NZSTA Submission
on the
Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report
7 April 2019
One topic of discussion … focused on how to ensure that schooling remains relevant and sustainable. That means that schools remain places where students want to learn; that they are both intellectually and financially attractive workplaces for teachers; that they deliver inclusive, effective and affordable learning opportunities; and that they command trust and support from parents and society. This is easy to say, but it can be difficult to achieve. As United Kingdom Education Minister John Swinney noted, there is a tussle between the moral purpose of education and the ‘wicked’ problems that can derail schools and erode trust. In the face of many distractions, it can be hard to keep schools focused on the big picture. Turning a blind eye to the shifts in society is not an answer, either. As Alejandro Tiana, Education Minister of Spain, put it: change affects everybody. We can react in different ways, but we all have to face it.
…The good news is that our knowledge about what works in education has vastly improved. But knowledge is only as valuable as our capacity to act on it, and the road to educational progress is littered with good ideas that were poorly implemented. One reason for the difficulty we face in reforming education is simply the scale and reach of the sector. And because everyone has participated in education, everyone has an opinion about it. Everyone supports education reform – except for their own children. And even those who promote reform often change their minds after they figure out what change actually means for them. Then there is the issue of losing privilege, because the vast structure of established providers has given rise to many vested interests. It’s sometimes difficult to ask the frogs to clear the swamp. That’s why the status quo has many protectors: stakeholders in education who have a vested interest in preventing change. There is often uncertainty about who will benefit from reforms and to what extent; the costs are short- term and benefits only accrue over time. Ministers may lose an election over education issues, but they rarely win with education, because the fruits of change rarely become apparent within an electoral cycle.
At a time when command-and-control systems are weakening, building trust is perhaps the most promising way to advance and fuel modern education systems. - Andreas Schleicher1
1 Leading together: insights from ministers and teachers on the future of education. March 18, 2019 http://oecdeducationtoday.blogspot.com/
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 2
… Like almost every modern government, we were preoccupied with efficiency and getting value for money. In those terms, the old public service didn't offer a particularly good defence of itself. I don't think that anyone should be nostalgic about it. It wasn't in any way an effective tool of government. When I became minister of education in 1987 I couldn't believe what I found… any sense of an overall plan, if it had ever existed, had long since been obscured. The minister of education was formally responsible for what happened in the schools. In practice this meant that I used to get papers which asked me to approve the installation of temporary classrooms. … School principals used to have to get the department's approval for a new colour scheme. The mountain of detail meant that nobody was actually responsible for anything. … The Picot committee found many parents who were concerned about the performance of the local school but were quite unable to pin down anyone in the system who could or would take responsibility for it. The organisation defeated the best intentions of the people who worked in it. Lines of authority were blurred. Communications were poor. Goals were unclear. Without clear goals, nobody could properly be held to account. In the absence of any other star to steer by, the rule-book became the guide-book. You didn't have to be an economic rationalist to find this disconcerting. The evidence of administrative paralysis was overwhelming. The old model was indefensible. (David Lange, 1999 p.11)
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 3
Contents Introduction ...... 9 Summary and Recommendations...... 10 Boards of Trustees ...... 11 Service centres not regional education boards ...... 13 Boards of trustees should retain the employer role...... 14 Managing the schooling network ...... 15 Schooling Provision ...... 16 Disability and Learning Support | He Mahi Āwhina i te Ako ...... 17 The role of the principal | tumuaki...... 18 Central Education Agencies | Nga Tari Pokapū ...... 18 Where to from here? NZSTA's role ...... 19 NZSTA Recommendations ...... 21 Boards of Trustees’ responses to Taskforce Governance recommendations ...... 23 Word cloud: All comments ...... 26 General comment on the Taskforce report ...... 27 What the Taskforce said, and what they say they meant ...... 27 Inconsistencies in the report ...... 27 Evaluating the Taskforce proposals ...... 27 Student outcomes and experiences ...... 28 Student achievement, outcomes and experiences ...... 28 Go to the source: survey student perspectives ...... 28 Identifying the issues ...... 29 Anecdotal evidence is informative, but not always representative ...... 29 Strengths-based or deficit ...... 30 Text and subtext ...... 30 Advocacy not policy advice ...... 31 Effective change ...... 32 Logic, logistics and magical thinking ...... 33 Undervaluing boards of trustees is a chronic and systemic issue ...... 33 System capacity and capability to replace 18,000 trustees ...... 34 Strengths-based analysis is needed to build a strengths-based system ...... 35 Our current schooling system | Te pūnaha kura o tēnei wā ...... 37 Purpose |Te Whāinga ...... 37 Design Principles | Ngā Mātāpono Whakahoahoa ...... 39 Current system design principles (1988) ...... 39
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 4
Proposed design principles (2018) ...... 40 Ensuring that the key decisions in the system are made at the appropriate level...... 43 Why we need change ...... 44 Learning from the past ...... 44 Strengths and weaknesses of the present system ...... 46 NZSTA suggestions for building on the strengths of the present system ...... 47 Governance | Ngā Mahi Whakahaere ...... 50 What is governance? ...... 50 Intelligent accountability ...... 51 Multiple accountabilities ...... 52 The governing role in schools ...... 54 Effective school governance ...... 55 Self-governance and self-management ...... 57 Strengths of Board Governance...... 57 Strategic Leadership ...... 57 Representation ...... 57 School boards of trustees ...... 58 The role of the board ...... 59 System barriers ...... 61 Finance and property...... 61 Community-raised funds ...... 61 Is the Board of Trustees self-governing model working consistently well across the country? ...... 62 Trustee elections ...... 62 Boards’ capacity and capability ...... 64 Representation ...... 67 Representing the community ...... 67 Support for Boards ...... 68 What is working well ...... 69 Build Further ...... 70 Boards are not the problem ...... 70 Community participation and partnership ...... 72 Boards of Trustees and New Zealand’s civil society...... 72 Civil society means community partnership ...... 73 Consultation with parents and whānau ...... 73 Consultation with students, Iwi and Hapū...... 74 Where is the community in the Taskforce proposals? ...... 75 Empowering communities ...... 76
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 5
Student suspensions exclusions and expulsions ...... 78 Most suspensions, expulsions and exclusions are well handled by boards of trustees at school level ...... 78 Context and balance ...... 80 Independent right of review ...... 81 Stand-downs, Suspension Expulsion and Exclusion current processes ...... 83 Supporting schools effectively ...... 84 Hub models overseas ...... 85 Hubs should not govern schools ...... 86 Legal responsibilities and liabilities ...... 87 Governing the hubs ...... 88 Ministerially appointed group of directors...... 88 Local area strategic and annual education plans ...... 89 Interventions in poorly performing hubs ...... 90 Hubs should not manage the schooling network ...... 91 Monitor board performance and have the power to dismiss school boards ...... 92 Annual planning and reporting ...... 92 Advocacy and complaint services for parents and students ...... 93 Hubs should support schools ...... 94 Creating effective service-delivery Hubs ...... 95 Collaboration – Kahui Ako ...... 95 Evaluation and review ...... 95 Education hubs review schools against KPIs...... 96 Teaching support ...... 96 Leadership Advisers ...... 97 Learner Support ...... 97 Business support ...... 97 Governance support ...... 97 Employment ...... 98 Boards of trustees should retain the employer role...... 99 Principal appointment and appraisal ...... 102 Career development and secondment opportunities ...... 104 Support for the board’s employer role ...... 105 What is currently supported under the Ministry contract with NZSTA ...... 105 The need for continued employment support ...... 106 Teaching | Ngā Mahi Ako ...... 108 Moving staff between schools ...... 108 Implications for school culture ...... 109
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 6
Teacher Education ...... 109 Schooling Provision | Ngā Momo Kura me Ngā Hononga ...... 111 Honouring te Tiriti o Waitangi ...... 111 Kura Kaupapa Māori ...... 111 Parallel development or integrated development ...... 112 Treaty responsibilities ...... 112 Te Aho Matua ...... 112 Governance in Māori-medium schools ...... 113 Integrated and special character schools ...... 113 Property ...... 113 Tagged teachers/ principal requirements ...... 113 Separate hubs for State Integrated schools?...... 114 Meet the needs of all children and young people regardless of where they live ...... 114 Working together ...... 114 Encouraging more schools and kura to work with local community groups and organisations ...... 115 The quality of our schools...... 116 Whole of government approach ...... 116 Competition and choice | He Tauwhāinga, He Kōwhiri ...... 117 Parent choice and competition ...... 117 Disability and Learning Support | He Mahi Āwhina i te Ako ...... 119 The current situation ...... 120 Hubs may help, but they are not the answer ...... 120 Where are these people / resources coming from? ...... 121 What will actually change? ...... 122 Learning support coordinators ...... 122 The role of the principal | tumuaki ...... 124 Principal appraisal ...... 125 Leadership centre ...... 126 Leadership and Principal workloads ...... 126 Central Education Agencies | Nga Tari Pokapū ...... 128 Capacity and influence...... 128 Ministry of Education ...... 129 Education Evaluation Office...... 131 Where to from here? NZSTA's role ...... 133 Providing support services to boards ...... 133 NZSTA regional network of service and support hubs ...... 133 Trustee professional development ...... 135
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 7
Appendix - Accountability: Knowing and Showing ...... 137 Appendix: A Vision for Education in New Zealand ...... 139 Appendix: BoardSURE ...... 140 Appendix: Independent review panel pilot ...... 142 About the Pilot ...... 142 How it came about ...... 142 Purpose ...... 142 the Panel ...... 142 Participation is voluntary ...... 143 About the review ...... 143 Seeking a review ...... 143 Who can seek a review? ...... 143 Who will attend the review hearing ...... 143 the Panel’s recommendations ...... 143 What schools can expect ...... 144 What people requesting a review can expect ...... 144
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 8
Summary and recommendations
Introduction
1. This feedback is presented by the New Zealand School Trustees Association (NZSTA) on behalf of its member boards. 2. School boards of trustees are the largest single group of crown entities in the country, accountable directly to the government and their local community for the effective delivery of education in their school. 3. NZSTA is a national body representing the interests of approximately 2,260 member school boards of trustees (93 percent of the total number). There are approximately 18,000 people currently serving on 2,426 state and state integrated school boards. 4. As part of its service delivery function, NZSTA provides a comprehensive support service to school boards of trustees, including free access to employment and governance advisory services, a full range of professional development and access to an 0800 Advisory and Support Centre. NZSTA is also an active party with the Ministry of Education in negotiating Collective Agreements with unions. 5. NZSTA as a membership organisation surveys member boards from time to time on issues of current or potential significance to school boards of trustees. 6. This feedback draws on NZSTA's: • ongoing dialogue with individual school boards and principals, and elected board of trustees representatives at local, regional and national levels • experience in supporting boards of trustees with governance and accountability issues through our 0800 Advisory and Support Centre, and our national network of professional governance and employment advisers • Collective Agreement negotiations • formal Professional Development and targeted support for boards of trustees • opinion surveys of member boards. 7. We can be contacted at NZSTA, PO Box 5123, Wellington, phone 471 6422, fax 473 4706, email [email protected].
