Choice vs Equity: A Personal Response to Tomorrows' Schools Review

While there are a lot of questions around some detail and some implementation wonderings, it’s important to look at the Tomorrow’s Schools Review Report through the lens of what opportunities it may be making possible.

I have started looking at what I believe are the principles evident in its recommendations to see if they resonate with me. I have identified the following:

●      Collaboration

●      Collective Responsibility

●      Shared Accountability

●      Partnership (Te Tiriti)

●      Efficiency

I have been quite surprised to see the response from some to “Say no to the Haque Plan”. First of all, it is not the Haque Plan, rather it is the Tomorrow’s Schools Review Report and should be referred to as such.

Secondly, it contains many recommendations falling under 8 key issues, making it very difficult to give the whole report a blanket ‘Yes’ or ‘No’. Anyone with an open-minded approach would find favour with some of the recommendations, would be unsure about some and would want to explore further, and would be quite opposed to others. A consultation process allows such a range of responses to be submitted and considered.

The Community Schools Alliance has been formed to Say No To The Haque Plan. A brochure that group has produced and circulated to principals to encourage them to “sign up” contains claims that must be challenged as they can be described as inaccurate, misleading or plain false:

●      Schools will no longer be community-led.

○      Myth: Boards of Trustees will be replaced by education “Hubs” appointed in Wellington

○      Fact: Hubs will take over administration tasks currently carried out by Boards, leaving Boards to concentrate on strategic planning, school culture, student wellbeing and success, localised curriculum and assessment  practice.

●      Boards of Trustees will lose all governance responsibilities

○      Myth: Hubs will directly employ principals and teachers

○      Fact:  Boards will be involved in the appointment of their principal and have a veto over any decision made by the Hub.

○      Fact: Principals will have full control of their staffing appointments and appoint their own teachers (FAQs, Review Report p2)

○      Myth: Hubs will decide the culture and approach of each school

○      Fact: Boards will still determine the culture, character and nature of their school

○      Fact: Boards will focus on learning and teaching decisions for their schools

●      Students may not be able to attend their local school

○      Myth: Hubs will control enrolment processes

○      Fact: “Children and young people will have a right to attend their local school” (FAQs, Review Report p3)

●      Principals will be shifted around schools every 5 years

○      Fact: Principals will be appointed on 5 year contracts and will have rights of renewal. Principals would not be forced to shift.

●      School structures will change dramatically

○      Myth: All current high schools will be replaced with an “American” model of Senior and Middle schools

○      Fact: Intermediates will be phased out in the long term and the the proposed model could be:

■      Primary schools (years 1 - 6), middle schools (years 7 - 10), and senior college (years 11 - 13)

■      OR full primary schools (years 1 - 8) and secondary schools (years 9 - 13)

■      OR composite (Y1 - 13) schools, particularly in rural areas

●      Teachers could be shifted around schools on a whim

○      Fact: Principals will have full control of their staffing entitlements and appoint their own teachers

●      Parents lose choices

○      Myth: The Plan discourages schools from focusing on different approaches that give parents options for their children’s education

○      Fact: Boards “will focus on learning and teaching decisions for their schools which directly affects the welfare of students, localised curriculum and assessment, student success and wellbeing” (FAQs, Review Report p2)

●      Schools will have less control over their finances

○      Fact: Principals will control and have full discretion of the use of their operational grants (FAQs: Review Report p2)

○      Fact: Boards will have full control of all locally raised funds (FAQs, Review Report p1)

My wish is that we explore the report’s recommendations in an open manner so that we can strengthen the system to support all schools to be successful. In my mind it comes down to whether we support a winners/losers school model which has principals concentrating only on maximising their own school or a model which is based on the principles of collective responsibility and shared accountability.

On my deathbed I don't want to remember or be remembered for dying in the ditch for the right or value of Choice. I'd rather die in the ditch for Equity.

Tomorrow's Schools Review - Alternative Facts

I was pretty down after the recent ASSPA hui and wrote about that in my last post. I have been heartened by the comments on the post and the many emails and korero I received. Two colleagues from other areas in NZ had attended regional principal hui and were heartened by the responses which were generally much more open to exploring the recommendations than the crew at ASSPA were. There was also, apparently, concern expressed how "the Auckland principals" were responding.

A number of things have caused me concern in the 10 days since. The first was a radio bulletin on the morning of 7 March when one of the Auckland principals who had spoken against the review and its recommendations (to have most of the expressed concerns, in my view, alleviated by the Review Team). In the broadcast he was denying that he was spreading misinformation and in doing so was spreading disinformation by claiming that 90% of principals at the meeting were opposed to the review recommendations. I was at that meeting and no vote was taken on our response to the review. There was no doubt that most speakers spoke loudly and forcibly (often accompanied by applause) against the review recommendations. Three of us spoke more openly about the possibilities about improvement for our sector. Several others approached me afterwards and since to express support for what I had expressed. I have no idea of the % of actual views across the 50 - 60 principals who were there but it was certainly not 90/10%.

