could be the opportunity you and your teachers need for your Pacific Island students to succeed,’ she said.
The Pacific Island population is a growing population in Aotearoa New Zealand, and NZPPA is supporting that growth.
‘We are aligned with all principals, we are not just an add-on,’ she said. ‘All principals are integral to the success of our Pacific Island children, so I encourage you to embark on our Tautai o le Moana PLD to achieve better outcomes for Pacific Island students,” she said.
Challenges and Opportunities
The regional principal leaders heard the speakers and now it was their time to identify current challenges and examine opportunities arising from them. This made for a helpful debate with responses ranging from the relatively conservative to the courageous and bold.
Only the most frequently reported challenges and opportunities are reported here.
- A cross party forum to establish policy for education for the medium (three cycles of Government or nine years) and long term (up to 30 years)
There was no dissension on this issue and principals agreed that they must unite and speak as one powerful voice. Principals were determined to focus collectively on this issue so that we are not facing derailment of education policy every electoral cycle. Currently, there is lack of consistency and certainty and an ongoing lack of cohesive direction for education. There is no consultation with our sector on planned changes or decisions.
The opportunity is now to promote a cross party coalition which would include a sector voice. There is no time to waste, particularly as the current Minister of Education (National Party) and the former Minister (Labour Party) are both open to entertaining a discussion on a cross party agreement for education policy making. Principals agreed they must be brave, take the lead and bring the politicians with them. That is the opportunity they agreed to take up.
- Staffing Schools with Quality Teachers
Schools are struggling to appoint high quality teachers in their schools. There are fewer quality graduates and insufficient supports for teachers coming from overseas. It is getting harder to recruit staff in already hard-to-staff areas. Stories in the media tend to be negative about schools and teaching, highlighting what a hard and unrewarding job it is. Principals themselves recognised that they too were as much to blame for the negative image of teaching as a career. Further there are disparities between Secondary and Primary principals and teacher pay scales.
Principals looked inventively at the challenges and suggested they could take the opportunity to help elevate the status of the profession by presenting teaching as a positive career where you can make a difference to young peoples’ futures. They suggested using their own association communications channels and those of NZPF to propagate positive stories about teaching and endorsing great school leaders. The media could also be engaged in more positive stories. They also suggested strengthening regional collaborations and looking beyond their own school’s staffing needs and sharing staffing across schools. Given the extra costs of living, travelling, and housing in expensive cities like Auckland, it was also suggested that an alternative salary band for Auckland teaching professionals be considered. It was also suggested that trainee teachers’ fees could be waived, and graduate teachers bonded to teach in NZ schools for a set number of years. Pay parity with secondary schools would also help. Is it time to consider isolation pay to attract good teachers and principals into rural schools?
- Learning Support
Learning support was identified as being a perennial challenge ever since the inclusion policy was introduced. Whilst principals endorse inclusivity, the supports and resources have never followed the policy. The lack of specialists, experts, Learning Support Coordinators (LSCs), trauma specialists, Special Education Needs Coordinators (SENCOs), insufficient allocated teacher aide hours and the inequities across learning support services were all identified as challenges for teachers and principals. Further, it was noted that severe cases of neurodiversity were not consistently funded to attend school. The system was described as ‘hit and miss’. Finding the right specialist to diagnose a student so the school could apply for learning support was also an unhelpfully lengthy process. Some noted that resolving conflicts between keeping all staff and students safe and accepting a student with unpredictable violent tendencies was a further challenge. There is an increase in the diverse learning needs of our students and an increase in non-English speaking students. Some schools report that children are arriving at school, not ready for formal learning.
Opportunities included advocating for an LSC pro-rata for every school and redirecting Kahui Ako resources to fund it. Some also felt that a centrally funded roll based teacher aide allocation as part of the staffing entitlement would be preferable to the current system. Developing trauma-informed training programmes for educators and support staff was suggested. Addressing the inequity of learning support funding for schools across all regions is critical. Wraparound services for students with extreme behaviour issues was considered overdue and schools need special resources for five-year-olds who are not ready for learning. Collaborating with neighbouring schools to train a member of staff, share FTTEs and transfer some funds to create an LSC to share was suggested.
- Leadership, Leadership Centre and PLD
Challenges for leadership include the lack of a clear supported pathway to leadership, from aspiring principals to experienced principals. It was noted that PLD for principals is not provided as of right and was a mix of a few centrally delivered options and privately provided offerings, with no guarantee of quality. Principals reported that the paperwork for applying for any PLD was excessive for principals especially small and rural schools. Equity of delivery of PLD was a serious problem with rural and small schools especially impacted.