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 9
Summary and recommendations
Summary and Recommendations
8. School governance in New Zealand is not broken. It is under-resourced, misunderstood and neglected, and has been for most of the past 30 years but for the most part, it works and works well in spite of that. 9. What is required is some judicious weeding and pruning followed by a generous application of growth enhancer, not a rearrangement of the landscaping. Students first 10. We would like to have seen more focus in the Taskforce report on student experiences and outcomes, and in particular how the proposed changes in governance and central agency structures might impact on the quality of students’ experience, and their educational outcomes. It is essential that whatever changes are made to the structures and processes of our schooling system as a result of the present review, a regular direct connection to the student experience is built into both policymaking and evaluation processes. A report, but not a substantive review 11. We aware that over recent weeks the Taskforce has expressed some surprise and even dismay at the response to its report, and has argued that the issues being raised by stakeholders and commentators are, for various reasons, not what the Taskforce intended. 12. Unfortunately, we can only respond to what the Taskforce has actually said, not what they think they meant. 13. There are clearly parts of the report where the Taskforce has not thought through the implications of their proposals clearly enough, has made inconsistent statements in different sections of the report, and has proposed things throughout the report that would take the system in a direction different from the one they say they prefer. We cannot afford to withhold comment on those issues simply because the Taskforce now says they misspoke. Strengths-based or deficit 14. Developing a strengths-based system for the future requires strengths-based analysis. The Taskforce report shows signs of a strengths-based approach in places, and we believe the report would be stronger and the proposals more compelling if the Taskforce is able to extend these pockets of positivity to the report as a whole. 15. It is possible that such an approach might substantially influence the direction and tenor of their analysis and their proposed solutions. 16. There is a persistent subtext to the report, that despite the superficially supportive argument seems to clearly imply that because the space between school principals and the Ministry of Education (where boards of trustees operate) is sometimes problematic, that means boards of trustees are the problem, rather than a mitigating factor or symptomatic of a wider dysfunction. Lack of substantive analysis 17. We remain unsure whether the concerns addressed are necessarily the most important concerns, or the solutions proposed the most effective solutions, or whether they are simply those that correspond most closely to the taskforce members’ previously published ideas.
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 10
Summary and recommendations
18. There is obvious surface activity in the reorganisation of agencies and the reassigning of responsibilities, but we question whether and how these institutional changes will transform the culture of the sector. Learning from past experience 19. The past contains wisdom and successes as well as mistakes and miscalculations. We remain concerned that the Taskforce report does not appear to engage He kapiti hono, he tatai substantively or constructively with earlier thinking or hono explicitly seek to acknowledge and preserve the relevant learnings and successes of earlier generations. That which is joined Purpose together becomes an unbroken line 20. NZSTA strongly agrees that the New Zealand schooling system needs a unifying purpose statement that is enduring, inclusive, student-centred, embrace a breadth of desired student outcomes and developed in consultation with the schooling sector2. 21. The proposed purpose has not been consulted widely or If you do not know effectively and to that extent at least, falls short of the where you come from, criteria identified in the TRASP report. then you don't know Design principles where you are, and if 22. The Taskforce offers useful vision and design principles you don't know where however these do not appear to connect or correlate in any you are, then you don't way to the work already done by previous groups. Doing so know where you're would be a useful exercise that can only strengthen and add going. And if you don't credibility to the Taskforce’s efforts in this area. know where you're Boards of Trustees going, you're probably going wrong. 23. School boards of trustees have been the most cost-effective ― Terry Pratchett part of the education system for the past 30 years, in spite of the lack of adequate support for the role over most of that period. 24. NZSTA supports in principle the intention to …reorient the roles of boards and school principals / tumuaki so that they are able to focus on their core responsibilities, however successive governments have clearly signalled that the core responsibility of a school board of trustees is to govern their local school as trustees for their local community. Kia whakatōmuri te haere whakamua: Effective school governance 25. Self governance has been proven to work in a large number I walk backwards into of schools and is improving overall all the time. This makes the future with my eyes it difficult to reconcile this statement of intention with the fixed on my past
2 Taskforce on Regulations Affecting School Performance (TRASP) report (2014) NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 11
Summary and recommendations
Taskforce’s proposals to strip boards of trustees of their governance responsibilities and effectively return them to the status of a school committee. 26. One of the systemic issues that we would have liked to see addressed in the Taskforce report is the undervaluing of community time and expertise across the board. Deficit thinking about school boards of trustees has been a systemic issue and it’s one we need to address if we truly want to achieve the ‘cultural transformation’ the Taskforce is talking about. We need to present a strengths-based analysis if we want to build a strengths-based system. Social capacity and civil society 27. School trusteeship can be a powerful means of increasing social capacity (civil society). One of the potential unintended consequences of the Taskforce proposals is that this will be lost to New Zealand communities, that parents and communities – and potentially principals and staff as well - will feel disempowered, as they did pre-1989 if these proposals are adopted. We need to have a much more substantive conversation about how we might mitigate risks like these. 28. When mobilized, civil society - including School Boards of Trustees, sometimes called the ‘third sector’ (after government and commerce) - has the power to influence the actions of elected policy-makers and businesses. 29. Fully functioning and resourced Boards of Trustees, who are engaged in real time and authentic decision making, model to students the functionality of an important element of civil society. Democracy and the role of the community 30. Does the government still trust local communities to steer their children’s schooling, in partnership with educators and government agencies, or not? 31. The Taskforce report is quite exclusively focussed on how the system will work at a bureaucratic and technocratic level, with very little consideration of how community members will engage the system (apart from formal complaints) or how the democratic principles that motivated the Tomorrows Schools reform will be honoured. In fact, it seems clear that they will not. Governance and accountability 32. The Taskforce report demonstrates a general lack of understanding of the nature of governance in a school environment or the realities of the multiple accountabilities and compliance requirements in the present system. Governing a school is not equivalent to governing a small or medium-sized business enterprise. 33. Governance is not simply about accountability – accountability is part of governance, but so are governing process (including strategic thinking), employment, board culture, community engagement, and a commitment to wellbeing and inclusion, and the organisation’s core business (in the case of schools, student experience and outcomes). The governing body is kaitiaki of the community’s future, it’s hopes and aspirations. It is not simply a mechanism for reporting on year-to-date or year-on-year progress. The governing role in schools
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 12
Summary and recommendations
34. Boards of trustees are first and foremost concerned with strategic governance of their school, with a focus on the core purpose of promoting positive student outcomes3. However there are also elements of the boards role that sit at the boundary of governance and management, such as property and finance. 35. This means that there are indeed some areas of boards’ current responsibilities that can be usefully supported by a network of local service centres. It also means that providing support for these business- and management- oriented activities is entirely possible without compromising the board’s status as the governing body.
