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!
21 comments:
Kia ora Maurie, timely post. Myself and a couple of colleagues needed a re-group over a cold beverage this Friday after a week where that seething, lonely feeling was creeping in. We reflected on Cotter's 8 step change model - how do you create a sense of urgency when faced with leaders/colleagues who are unwilling to look beyond their own comfort? Our conclusion was we need to revisit step two of the change process - 'form a powerful coalition'. As you mentioned - there were a smattering of leaders who shared your vision. We identified a smattering of applauders in our context - so our next step is to increase the size of our posse, make connections with those who do see the urgency for change. Safety in numbers eh?
Thanks for sharing - Kia kaha!
Kim
Thanks for this insightful and honest reflection Maurie. Sadly the voices of entitlement and privilege sound loud in some of these forums. Thanks for the leadership you show. Derek
Great strategy, Kim. Mix with like-minded
Appreciate your response, Derek
None of us are really that comfortable with change, as it always involves additional work. So, the equation is simple for leaders, do the changes being proposed justify the additional work you/they will now have to engage with. In this case, the answer is yes.
The rationale is relatively simple when we ask ourselves "What is the purpose of school? If the purpose is to ready our young people for the actual world they will enter in another 1-12 years, then the proposal to free up principals to meet this revised purpose, seems like a good thing unless I have misinterpreted the message!
Our world is increasingly complex, and this is a result of us throwing off the stereotypes of the 70’s and 80’s, allowing people to be who they decide they want to be ... but this comes at a cost; a significant cost. The cost is complex but basically, our young people (and selves for that matter), are having to make far more decisions and far more complex decisions about almost everything. The stress that this causing our young people is unprecedented, especially when they make a poor decision and they are publicly vilified via Instagram/ Facebook et all.
Managing complexity is now the major issue throughout our society as our youth suicide and bullying rates make international headlines - https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-40284130 ... this puts memorizing the periodic table in its place!
To enable our young people and selves, to manage this complexity we need to mint a new set of 'coin(s) of the realm;' so to speak. These are 1. the competencies, 2. the ability of young people to understand and apply the learning process and 3. the application of a conceptually-based curriculum. Each of these domains has equitable status; the ubiquitous 3-legged stool!
The scale of these shifts in both curriculum and pedagogical practice will need to be driven by principals, so taking away a lot of the day-to-day 'school management' of schools, will 'potentially' enable principals to do what they signed up for – what Bali and the team, along with those principals such as yourself Maurie, signed up to was to make a difference in the lives of both educators and the learners in their care. I guarantee you are not alone in your views! Mark Treadwell
Thanks for the response. I know that I am not a lone voice but in that forum on Friday it felt like it. So many good people doing their bit out there!
Keep doing what you believe in - all kudos to you. The world needs more school leaders like you!
Kia ora Maurie. I was there too and was disheartened by the overwhelming sense of pessimism from principals about what could potentially be an exciting future! Wanted to applaud your comments but being new to the forum felt a bit intimidated. Was so glad to hear a forward thinking optimist speak up (as was Bali, I think). I'm excited about the possibilities!
Those in underperforming schools work their butts off for the students in their schools. Every child deserves the best of our education system whether they attend a school with the best Human Resources or not. We cannot continue to ignore the disparity that exists across our schooling sustem
I was also feeling very alone in my views until reading this. Thank you Maurie. I have been a principal in a low-decile school with a falling roll and in a high decile school with a waiting list. I know about the lack of equality and it is heart-breaking and frustrating and very concerning. I feel hopeful that this Tomorrow's Schools review will be a step in the right direction. I'm with you. Viva la revolution.
Your circumstance also highlights the conflict over what the principals role really should be. Like you - I was heartened to hear that there was to be a renewed focus on Principals as pedagogical leaders and boards as representatives of their community who could contribute to the pedagogy that their young people worked within. I was gladdened to hear that large tracts of the business management side of things would be supported via the hubs with principal / board input and veto ( well - hope it was veto).
I really enjoyed reading not only your words but also the comments. It all helps me to better understand the purpose of the proposed changes - if it supports the notion of equity I'm all for it! And I couldn't agree more - we are in this for ALL tamariki not just the bums on our own seats. I will need to be brave and have a voice at the upcoming information hui I am attending.
Admire your courage and willingness to speak up and share your authentic voice. Yay for moral purpose and social justice!
Thanks Simon. We have to collectively address this feeling of intimidation that we experience in that forum. It is a long standing culture perpetuated by a group of bullies.
Thanks Angela. Most of the leaders I have difficulty with have a very narrow range of experience and have no idea of what reality others are experiencing.
Thanks Shelley. Let's keep looking after each other!
Thanks. Great to hear from someone on the same waka.
Speak up because you are not alone.
Great to hear. I know I prefer my view of what the job should be about.
Conservatism serves the community very well in many instances. Many schools have looked like they benefit by being competitive in an education “market”. Your experience, and the efforts of Prof, Neal eg al, are easily seen as a threat to that system by the winners. I find it easy to understand their desire to hold on to the system and all the cultural significance and status that goes with their positions.
I also thoroughly agree that a systemic change is needed, and that those voices calling for change need to be amplified.
I wonder if the challenge is not so much to form a posse to take the “winners” by force, as find a way to speak to the conservative belief structures in a way that is more easily understood by them. Equity is not a motivating factor in the conservative belief system. High standards, loyalty, and respect for authority are more motivating*. Maybe those with a desire to see all student’s excel need to discuss this in terms of raising standards? Is that an option?
Raising Standards of academic success, Raising Standards in sports, Raising Standards in property management and asset optimisation, Raising Standards in student behaviour. These are ideals that fit with the parts of Tomorrow’s Schools that the current “winners” applaud. How hard is it to suggest that the Hubs and Kahui Ako will be used in Raising Standards of Achievement, Propoerty Management, Behaviour?
* See work of Jonathan Haidt on Moral differences between Liberal and Conservative voters.
Well said, Maurie. I came away from the meeting in Hamilton earlier this week thinking about our BOT. I think that there are some BOTs who have the skills to run a meeting very well but lack real insight into governance. While it may appear that the BOT and school is functioning very well, it is often the principal who who carries the board.
Post a Comment