Principals’ employment arrangements were also noted as a challenge. Principals feel vulnerable because they are appointed and employed by non-professional Boards and there is wide variation of Board quality and training across regions. Programmes for beginning principals are contracted and there is no guarantee they will continue beyond the term of the contract. There is no Centre of Leadership and no ongoing research to inform leadership. Opportunities include centralising or regionalising school governance to save principals’ time to focus on teaching and learning and to overcome the possibility of a dysfunctional Board. Providing writing support for schools applying for PLD was also suggested. Establishing a Leadership Centre was broadly supported by the regional principals. The Centre could build on the Principal Leadership Advisory Service which is delivered by seconded principals who have currency in school leadership. The Centre would take responsibility for leadership research and the collection of data on leadership issues. It would also undertake an accreditation process for PLD. PLD would include high quality online options especially for isolated, small, and rural schools. PLD provision would be guaranteed, e.g. for maths and literacy. The Centre would also provide seminars on leadership, both in person and online. It was felt that a Leadership Centre would have the support of the Minister and NZPF should strongly advocate for its establishment.
- Te Tiriti o Waitangi
Embedded in the Education Act is the obligation of schools to give effect to te Tiriti o Waitangi. There was no disagreement on this requirement. The challenge for principals was bringing all stakeholders on board with this requirement including school Boards and parent communities. Supporting the teaching of te reo Māori in schools was another challenge with many schools struggling to access fluent teachers. Further, some reported that establishing relationships with local iwi was also a challenge, and the demands on local iwi and hapū were unrealistic. It was noted that it was a challenge maintaining momentum with the ANZ Histories Curriculum with new government curriculum policies emerging.
Opportunities included the Ministry rolling out regional workshops on te Tiriti o Waitangi and employing iwi liaison staff in the Ministry to support schools. It was also suggested that schools in one area could collaborate to engage with iwi as a collective. Schools could be actively encouraged to prioritise their ANZ Histories Curriculum, so as not to lose momentum. Schools could also engage with the culturally transforming kaupapa, the Māori Achievement Collaboratives (MACs). It was suggested by some that the MAC should be expanded and made compulsory for all schools.
- ITE
There was general agreement that ITEs were not producing high quality graduates, except the Graduate School in Christchurch. There was no rigor in the processes for entry to ITE. The challenge is that there are 25 ITE providers, with most teacher trainees attending university programmes. Students are not getting sufficient practical experience to teach a broad curriculum, or sufficient tutoring in how to teach. It was noted that some courses are one year which is insufficient to learn the craft of teaching. Principals reported that beginning teachers are not ready to teach and require intensive support in schools. This support is becoming increasingly difficult to sustain with staff retention issues.
Opportunities include reducing the number of ITE providers and matching quality provision to the Graduate School in Christchurch. Increasing the hours of contact time in schools and providing attractive resourcing for associate teachers in schools. It would help to have a more rigorous recruitment policy so that high quality teacher trainees are chosen.
- Curriculum Assessment
Principals expressed concerns about assessment and the Minister’s strong message that she prefers a single assessment tool to get consistent data for reading, writing and mathematics. The challenge is to assess so that no student is disadvantaged by the assessment process. Our students have diverse capabilities and needs. There is a danger that what is being measured becomes the default curriculum to the detriment of other subject areas.
Opportunities included removing racist assessment practices in schools that disadvantage tamariki Māori, advocating for multiple assessment tools and strengthening the National Assessment of Education Progress project by expanding the sampling numbers. Principals support a national performance measure.
As always, the regional principal leaders brought enthusiasm and careful consideration in their debates. They took careful notice of the messages the speakers presented and gave NZPF some excellent feedback, not just on the challenges that the sector faces, but also on possible opportunities that NZPF can pursue.
MC Julian Wilcox summed up the day by sharing a media crisis experience. The things that would save the situation included collaboration, quality journalism, staffing, and overcoming misinformation and disinformation. Challenges in the education sector can also be resolved with collaboration, quality teaching and leading, sustainable staffing, and clear communication and engagement. In addition, unlike journalists, educators have the collective strength to speak out, he said.
The day concluded with a karakia from our Kaumatua, Damon Ritai.