Service centres not regional education boards
36. We have concerns that hubs appear to fulfil a multitude of functions throughout the report, some of which are not easily compatible with others. 37. At an operational level, NZSTA sees a lot of merit in the proposal to re-establish a network of service and support centres across the country. This might well be vested in regional hubs. 38. However, transferring the governing role away from communities and vesting it in those service centres raises a new and different set of issues. A governing body leads, navigates and directs. A representative body represents. A service provider takes direction from their client’s needs. We simply do not believe that the proposal for hubs to be the instrument of implementing government policies in schools, with the implications of compulsion and compliance that activity brings with it, is compatible with the service delivery culture that will be necessary for hubs to provide effective support to schools in their catchment area. Regular review 39. NZSTA strongly supports the principle that education hubs along with every other aspect of the system should be reviewed regularly against agreed KPIs however we believe that the evaluation and review components of the Taskforce proposals require further consideration and refinement. Governance support 40. Practising educators are not governance experts. How will the Minister ensure that the hub’s board of directors is focussed on governance expertise if fewer than half of them are appointed for these capacities and capabilities? 41. It seems naively optimistic to assume, as the Taskforce has done, that handing over governance responsibilities to a board comprising more than 50% who are chosen for skills and experience that are not related to effective governing practice will result in a system of governance that requires no support. This is setting these boards up to fail. 42. NZSTA successfully provides those services and opportunities to current boards of trustees. When and if regional hubs are created, we strongly suggest that NZSTA is engaged to provide governance support and advice as required to all parties. Failing hubs
3 Schedule 6 of the the Education Act 1989 states: 5 Board’s objectives in governing school (1) A board’s primary objective in governing the school is to ensure that every student at the school is able to attain his or her highest possible standard in educational achievement.
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 13
Summary and recommendations
43. We also have concerns about the proposals for intervention in poorly performing hubs. The risk to student achievement of one hub requiring intervention is by definition equivalent to risk of 100 - 125 school interventions. A poorly performing principal or school board may affect as few as 20 or as many as 4,000 students. A dysfunctional or poorly performing hub board would affect around 40,000. 44. It is ironic that the Taskforce advocates on the one hand that “mechanisms to intervene in poorly performing schools are weak” (p.46) and that at school level this is so problematic that it warrants the removal of all boards of trustees’ governing role, but at the same time is satisfied that a non-performing governing board at hub level, affecting many dozens of schools is a simple matter of the minister dismissing the hub’s board of directors. Supporting and enabling schools 45. NZSTA welcomes the proposal to reinstate effective support and services for schools through a district hub model, particularly for property, health and safety and teacher professional development. The continual erosion of these services over the 30 years of Tomorrows Schools has placed huge burdens on boards, principals, staff and communities and compromised students’ experiences and achievement levels. School culture and connectedness 46. The Taskforce proposes that teachers and principals would be employed by the hub, to teach in the district governed by the hub's board of directors. The hub would reserve the right to transfer teachers and principals within the district, in much the same way that the principal reserves the right to transfer them between classrooms within the school. 47. Boards have expressed real concerns about the implication of hubs’ discretion to transfer principals or teaching staff for the ability to develop and maintain a local school culture. The Taskforce doesn't address how this would work for integrated or special character schools, with the requirement for tagged positions, or the requirement of all teachers appointed in special character schools to uphold the values and ethos of the school. Integrated and Kaupapa Māori schools 48. It is not clear how Ngā Kura Kaupapa Māori or State Integrated schools fit into the Education Hub model.
Boards of trustees should retain the employer role
49. There is no evidence that the entire principal recruitment process lacks credibility. There is no doubt that it can be strengthened, and the endorsed consultant programme provides a platform where a more effective “fee for service” recruitment and HR generalist offering can be made by NZSTA. There is no evidence that boards have consistently failed to fulfil their obligations as the employer of record, and to have these decisions led by a regional hub is an unwarranted attack on a founding premise of democratic, community-led education. Principal appointment and appraisal 50. We see a lot of merit in the Taskforce’s suggestion of strengthening the career paths and enable secondments or transfers between schools. We are keen to explore the possibilities for collaborative arrangements between boards to enable this, in a way that does not disempower school communities or professional educators in the process. 51. The recommendations about principal appraisal appear to be based on the rather naive assumption that the hub will manage the performance of failing principals. However
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 14
Summary and recommendations
removing the function to a hub doesn’t automatically solve the problem. For example, it is not clear how hubs would ensure that the quality of appraisers available to boards will be higher or more consistent than those currently available. 52. NZSTA currently provides advice and support on principal appointment and appraisal to boards of trustees. NZSTA is committed to continuous improvement of our support services to schools and would be open to a review of the Ministry’s resourcing for principal appointment and appraisal services to determine whether and how the services currently offered be extended to better meet the needs of school boards. Support for the board’s employer role 53. It has only been in the past few years that NZSTA was able to convince the government to fund proactive HR advice to schools. Prior to 2014, government funded support was limited to assistance in resolving employment disputes. NZSTA’s network of regional hubs has been developed largely with a view to providing this enhanced employment advice and support to schools. 54. We take exception to Taskforce’s comment that “…there would no longer be a need for a national contract with NZSTA to train and support boards” which we find gratuitous and unhelpful. NZSTA is well placed to extend its employment support to schools as resources permit.
Managing the schooling network
55. NZSTA does not support the proposal for hubs to take on the role of managing the schooling network. We do not consider decisions about mergers, closures or interventions to be compatible with the hubs’ service delivery role. 56. NZSTA strongly rejects the proposal that hubs would have the power to dismiss school boards. School boards of trustees are elected representatives of the community, not servants of the hub. Support for schools’ planning and reporting 57. Apart from the question of who serves whom in the relationship between boards of trustees and hubs, we see considerable merit in the other elements of the Taskforce proposals for planning and reporting. These can work just as effectively with boards of trustees retaining their governing role and hubs providing local support and co-ordination. NZSTA’s expertise and support in school governance practice will be a critical success factor in any scenario. 58. We see considerable merit in streamlining and refocussing the planning and reporting process away from heavy-handed compliance toward substantive reporting to key stakeholder groups, i.e. school community, local network of schools, and government. 59. NZSTA proposes that instead of the Taskforce proposals, the government seriously consider adding monitoring and quality assurance of school boards of trustees’ charter, strategic and annual planning to the schedule of services NZSTA is engaged to provide. Decision-making and review 60. If boards of trustees are confined to a purely advisory role as proposed by the Taskforce then it will not be decisions of the board of trustees that are the subject of parent and student complaints, it will be the hub (or the school principal on advice from the hub) making the decisions that parents and students wish to appeal. It is a nonsense in these
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 15
Summary and recommendations
circumstances to propose that hubs can provide an “independent” disputes and appeal service. 61. This is a clear conflict of interest, as is the proposal that hubs should be the provider of “independent” advocacy and advice to parents about the advice and services the hub has provided to the principal.
Schooling Provision
Honouring te Tiriti o Waitangi 62. As a sector, we are still learning what it means to honour Te Tiriti o Waitiangi in a meaningful way. A genuine commitment to meeting treaty obligations would include an invitation to Iwi to lead this conversation. Working together 63. Promoting collaboration between schools and between schools, ECE and tertiary providers to provide better educational experiences and outcomes will be a critical success factor for the refreshed education system. 64. We need also to ensure that policy design and implementation remains consistent with the theoretical or pedagogical model it is based on if we expect it to be effective. Encouraging schools and kura to work with local communities 65. NZSTA supports the principle of encouraging collaboration between schools and their local community, whether it be at an individual or group level. At the same time, it is important to be clear about the purpose of such activity and not just promote it as an end in itself. Quality schools and quality teaching 66. The Taskforce proposals appear to overemphasise variation between schools and underemphasise variation within schools. In NZ more than most jurisdictions the biggest differences in student achievement is NOT between schools, but between classes in the same school. Teacher Education 67. We welcome the Taskforce’s recognition that Initial Teacher Education and Professional Learning and Development are not currently fit-for-purpose. 68. We agree that a network of service hubs across the country has the potential to provide more coherent and comprehensive teacher education and career pathways however we caution again that the creation of service hubs is not the solution in and of itself. ‘Full service’ schools 69. Schools have a unique and crucial place in our society. Yes, it will be important for education policymakers and providers to work with other agencies. It is also important that schools’ core responsibility to be the place where children and young people receive a high quality education is protected and maintained. Equity and excellence 70. Disempowering boards won't stop parents avoiding some schools to enrol their children at 'better' schools. In fact, this practice is likely to increase because parents will no longer have a mechanism by which they can actively work towards improving their local school.
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 16
Summary and recommendations
71. Whatever structure school governance takes, parents will still want to send their children to schools that they perceive as being 'best' (whatever 'best' might mean to them). Is it possible and/or desirable to aim for a school system, where each school is the equal of the others? Or should we aim instead for equality of opportunity that provides a range of approaches, tailored to the community each school serves?