Throughout the week I received information on what some principals were sending to their school communities to encourage them to oppose the review recommendations. I was horrified by the level of misinformation and my level of alarm was increasing. I suspect most teachers in those schools, who most probably do not have the time to gain a full understanding of the Review recommendations will be receiving similar views from their principal.

I then found myself in receipt of a draft pamphlet shared with a group of principals that a group known as, Community Schools Alliance, had produced apparently as part of a launch to oppose the review recommendations. I can identify the logos of Auckland Grammar, Rangitoto College, Westlake Boys and Massey High School (of course this may only be a draft mock up and may not reflect the views of these schools.) In fact, I hope it is a draft mock-up as I am sure that the Rototuna Senior High School Kapa Haka Roopu would be stunned to find themselves featuring on the front of this pamphlet!

Why would they be stunned? Because it is so full of misleading information that it is hard to believe that there have been simple errors rather that the intent is to mislead. I can only hazard a guess as to the motivation for such practice.

The section headed 17 Problems with the Haque Plan begins with a common tactic to promote propaganda - don't give the report it's correct title, but personalise it so that opposition can be rallied around a person.

In 30 minutes I was able to find so many examples of inaccuracies and misleading information which I have summarised:

• Schools will no longer be community-led.
• Myth: Boards of Trustees will be replaced by education “Hubs” appointed in Wellington
• Fact: Hubs will take over administration tasks currently carried out by Boards, leaving Boards to concentrate on strategic planning, school culture, student wellbeing and success, localised curriculum and assessment  prectice.
• Boards of Trustees will lose all governance responsibilities
• Myth: Hubs will directly employ principals and teachers
• Fact:  Boards will be involved in the appointment of their principal and have a veto over any decision made by the Hub.
• Fact: Principals will have full control of their staffing appointments and appoint their own teachers (FAQs, Review Report p2)
• Myth: Hubs will decide the culture and approach of each school
• Fact: Boards will still determine the culture, character and nature of their school
• Fact: Boards will focus on learning and teaching decisions for their schools
• Students may not be able to attend their local school
• Myth: Hubs will control enrolment processes
• Fact: “Children and young people will have a right to attend their local school” (FAQs, Review Report p3)
• Principals will be shifted around schools every 5 years
• Fact: Principals will be appointed on 5 year contracts and will have rights of renewal
• School structures will change dramatically
• Myth: All current high schools will be replaced with an “American” model of Senior and Middle schools
• Fact: Intermediates will be phased out in the long term and the the proposed model could be:
• Primary schools (years 1 - 6), middle schools (years 7 - 10), and senior college (years 11 - 13)
• OR full primary schools (years 1 - 8) and secondary schools (years 9 - 13)
• OR composite (Y1 - 13) schools, particularly in rural areas
• Teachers could be shifted around schools on a whim
• Fact: Principals will have full control of their staffing entitlements and appoint their own teachers
• Parents lose choices
• Myth: The Plan discourages schools from focusing on different approaches that give parents options for their children’s education
• Fact: Boards “will focus on learning and teaching decisions for their schools which directly affects the welfare of students, localised curriculum and assessment, student success and wellbeing” (FAQs, Review Report p2)
• Schools will have less control over their finances
• Fact: Principals will control and have full discretion of the use of their operational grants (FAQs: Review Report p2)
• Fact: Boards will have full control of all locally raised funds (FAQs, Review Report p1)

I have also had a local principal contact me because he has felt uncomfortable being contacted by a principal in this Community Schools Alliance to sign up to their cause.

One principal communicated with me last week and I thought the following point he made was quite poignant:

"the gap between haves and have nots has widened in my perception. That alone concerns me, and what concerns me more is that there seems a significant portion of the population that either does not know and/or does not care. In an education context, that manifests itself easily in the competitive model that principals and schools have created - the rich continue to get richer and so on. I totally get why some schools are very anti some of the proposals in the Taskforce Report - it threatens the foundation on which their strengths are built."

Another principal contributed a view which highlights this new culture of consultation being so important so that all views are heard (unlike in the past) and this is making some uncomfortable:

"The current MOE has recognised that there my be something that can be reviewed and altered to support our current system as the inequity and disparity between schools is a divide that only continues to grow. Gathering a range of work groups to investigate the system including NCEA and tomorrows schools allow all that have access to the system an opportunity to have a voice. This includes schools, students, whanau, iwi etc and it is important that the whole of the communities are afforded the opportunity to receive clarity and contribute to really important decisions that will impact on our society.  No one group is more important than the other as we are all stakeholders in our education system."

Another contacted with:

"My 10 years as a Principal has taught me that we have a growing gap between the haves and have nots and we have to be big and bold and challenge this reality rather than continue to perpetuate this within our education system"

And another shared this view around what could be achieved if we were open to exploring the recommendations rather than outright opposition driven by inaccurate information:

"I believe that one of the most significant obstacles that we face as educators is that this powerful relationship that exists within schools is not present between schools. Schools exist in a competitive almost combative environment that is totally appropriate on the sports field but detrimental in the education arena. Schools compete for pupils, they compete for media space and proclaim exam results like trophies. 