Disability and Learning Support | He Mahi Āwhina i te Ako
72. NZSTA welcomes the recognition that existing provision for disability and learning support creates impossible choices for boards and principals. 73. This is certainly consistent with the experience of our member boards, and NZSTA staff who support them with these issues. Boards of trustees are often left trying to bridge the very real gap between the level of resourcing and practical support provided by government agencies and the reasonable expectations of students and whānau. 74. The Taskforce proposal to extend the remit of the proposed Education Evaluation Office to the effectiveness of Ministry operations might be of very real assistance. The impossible we do already. Miracles take longer. 75. Boards do need to be proactive and meticulous in getting assurance from the principal that they are complying with the school’s inclusive values and strategic goals by making the school a genuinely inclusive environment. The bone-deep knowledge that to do so will be putting the principal in an impossible position in light of the constraints imposed by the lack of access to people, technologies or specialist knowledge that is needed, creates a real dilemma for some schools. 76. A good employer does not require the impossible of their staff, or sanction them for being unable to do the impossible, yet this is what boards of trustees around the country are routinely expected to do. 77. We are sure that the government can find the funds in its budget if it wishes to do so. It is less clear how we will generate the additional (well trained, highly competent) resources and bodies on the ground that we will need to make it work. There is already a huge shortfall of people and resources to provide disability and learning support. Capacity to create real change for students and whānau 78. NZSTA supports in principle the idea that every school has a Learning Support Co-ordinator (LSC) however we have reservations about the implementation of these proposals. For example, it is not clear that every school will need a full-time dedicated broker of learning support, or that one such position will be enough in every school. 79. Nor is it clear how much practical difference the provision of a Learning Support Coordinator will make if the specialist capacity they are meant to broker is not available. Will the focus on providing brokerage through the LSC reduce the number of people available to actually provide learning support? 80. Real change will not be achieved by paying off Ministry of Education staff and reappointing them the next day to continue the same work in the same way for a Hub. In the absence of a strategy to boost the specialist education, healthcare and mental health services workforce we do not see how the vison for disability and learning support can be achieved.
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 17
Summary and recommendations
The role of the principal | tumuaki
81. We have reservations about the Taskforce’s specific proposals relating to the Principal | Tumuaki role. Good Management Workloads Practices 82. It is not at all clear that some of the proposed mechanisms such as the ‘delegate back’ proposals in Recommendation 2 1.2.10 Good management practices also will achieve the stated intention of reorienting the role, or means an appropriate balance of make principal workloads more manageable. If hubs are responsibilities between the local level intended to allocate the business as usual of finance, and central government. We personnel etc back to principals, then not much will change in acknowledge that complete devolution the pressures on the time they have available for leadership. carries certain dangers. New Zealand, for instance, has a small—but highly Leadership centre mobile—population which makes a 83. NZSTA supports the proposal to develop an effective school certain degree of standardisation leadership centre. desirable; and it is also worth noting that one of the main reasons for 84. If principals are to retain the management responsibility of establishing a central Department of acting as the CEO of the school as well as the leader of Education in 1877 was the prevention of learning then the Leadership Centre will have to ensure a parochialism. As well, some matters are sensible portion of the professional development and support the concern of the state—such as provided there will be on teaching CEO skills. guarding against appointments to positions being unfair and unjust. In 85. The Leadership Centre should be instrumental in promoting essence, our views are that the leadership styles that embrace and look forward to working in government should take only those tandem with a governing board that pushes them to maintain administrative decisions it needs to high standards of transparency, accountability and take; and that all other administrative consistency. decisions it should pass to the learning institution. Central Education Agencies | Nga Tari Pokapū 1.2.11 The government's main functions 86. NZSTA takes issue with the Taskforce’s assertion that are to decide upon national objectives, agencies have lost the capacity and capability to deeply to establish funding priorities, to review influence schools in their core business of teaching and and audit institutions' performance in learning "Because schools are self-governing”. the light of the national objectives, and to manage the property owned by the 87. Central agencies have lost their influence because they have education system. never really demonstrated that they have understood the
difference between co-construction and control, dismantled 1.2.12 Ministers need high-quality the support networks that used to have influence, abdicated advice on which to base policy, and so responsibility for ensuring that the system they manage on we see a clear need to separate policy our behalf provides students, communities, and professional advisers from the providers of education educators have the tools and resources to succeed, and to eliminate any potential conflicts of instead of reflecting critically on their own performance, they interest. Advice to government must be have settled into the relatively comfortable pattern of freed as far as possible from self- scapegoating the agencies and individuals they have been interest, so that it has the credibility and supposed to serve. neutrality that is required of it. 88. We do not believe that the Taskforce’s proposals do enough - Picot Report p.5 to ensure that this changes. Ministry of Education
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 18
Summary and recommendations
89. The ministry has been through several changes over the course of its existence. While staffed with some highly competent people it has probably never been operating as effectively as it should. The loss of PLD4 and other services has been a huge problem that illustrates a disconnect that seems to have been in existence from the beginning. 90. The lack of contact between Ministry advisers and boards of trustees has been a significant factor in creating distrust of the Ministry. Boards generally have only ever heard from Ministry advisers if it is bad news. 91. A network of local or regional hubs focussed on support and service delivery has some real potential to redress this, but unless the focus and energy goes into a genuinely constructive and collaborative relationship that demonstrates clear and convincing differences from existing operating models then we are simply going to see 20 hubs doing what the current 10 or 12 Ministry regional offices already do, with no improvement in trust or influence. Education Evaluation Office 92. Both ERO5 and NZQA6 have done useful work over the past 30 years. However, over that time both have become heavily compliance- and process-driven. This is necessary, but no longer sufficient. 93. NZSTA supports in principle the proposal to create a new Education Evaluation Office (EEO) reporting directly to parliament on the effectiveness of the sector. There are significant gaps in the present oversight of the system, notably the effectiveness of central agencies, which we believe that the new EEO would have the potential to fill. 94. Responsibilities of the EEO with regard to monitoring of the Ministry of Education’s effectiveness need to be aligned with the existing responsibilities of the State Services Commission and the Office of the Auditor General to ensure that these do not cut across each other, and that the respective responsibilities and accountabilities are clear and unambiguous. 95. The new EEO needs to embrace a substantively different and broader culture and mission than ERO and NZQA if it is to be effective in monitoring and directing the system. It needs to be holistic, multi-disciplinary, adaptive, rigorous in its understanding of evolving theory and academic discourse, research and evaluation, with an equally strong grounding in practitioner excellence.
Where to from here? NZSTA's role
96. NZSTA is highly effective at supporting boards of trustees, and one of the few organisations to have system-wide perspectives and responsibilities across the compulsory education sector. 97. NZSTA strongly supports the intention to re-establish system-level support for connecting schools with other schools. We do not see that it is necessary to disrupt the grassroots democracy and the principle of community ownership, vested in locally elected boards of trustees, in order to do that. NZSTA’s regional network of support hubs
4 Professional Learning and Development – i.e. continuing education for teachers 5 Education Review Office 6 New Zealand Qualifications Authority
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 19
Summary and recommendations
98. Recent organisational changes to provide more effective and comprehensive services, particularly following Budget 2014’s boost to support for boards of trustees, have further enhanced our effectiveness in this work. 99. NZSTA currently operates seven regional hubs providing on-the-ground site-based support to boards of trustees and principals in core governance areas such as strategic planning, financial reporting, policy development, self-review, meeting procedure, community engagement, student achievement (schools’ core purpose) and employment practices. These services are provided free to boards under contract to the Ministry of Education. NZSTA’s regional hubs operate on a service delivery model, as proposed by the Taskforce. Trustee professional development 100. Data from NZSTA’s annual satisfaction survey shows that participation in NZSTA professional development has increased from 86% to 91% of all boards of trustees between 2015 and 20187. Expanding NZSTA services to create regional hubs 101. Expanding NZSTA’s current regional capacity to fill the role envisaged in the Taskforce report would require the inclusion of two additional work streams to complement the existing service provision: • professional support for education practitioners • business support including property, financial and administrative services. 102. Growing these new service delivery structures from the service and support orientation of NZSTA regional hubs would have significant advantages over trying to transform existing Ministry of Education offices with their strong bureaucratic culture into effective service delivery depots. 103. NZSTA is confident of its ability to provide effective advocacy, leadership and support to school boards across all areas envisaged by the Taskforce proposals for through expansion of its existing regional network of service hubs.
7 NZCER 2019 p.9
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 20
Summary and recommendations
NZSTA Recommendations
NZSTA Recommendation 1 ➢ That soliciting the views of children and young people, as undertaken by the Office of the Children’s Commissioner and NZSTA in 2017 becomes a routine part of education sector monitoring and policy-making
NZSTA Recommendation 2 ➢ That the government undertakes a deliberate programme of consultation with students, communities, and education sector stakeholders and consolidating on past consultations and advice, to develop a unifying purpose statement for education, that applies to the schooling sector.
NZSTA Recommendation 3 ➢ That school Boards of Trustees retain the authority and responsibility to govern their school.
NZSTA Recommendation 4 ➢ That the concept of hubs should be developed, with responsibility for supporting and providing a comprehensive range of services to schools
NZSTA Recommendation 5 ➢ That the Ministry a. considers once again tagging a proportion of operational funding to be earmarked for principal appraisal as had occurred previously b. makes grants available to boards who need to recruit a principal.
NZSTA Recommendation 6 ➢ That further consideration is given to the issues of developing and maintaining the system capacity and capability needed to effectively deliver on the Taskforce’s aspirations for disability and learning support.
NZSTA Recommendation 7 ➢ That principal appraisal is one of the core services provided to schools by education hubs
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 21
Summary and recommendations
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 22
Analysis and Commentary
Boards of Trustees’ responses to Taskforce Governance recommendations
The following charts summarise NZSTA member boards’ responses to our survey on the Taskforce’s main proposals, conducted in February/March 2019. Representative comments from this survey are reproduced throughout this report.
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 23
Analysis and Commentary
Boards of trustees responses to Taskforce governance recommendations (1) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
The Board of Trustees self-governing model is not working consistently well… 6% 32% 19% 29% 14%
Giving the governing role to an education hub would improve consistency 6% 19% 14% 23% 38%
The role of boards should be re-oriented so that their core responsibilities… 11% 30% 15% 28% 16%
Governing hubs would improve your Board of Trustees' core focus 7% 13% 20% 23% 37%
Too much time and effort is expended on matters which many boards are… 10% 18% 10% 34% 28%
Governing hubs would reduce the amount of time spent on property and… 8% 17% 15% 25% 35%
It is very difficult for boards, as currently constituted, to represent their…1% 10% 11% 38% 40%
Governing hubs would make it easier for you as a board of trustees to… 4% 6% 13% 26% 51%
Principal appointment and appraisal are not always robust, or even credible,… 7% 26% 14% 27% 25%
Governing hubs would make principal recruiment and appraisal more… 6% 16% 17% 26% 34%
Decisions which impact significantly on the lives of children can be made… 6% 14% 16% 34% 30%
Governing hubs would improve the checks and balances when decisions are…3% 12% 18% 33% 34%
A focus on ‘one school, one board’causes unhealthy competition 11% 17% 20% 27% 25%
Governing hubs would improve schooling options for disadvantaged children…3% 11% 30% 28% 29%
Governing hubs would reduce unhealthy competition and strengthen the… 6% 12% 25% 29% 28%
School boards of trustees should advise the principal not govern the school. 3% 13% 15% 34% 35%
Education hub boards should be appointed by the Minister of Education to…3% 11% 11% 24% 51%
Education Hubs should assume all the legal responsibilities and liabilities… 9% 25% 19% 19% 28%
Comments
Education hubs should automatically delegate control of ops grants, and… 11% 15% 17% 35% 22%
Boards of trustees should be responsible for locally raised funds (fundraising). 35% 30% 14% 12% 10%
Schools with international fee-paying students should have to demonstrate… 19% 37% 35% 5%4%
Comments
Boards should not employ or appoint the principal. 5% 6% 9% 28% 52%
Boards should have up to 50% membership of committees to make … 23% 34% 17% 11% 15%
Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree
Source: NZSTA member survey, March 2019
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 24
Analysis and Commentary
Boards of trustees responses to Taskforce governance recommendations (2) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Principals & teachers should be employed by the hub. The hub should… 5% 8% 10% 15% 61%
Comments
Some schools have unfairly and sometimes illegally prevented local… 8% 25% 44% 11% 12%
All schools should be required to prioritise local students in their… 36% 45% 13% 2%5%
All schools should be allocated an enrolment zone and maximum roll… 14% 33% 31% 11% 11%
Decisions on student suspensions, exclusions, and expulsions should be… 7% 18% 15% 22% 38%
Reviews of student suspensions, exclusions, and expulsions should also… 7% 28% 19% 16% 29%
Comments
School boards should be required to have Mana whenua representation… 11% 28% 35% 20% 5%
Education hub boards should be required to have representation from… 14% 27% 36% 14% 9%
Comments
The board of trustees should still be responsible for community… 38% 51% 5%2%5%
The hub should be responsible for providing parent advisory and… 12% 27% 33% 16% 12%
Comments
Hubs could delegate property development responsibilities directly to… 4% 28% 13% 23% 31%
Comments
Some schools should provide a full range of social services 15% 38% 35% 6% 6%
Increase the role of Te Kura across the education system as a whole 6% 33% 50% 4% 6%
Every school should have a (full-time) learning support coordinator 47% 42% 9% 0%2%
We need to develop more flexible initial teacher education 22% 31% 36% 11% 0%
We need to develop viable pathways for the development and enhanced… 31% 39% 24% 4%2%
Principals/tumuaki can spend too much time on matters not directly… 35% 40% 12% 5% 9%
Resourcing for the compulsory schooling sector is currently inadequate 62% 27% 9% 2%0%
Our current decile–based equity funding to schools is too imprecise and … 36% 46% 12% 4%2%
Central Agencies (MOE, ERO, NZQA) "are not able to be sufficiently… 30% 34% 16% 18% 2%
Because schools are self-governing, agencies have lost the ability to…13%13%28%33% 500%
ERO and NZQA should be amalgamated into a new independent… 15% 27% 44% 10% 5%
Comments
Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree
Source: NZSTA member survey, March 2019
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 25
Analysis and Commentary
Word cloud: All comments
Source: NZSTA member survey, March 2019
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 26
Analysis and Commentary
General comment on the Taskforce report Evaluative Criteria What the Taskforce said, and what they say they meant 1.3.1 Bearing the above values in 104. We aware that over recent weeks the Taskforce has mind, we developed four evaluative expressed some surprise and even dismay at the response to its report, and has argued that the issues being raised by criteria for assessing both the stakeholders and commentators are, for various reasons, not current system and any new what the Taskforce intended. structure that might take its place. These criteria are: 105. Unfortunately, we can only respond to what the Taskforce has actually said, not what they think they meant. • The administrative system 106. There are clearly parts of the report where the Taskforce should be flexible and has not thought through the implications of their proposals responsive to individual and clearly enough, has made inconsistent statements in different community educational sections of the report, and has proposed things throughout requirements, and be able the report that would take the system in a direction different to adapt to changing needs. from the one they say they prefer. We cannot afford to withhold comment on those issues simply because the • Students, parents and Taskforce now says they misspoke. community groups should Inconsistencies in the report be able to understand the structure of the system, to 107. For example, NZSTA is delighted to see that the report participate in decision recommends community-led school boards of trustees retain making, and to influence responsibility for the key governance areas of student the system so that it achievement, community engagement and strategic planning provides the best and reporting for their school. We are somewhat bewildered educational opportunities by their assertion that despite this, it will be the district hub for them. that actually governs schools. 108. The Taskforce refers to governance sitting at the Hub • Those who work in the level, but also says that planning and reporting, and creating education system should be local goals will be carried out at school level. As far as fairly treated and fairly NZSTA is concerned, planning and reporting and defining rewarded, and should have strategic goals for the school is most definitely a governance the opportunity to develop activity. We need to have those conversations with the their abilities. Taskforce to work out exactly what they are thinking and create a common language to carry us forward. • Those who have responsibility for decision Evaluating the Taskforce proposals making should be accountable for the 109. The Picot taskforce proposed four evaluation criteria for decisions they make. their proposals, or any that might come after: flexibility,
accessible to parents and communities, fairness, and - Picot Report, p.6 matching responsibilities with accountabilities. On balance, while we acknowledge that the present report is a useful
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 27
Analysis and Commentary
starting point for discussion, we believe that it falls short of meeting those criteria.
Student outcomes and experiences
110. It would be remiss of us to begin with any other focus than the outcomes and experiences that our schools provide for our children and young people. In this, we include those who are enrolled, those who are unable to enrol, and those who are enrolled but then excluded from participation in the full experience of a fulfilling and authentic education. 111. Too often, the schooling experience is about things other than educational and personal development.
Student achievement, outcomes and experiences
112. Over the last 30 years, there has been an increasingly narrow focus on students’ educational achievement, with little genuine regard for the quality of the experience we are offering them, or how the hidden curriculum – those things that our students learn from their schooling experience without our intending to teach them – manifests in their wellbeing or later life. 113. The Education Matters to Me8 series of reports we commissioned and worked on with the Children’s Commission in the summer of 2017-18 gave us a powerful reminder that what we intend to provide for our students is not always what they experience. We cannot afford to be a schooling system that ‘meant well’ but fails to do well for our students. In that we agree absolutely with the Taskforce. 114. We would like to have seen more focus in the Taskforce report on student experiences and outcomes, and in particular how the proposed changes in governance and central agency structures might impact on the quality of students’ experience, and their educational outcomes.
Go to the source: survey student perspectives
115. In our view it is essential that whatever changes are made to the structures and processes of our schooling system as a result of the present review, a regular direct connection to the student experience is built into both policymaking and evaluation processes. We highly recommend the methodology and expertise demonstrated by the Office of the Children’s Commissioner in soliciting the views of children and young people, and recommend that this becomes a routine part of the Commission’s work in the education sector, so that the authentic experiences of children and young people can be seen to lead and inform our work in the education sector.