What this does is set up a fragmented series of islands that rarely share, rarely, collaborate in any meaningful way and rarely fully trust each other. This is holding back the ability to grow as a collective and unified force. The countries that are often seen as International successes, like Singapore and Finland, are successful partly because they have reduced this artificial sense of competition between schools. 

One of the potential advantages of the HUB concept is that is will give us a chance, an opportunity [should we decide to take it] to break down these artificial and inhibiting barriers and start to come together as a collective working together for the improvement of all, not just our immediate pupils. In that way we may be able to reflect and emulate the relationships that are so powerful in individual schools across a region and across Aotearoa."

The brochure finishes with this:

I suggest that, rather than believing all of the information on this brochure and automatically saying 'No' to The Haque Plan?! (the website referenced on the brochure doesn't seem to be live yet), that you join the conversation at conversation.education.govt,nz,,read the Our Schooling Futures: Stronger Together Whiria Nga Kura Tuatinitini, attend any of the community workshops being run by the Review Team and make a meaningful submission.

There is no simple Yes or No response. Like me, you will find some of the recommendations exciting and aspirational, others you will not be so certain about.

Tomorrow's Schools Review: Winner vs Loser Schools!

It was at a recent Roadshow hui hosted by Bali Haque and fellow members of his Tomorrow's Schools Review team with a group of fellow secondary school principals that the stark difference between my view of school leadership and that of some of my colleagues was made very clear.

We had just listened to Bali take us through, step by step, the key points of their recommendations during which he addressed the points of criticism they had received during this period of consultation. I had arrived with my copy of the document in which I had annotated my main concerns and questions. As he spoke I crossed them off one by one and by the end of his korero was much more open to what was being suggested.

As well, what had impressed me the most was the outlining by Bali, and supported by Mere Berryman, Cathy Wylie and John O'Neill, of a rallying vision for an education system in which we all, as leaders, took responsibility for the quality of the system and all schools within it, not just our own school. This is the sort of vision I got into school leadership for, especially after reading Andy Hargreaves book, Sustainable Leadership, and its chapter of Ethical Leadership, in which he claims you are not an ethical leader if you promote your school at the expense of another school.

I sat there and listened to principal after principal who, even after hearing this vision, responded time and time again with lines like; "I'm lucky to have a good BOT so I'm OK....", "the current model works well for us, why not just focus on the underperforming schools(!)". Several times, other principals in the room applauded after these comments. I seethed and felt lonely!

The difference between myself and that particular group was hammered home when I made my opening comment: "In my 26 years of being involved in BOTs I have not come across one BOT member who was there because they were motivated by dealing with finance, property, human resources and health and safety." I was going to go on to say that they were all motivated by making sure that their kids and their neighbours' kids would have an engaging, meaningful and successful schooling experience. However, my opening statement was met with multiple calls of "Oh, yes they are etc". As I regathered myself (I find it quite nerve-wracking speaking in this forum because the voice seems to be captured by a strong-voiced and strong minded group) I said something like: "I'm sorry but I can only speak about my own experience", and continued with my comment about wanting the best for their kids.

The need and desire to have accountants, lawyers, HR, property and H&S experts on the BOT vs the need and desire to have a diverse group of people who have voices to bring to the table on learning is the difference. This captures our differences on school leadership, this captures our difference on what schooling and teaching and learning should be like and what governance should focus on.

I finished by outlining the things I saw Hubs would take from my school and its BOT (total responsibility for finance, property, health and safety and human resources) and what it would give to my school (an advisory service to provide advice and support on curriculum, resources and pedagogy to teachers and leadership advisors to support me in my role as a leader). I said "Thank You"!

There was no smattering of applause for my comments (but several principals approached me after to thank me for my views and putting them out there as they agreed). My mission is to now encourage disruptive, innovative thinkers to applaud and not leave it to the more conservative thinkers amongst us to own the noise!

As Mere Berryman said, "Schools move in and out of good circumstances," so to retain a system and to not be open to thinking about improvements because you and your school is currently "in with good circumstances", usually (in their own words) "by luck or fortune", does not seem like a good basis for thinking across our whole system. If we believe in winner and loser schools and we are currently a winner school, then, apparently, there will be lots of things we don't want to change or give up.

I have been emotionally shaken by what I heard about the willingness of some school leaders to adopt the position that everything is OK for us so leave it as it is! So much so that I carefully chose the discussion tables I went to so that I could avoid hearing this position being promoted. I failed!

Yet, despite that experience I still feel optimistic. The generational shift occurring across many professions and institutions will not bypass education and school leadership.

PS
I'm still cringing and wondering how my colleagues in the room who are leading schools that aren't seen as "top" or are seen as "underperforming" felt when their colleagues told Bali to only concentrate on the underperformimg schools. That says it all!