NZSTA Recommendation 1 ➢ That soliciting the views of children and young people, as undertaken by the Office of the Children’s Commissioner and NZSTA in 2017 becomes a routine part of education sector monitoring and policy-making
8 See https://www.nzsta.org.nz/our-organisation/publications/education-matters-to-me/
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 28
Analysis and Commentary
Identifying the issues
I’ve had 30 years as a trustee, also a teacher, been board chair for a number of schools. I’m on two boards now. One is a Decile 1 school with a lot of Pasifika children. As a board there we have worked hard because of competition. We have got stuck in.
I have seen both systems. I am not afraid of change or disagree with change. I’ve read this report, I got quite upset. I can’t get over the statement that “tomorrow’s schools has failed”. Only 1 in 16 schools are in trouble, and that could range from having budget issues, to statutory management. If you look at schools in the report, the help that schools need, could differ greatly
…I feel like tomorrows schools being a failure is a lie.
116. NZSTA supports in principle the overall intent of the Taskforce recommendations, …to bring about significant changes to the culture of the education system; … focus on improvement rather than compliance; on interdependence rather than competition; and on collectively achieving equitable outcomes for all. 117. These are indeed some of the big issues facing our education system today. However they are not the only ones. It is not clear that the Taskforce has adequately considered the social and operational context for the changes they have proposed. As boards of trustees, practitioners and communities it is our responsibility to ensure that all of the dimensions of educational and personal success are addressed in our schools and in the wider education system, not only those that appear most seductive at any given time.
Anecdotal evidence is informative, but not always representative
In the report where it says “many” boards aren’t working well, how many is many? - School trustee
118. The Taskforce report contains some useful suggestions. It is however more of a discussion document than a “review” in the sense of a comprehensive exploration of the available evidence and views of stakeholders. Although the report talks about anecdotal evidence the taskforce gathered during their consultations, these stories fall far short of the level of documentary evidence that is usually associated with a system review.
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 29
Analysis and Commentary
119. This is mitigated in part by the comprehensive incidental research and publications that various taskforce members have to their names. These pieces however are not targeted to the questions posed to the Taskforce. 120. Our overall impression of the report is that although it presents itself as an integrated system review, and indeed does present some useful options for system-level reform, the overall impression is of an amalgam of individual positions corresponding to the members’ personal research interests.
Strengths-based or deficit
121. Developing a strengths-based system for the future requires strengths-based analysis. The Taskforce report shows signs of a strengths-based approach in places, and we believe the report would be stronger and the proposals more compelling if the Taskforce is able to extend these pockets of positivity to the report as a whole. 122. The deficit framing of the governance section in particular has made it difficult for us to maintain a consistently strengths-based response, although we have endeavoured to do so. 123. It is possible that such an approach might substantially influence the direction and tenor of their analysis and their proposed solutions.
Text and subtext
124. There is a persistent subtext to the report, that despite the superficially supportive argument seems to clearly imply that because the space between school principals and the Ministry of Education (where boards of trustees operate) is sometimes problematic, that means it is the board of trustees structure and activities that are the source of the problem, rather than a mitigating factor or symptomatic of a wider dysfunction. This tendency to assign causation to events that happen in close proximity to each other is a well-known logical fallacy9. 125. It is not our intention to overplay this observation, or to become overly defensive, although trying to refute sub-textual inference can often create this impression. We note that the Taskforce chair has expressed regret that the report was not better crafted in this respect, however the report as drafted still needs to be addressed. Because the effects of post-hoc or cum-hoc arguments can seem credible and be hard to refute and because they are not made explicit, we do however consider it important to explicitly call it out. 126. Because of this, we have a strong reservation about the aspects of the report relating to the role of school boards of trustees and the treatment of the governing function generally. There is a world of difference in the appropriate response if boards of trustees are ipso
9 Post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin: "after this, therefore because of this") is a logical fallacy that states "Since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X." It is often shortened simply to post hoc fallacy. A logical fallacy of the questionable cause variety, it is subtly different from the fallacy cum hoc ergo propter hoc ("with this, therefore because of this"), in which two events occur simultaneously or the chronological ordering is insignificant or unknown. Post hoc is a particularly tempting error because correlation appears to suggest causality. The fallacy lies in a conclusion based solely on the order of events, rather than taking into account other factors potentially responsible for the result that might rule out the connection. [source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc accessed 8 March 2019]
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 30
Analysis and Commentary
facto10 ineffective, or if boards are effective despite the regulatory frameworks and system supports for boards being misaligned.
Advocacy not policy advice
127. We remain unsure whether the concerns addressed are necessarily the most important concerns, or the solutions proposed the most effective solutions, or whether they are simply those that correspond most closely to the taskforce members’ previously published ideas. 128. The report deviates from good practice in offering policy advice in advocating for a single option rather than providing a range of policy options for comparison. 129. This leaves the preferred solution put forward by the Taskforce without any immediate context apart from the status quo, and tends to steer debate towards a binary discussion about whether to accept the proposals or not, rather than the richer and more nuanced discussion of the pros and cons of various options that sound policy advice seeks to promote. 130. In the governance area for example, we consider that an adequate analysis would require at the very least, a comparison between a properly resourced and supported school board model and the resourcing and support necessary to operate the Hub model suggested. There is ample evidence to show that school boards of trustees have been under-resourced and inadequately understood or supported by government agencies for almost the entire history of Tomorrow’s Schools. It is only in the past 5 years (since Budget 2014) that this situation has begun to be acknowledged and redressed.
The consultation at conference: I was in a room with younger trustees who had management issues. I couldn’t speak of my positive experiences that there should be mandatory training before someone gets on a board.
131. The present report has clearly been modelled after the original “Picot report” in many respects, however it differs from the Picot report in one key aspect, and that is that the Picot
10 Ipso facto is a Latin phrase, directly translated as "by the fact itself", which means that a specific phenomenon is a direct consequence… of the action in question, instead of being brought about by a previous action. [source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipso_facto ]
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 31
Analysis and Commentary
Taskforce’s report was clearly based in the numerous submissions made to the Taskforce. The “Haque report” is clearly not. 132. Outputs from the year-long Education Conversation, including the two Education Summits, and the numerous formal and informal submissions from sector groups and other interested parties are conspicuously absent.
Effective change
133. NZSTA and its member boards have serious concerns about the effectiveness of the changes proposed in the Taskforce report.
The Education Hubs would be ""a one size fits all"" approach. Education Hubs may not be responsive or reflect the needs of the many small rural schools in our network. We have no evidence that these hubs can or will deal with the issues identified. Equality/equity and learning support do need to be dealt with. We need to look at options for dealing with these. Instead the Taskforce has focused on Education Hubs as being the solution. Education hubs will come at a cost- funding that could be used for learning support etc -School trustee
134. There is obvious surface activity in the reorganisation of agencies and the reassigning of responsibilities, but we question whether and how these institutional changes will transform the culture of the sector. The most likely outcome appears to be a reallocation of power away from local communities, parents and students in favour of bureaucrats and school principals. The concerns this raises are twofold: • if students, parents and communities are (or perceive that they are) further disempowered, what are the implications for “partnership with parents” and how will community engagement be promoted? • will the proposed checks and balances be adequate if the balance of power shifts further away from communities towards bureaucrats and practitioners?
this may or may not be correct but it is the next step in the Taskforces proposals that is deeply flawed. They say because schools are self governing, agencies have lost .... and therefore we need hubs. this is a flawed premise. - School trustee
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 32
Analysis and Commentary
135. Unless the planners get the actual model of where power sits correct, is it really going to improve anything or will it just be change for change sake? We all know that most restructurings basically go full circle at great expense, while lining the pockets of various consultants.
Proposed solutions with respect to governance appear to be solutions for problem that has yet to be evidenced (or identified). They are also inconsistent with claims from the Taskforce Chair to be "honouring" the work of Trustees; a position he adopted after attending the NZSTA conference last year. - School trustee
Logic, logistics and magical thinking
136. The report as presented appears to rely on a lot of magical thinking – “it will work because… [magic happens and] …it just will”, particularly in its approach to school governance. This is disappointing coming from a group who, collectively have a strong reputation for evidence-based decision-making. 137. The report’s assertions and proposals in this area need to be backed up with more evidence, clearer logic and a stronger indication that the expected standards of academic and professional rigour are matched by an understanding of how things actually operate on the ground for students, boards of trustees, communities and practitioners. 138. We are prepared to extend the benefit of the doubt on these matters given the Taskforce members’ individual reputations, but these issues must be remedied in their final report. 139. Failure to accurately assess the existing situation creates a high risk of misdiagnosing the actual problem and confusing the symptom with the cause. We address some of the more obvious examples of this in our submission.
Undervaluing boards of trustees is a chronic and systemic issue
140. School boards of trustees have been the most cost-effective part of the education system for the past 30 years.
… When things are done well, the principal thinks it’s all going well. But when something goes wrong, principals think the BOTs are useless.
141. Since the Tomorrows Schools reforms were introduced in 1989, NZSTA estimates that it has upskilled over 100,000 parents and community members including judges, lawyers, engineers, teachers, tradespeople, parents, other professionals and community leaders
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 33
Analysis and Commentary
have contributed their time, energy and expertise to ensure the success of schools, classrooms and students.
It is important that stakeholders within the school have a say in how that school is governed. It gives a counterbalance to the Ministry's local, regional and national viewpoint on schools. Someone has to be able to speak up or lobby for the specific school. Tomorrows Schools has achieved this. – School trustee
142. One of the systemic issues that we would have liked to see addressed in the Taskforce report is the undervaluing of community time and expertise across the board. Deficit thinking about school boards of trustees has been a systemic issue and it’s one we need to address if we truly want to achieve the ‘cultural transformation’ the Taskforce is talking about.
System capacity and capability to replace 18,000 trustees
143. There are currently hundreds of highly skilled trustees on boards around the country doing an amazing job, including the routine burden of property, employment, and suspensions exclusions and expulsion hearings. These people are supported by NZSTA advice, professional development and on-site practical governance and employment support. 144. If boards of trustees are to be bypassed and the capacity and capability-building services provided by NZSTA are done away with, as proposed in the Taskforce report then we have real concerns about where the system capacity and capability to replace those people will come from. 145. We are well used to the mindset within other agencies that boards of trustees add no discernible value to the education system that these proposals reflect. Fortunately it is a view that seems to have been waning significantly over the past decade or so. 146. We do not agree that boards of trustees’ decision-making is generally of poor quality as the Taskforce implies. Aside from that, there still remains the question of who will actually be finding the time to make those decisions and consider those matters that boards of trustees currently do. That capacity currently does not exist elsewhere in the system as there is no need for it. Table 2: Estimated time required for student disciplinary hearings, 2017 Hearings low high Hours spent per BOT 7 16 # schools per hub 100 125 Total hours per person 700 2000 # panel members 3 5 Total hours 2100 10000 @35-40 hours p.w. for 48 weeks 1680 1920 # positions required per hub 1.25 5.21
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 34
Analysis and Commentary
147. These calculations are for time spent in hearings only and do not include stand-downs which do not come to the board for ratification. Time for administration, professional development, other duties, preparation, moderation, or other services such as providing advice to schools or managing complaints and review processes would be in addition to this baseline. We think it would be not unreasonable to assume that the total FTE requirement would be around three or four times this estimate – so up to 15 or 20 full-time positions per hub to manage stand-downs, suspensions, exclusions and expulsions in addition to the work transferred from other agencies. Assuming that this work is assigned to senior personnel (principal or manager level) on a salary of somewhere around $100,000 this would imply an average budget for salaries in the range of $2m per hub. 148. We do not have comparable information for the amount of time trustees currently spend on other board business such as property, finance and strategic planning, but this donated community capacity would also need to be replaced by salaried personnel under the Taskforce proposals.
Strengths-based analysis is needed to build a strengths-based system
149. If we want to build a strengths-based system then we need to present a strengths-based analysis. The Taskforce report as drafted falls short of that. In focussing on the deficits of the system, it creates a real risk of discounting and undermining its strengths. NZSTA urges the Taskforce to refocus its proposals on enhancing the strengths of the present system, particularly relating to community engagement and participation in school governance. 150. There is a token recognition in the report that boards of trustees have served many schools very well, but the report dwells on the criticisms that apply on the whole to a small proportion of boards and does not really present those successes in a balanced way.
The best things are taken away from us... What it looks like is that we are becoming a parent advisory group again like in 1989.
151. Statements like “Many boards have trouble…” without any context about what percentage this might be, what the actual numbers are, or any reasons why, it creates a false impression that the problems are universal. 152. We absolutely agree that there are systemic issues around the role of school boards, and the expectations on them that need to be addressed. Absolutely agree! But that is not the same as suggesting that boards themselves are the problem. So that’s a mixed message, and we need to clarify that.
I am upset… I have been on a board for 17 years and worked with amazing people. I felt gutted reading the report. The schools I have worked with, there are some schools who are failing. Because the
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 35
Analysis and Commentary
community doesn’t have the capacity. But NZSTA plants people in these schools to help.
153. To set the record straight, NZSTA says that around 84 of over 2,400 boards of trustees currently have interventions in place. That’s around 3%. That means that, in spite of being tasked with many of the difficult and unpopular issues nobody else in the system has wanted to deal with, 97% of school boards are doing well. 154. To that extent, the Taskforce report does a disservice to those more than 100,000 parents professionals and community leaders who have served on a school board of trustees over the last 30 years.
We feel it’s a kick in the guts: what incentive is there to be on a board? People come out to give their time etc, but [why would you] if you are no longer being part of the big decisions such a appointment of principals etc. …
155. We know that there are many things that site-based, community led governance of our schools has achieved very well over the past 30 years, and there are other things, like the lack of effective support for community participation, that have got in the way of that success. 156. An ideal outcome of the present process will be enough change to enable school boards of trustees to perform their strategic governance role on behalf of the local community without constantly getting tied up in the compliance aspects of running the ‘business’ activities of the school.
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 36
Analysis and Commentary
Our current schooling system | Te pūnaha kura o tēnei wā
157. NZSTA believes that the Tomorrow’s schools system reform of the late 1980s – particularly in the form they were ‘The new model’ originally proposed by the Picot taskforce – continues to provide a sound foundation for a forward-looking, fit-for- Tomorrow's School's is not today's purpose education system in New Zealand. Implementation school system. I'm not sure who first of the system was somewhat ad-hoc, with the result that thought of the name. It was the title of some of the intended benefits of the system, notably a government paper which was genuine power-sharing between bureaucrats, educators and published in response to a report about communities, have not been realised. – NZSTA (2018)11 school administration and the public consultation which followed the report. 158. In our view a system re-tune is required, rather than a The new model of school trade-in for a new model. administration which the government 159. In particular, the introduction of site-level, autonomous, adopted in 1989 was in many ways a great change from what was there community-elected boards of trustees has been a before, and the name Tomorrow's resounding success, and a huge asset to New Zealand Schools has stuck to it. But schools schools, and the education system over the past 29 years, today aren't the schools we planned in in spite of the lack of adequate support for the role over 1989. most of that period. 160. Certain aspects of the system, such as a belief in “the Last year when I was invited to speak to invisible hand” of market competition as the best arbiter of the school trustees association I told high quality education and resource allocation, and the lack the conference that it would be my last of assigned responsibility for providing adequate word on Tomorrow's Schools. I'm no professional and practical support, were distinctly of their longer a practising politician and I think time, and need to be revisited. it's time that other people had a turn. Occasionally I get ambushed on the 161. Applying systems thinking to the existing forms and subject. I usually find myself asked to functions of the sector offers our best chance of generating defend features which weren't any part ongoing, sustainable success for our children and young of the original scheme. I accepted the people throughout their lifetimes. invitation to give this lecture tonight partly, I have to say, because I'd like the chance to make that point. - David Lange, 1999 Purpose |Te Whāinga
162. NZSTA strongly agrees with the authors of the TRASP report that the New Zealand schooling system needs a unifying purpose statement that is enduring, inclusive, student- centred, embrace a breadth of desired student outcomes and developed in consultation with the schooling sector. The proposed purpose has not been consulted widely or effectively and to that extent at least, falls short of the criteria identified in the TRASP report. 163. The present Taskforce report makes its own proposals regarding the purpose of the schooling system:
11 NZSTA submission to the Taskforce, July 2018
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 37
Analysis and Commentary
Our desired education system-
1. Embodies biculturalism and genuine equity and partnership between Māori, Pākehā and Goals and outcomes Tauiwi under Te Tiriti o Waitangi. for the New Zealand 2. Prioritises the rights and best interests of children and young people, and the pursuit of schooling system social justice, and allocates resources accordingly. 3. Meets the needs and potential of diverse In July 2014 the had this to say about learners/ākonga and communities, particularly the need for goals and outcomes for the those whose needs are not currently being met. New Zealand schooling system: The Taskforce [on Regulations Affecting 4. Values the prior knowledge and experiences of School Performance] considers that the all, and enables children and young people to Act does not currently provide a clear reach their fullest potential in becoming and visible purpose statement that connected, confident, active lifelong articulates the broad goals and outcomes desired of the New Zealand learners/ākonga. schooling system…Most respondents to 5. Ensures all learners/ākonga are able to consultation generally agreed with this make thoughtful, genuine and ethical choices assertion. Their main concern centred on the possible content of any goal or about their learning, work and life, and thus outcome statement being too narrow. contribute to their communities and our country’s There was strong support expressed for social, economic and environmental wellbeing. any development of a purpose - Taskforce report, p.32 statement for a revised Act to include broad consultation with the education sector. The Taskforce agrees that a purpose 164. We acknowledge all of these as worthy aspirations. It is statement should be designed in not clear however whether or to what extent they take into collaboration with the schooling sector account previous work done by previous well-qualified through a wide consultation process. advisers on the same topic, such as the Cross-Sector This process could take into account the Ministerial Advisory Group or the Taskforce on Regulations goals already articulated in the New Affecting School Performance (TRASP). Zealand Curriculum, Te Aho Matua and the current NEGs. The Taskforce recommends that: the Act contain a purpose statement NZSTA Recommendation 2 outlining the desired outcomes for the ➢ That the government undertakes a deliberate schooling system programme of consultation with students, o this statement be enduring, communities, and education sector stakeholders and inclusive, student-centred and embrace consolidating on past consultations and advice, to a breadth of desired student outcomes develop a unifying purpose statement for education, o this statement be developed in that applies to the schooling sector. consultation with the schooling sector o consideration be given to the implications for the NEGs as part of this process. NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 38 -Taskforce on Regulations Affecting School Performance, July 2014 Analysis and Commentary
165. For a more comprehensive statement about NZSTA’s views on a unifying purpose or vision for education please see the Appendices.
Design Principles | Ngā Mātāpono Whakahoahoa
Current system design principles (1988)
166. The design principles that drove the 1988 Picot Taskforce and the 1989 Tomorrows Schools reforms were12: a) it must be as simple as possible b) decisions should be made as close as possible to where they are carried out c) the state provides the funds and retains a strong interest in educational outcomes, therefore… • there must be national objectives and clear responsibilities and goals set by the government • individual institutions make all decisions that will affect them, unless there is a reason why that would be inappropriate • institutions [schools] will be run by a partnership between the teaching professionals and the community via the mechanism of a board of trustees d) the objectives of an institution will be drawn up locally, within a frame work of national objectives e) the institution’s objectives will be set out in a contract between the community and the institution and the institution and the state [a charter] f) each institution is held accountable for meeting the objectives of their individual charter by an independent review and audit agency g) the independent review and audit agency • reports directly to the Minister • also comments on the performance of other elements of the administrative system i.e. the Ministry. h) the two fundamental objectives of the education system are: • every learner should gain maximal individual and societal benefit from the funding on education. • Education should also be fair and just, for every learner regardless of their gender or social, cultural or geographic circumstances. i) organisation of the administrative structure are determined by these two objectives j) the administrative structure for education should be based upon- • choice, • an assumption of individual competence, • cultural sensitivity and • good management practices.
12 Source: Administering for Excellence, p104. Cited in Twenty-first Century Schools (p.11)
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 39
Analysis and Commentary
Proposed design principles (2018)
167. The design principles adopted by the 2018 Taskforce are given as:
1. The system will be constantly in learning mode. The system at all levels iteratively reviews its performance against its purposes by using robust quantitative and qualitative evidence. It focuses on improvement rather than compliance, purposefully ‘unlearning’, adapting and innovating in policy, theory, and practice as required.
168. This is an excellent aspirational goal for the Taskforce to embrace. significant changes will need to be embedded in order to meet the necessary preconditions for a learning system. These are unlikely to arise spontaneously, and we do not as yet see sufficient evidence of how the taskforce envisages that these fundamental changes will be generated. For example, how do we encourage participants in the system to develop the habits of unlearning and re-learning behaviours, so that the system as a whole remains fit for purpose? 169. We applaud the Taskforce’s adoption of the learning organisation concepts pioneered by Peter Senge et. al. This is not simply a feel-good idea, but a rigorous approach that requires a ground-up transformation. Senge’s five characteristics of a learning organisation (or system) are Systems thinking: The whole must always be considered, alongside the parts and the ways those parts interact together. Personal mastery: Individuals within the system must be committed to personal as well as professional transformation through their learning13 – mastering themselves as well as their professional role Mental models: Existing ‘knowledge’ and beliefs in the form of assumptions, implications, stereotypes and generalisations (including those that are codified in organisational structures, processes and priorities) need to be identified and challenged by individuals and organizations within the system Shared vision: Genuine shared vision emerges, it cannot be imposed. The most successful visions build on the individual visions of the employees at all levels of the organization, thus the creation of a shared vision can be hindered by traditional structures where the company vision is imposed from above...14 Team learning: Relationships and processes develop so that as individuals within the organisation transform their own understanding and practice, that learning (transformation) is transmitted to other individuals and becomes part of the collective knowledge and practice of the organisation or system. 170. Further discussion and analysis are required to identify the vectors for change that the Taskforce envisages to achieve this.
2. The system will be coherent and easy to understand for all participants.
13 For a useful summary of Transformative learning see ACEAotearoa https://www.aceaotearoa.org.nz/news-and- resources/news/transformative-learning-how-adults-actually-learn 14 Wikipedia: Learning organization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learning_organization#cite_note-MCH-11
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 40
Analysis and Commentary
The development of policies and their implementation across the system are seen to be aligned with and reinforcing of its purposes.
171. This is an excellent principle. We are not completely convinced that the Taskforce proposals have achieved it. 172. It is important that the coherence and ease of understanding are a result of the fundamental soundness of the system design, rather than imposed upon it in a way that undermines its effectiveness or ability to meet specific needs and objectives.
3. The system will be purposefully ‘connected’ In our learning ecosystem, we envisage community having a meaning that is wider than individual schools – so that communities of many schools (and the teachers/kaiako, leaders and public servants in them) all work together for the benefit of learners/ākonga. Everyone is responsible for the success of all.
173. This principle appears to reference the concepts of communities of practice15. Communities of practice are “groups of people who share a concern or a passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly. Note that this definition allows for, but does not assume, intentionality: learning can be the reason the community comes together or an incidental outcome of member’s interactions. Not everything called a community is a community of practice. A neighborhood for instance, is often called a community, but is usually not a community of practice”16. 174. We have already experienced some less than satisfactory attempts to impose communities of practice on the sector in recent years. It will be important for the new proposals to recognise that communities of practice, whether it relates to learning, teaching, leadership, governance depend on recognising and promoting the agency of students, teachers, principals, boards of trustees and communities. 175. This cannot be imposed, only nurtured and supported. We are not entirely confident that the Taskforce’s overall approach is pitched in a way that will achieve that.
4. The system will actively support and nurture teachers/ kaiako and school leaders Teachers/kaiako and school leaders are recruited, developed, retained, and sustained through a comprehensive and well planned professional workforce strategy that includes providing teachers/kaiako and school leaders pathways beyond the school.
5. The system will actively support and nurture local education system leaders To provide more connection, local education system leaders whose main focus is on
15 What are communities of practice? https://wenger-trayner.com/introduction-to-communities-of-practice/ 16 Source: What are communities of practice? https://wenger-trayner.com/introduction-to-communities-of- practice/
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 41
Analysis and Commentary
supporting equity and excellence across schools are recruited, retained, and sustained through a comprehensive Lange on equity and well planned professional workforce strategy. I believe in equality of opportunity in education. In the compulsory sector this 176. This again is an admirable principle as far as it goes, but it means that all students who go to does not go nearly far enough. An effective system needs to school should have an equal chance of nurture not only the practitioners in the system but also the getting a good education, whatever students, the support agencies and the communities their ability or aptitude, and whatever themselves. disadvantage they may be facing elsewhere in their lives. It follows that I 177. There are a number of practical issues such as workforce don't believe in a market model of planning that will require further examination in order to meet schooling. Markets are made by this aspiration. Current debate on salary models, non-contact winners and losers, and I don't believe time, career paths and professional learning and development we can afford to have losers among our are among the most obvious. Given the difficulties that many schools. I think it's wrong that the boards are already experiencing around the country, we can quality of children's schooling should only ask: Who are they? Where are they coming from? When depend on the size of the parents' do we start? income. It's unfair to children and it damages our society to write people off educationally. I think that people should be able to send their children to private 6. The system will ensure that resources are schools if that's what they want, but allocated and used effectively they should pay the whole cost of it. The allocation of resources nationally and locally demonstrably serves the equity and excellence purposes of I have to emphasise that equality of the schooling system effectively and efficiently. opportunity in schooling doesn't always mean uniformity of provision. What works in schools in a small town in 178. This is another admirable principle. Further discussion of Northland isn't always going to work in the Taskforce’s clarification that what this means to them is … schools in a small town in Southland. a major redistribution of resources so that priority is first given Schooling which suits children from to meeting the needs and potential of the most disadvantaged prosperous and literate families won't and marginalised students17. do justice to children from a different background. This point was 179. The concept of equity is an important one, and there are fundamental to the original model of many variants on what genuine equity might entail or how it Tomorrow's Schools. While it was might be achieved. We certainly do need to ensure that designed to give parents and the school students or groups of students who are currently and community a voice in their children's historically disadvantaged and marginalised have their needs education, it depended equally on the and potential met to the same extent as those who are government making available the receiving the education they want and deserve. Even where it resources which would ensure equality is entrenched these patterns of advantage and disadvantage of educational opportunity. It is here, are not static and we need to ensure that whatever we and I shall come back to this point, that undertake does not simply shift the burden of marginalisation the failure of government has been and disadvantage to a different group instead of removing it. greatest and most damaging.
180. This goes to the heart of what we, as a society and as a - David Lange, 1999 sector, believe equity means. We all think we know what
17 Taskforce report, p.34
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 42
Analysis and Commentary
inequity is, but there is less clarity around what constitutes equity.
Ensuring that the key decisions in the system are made at the appropriate level.
181. The Picot report identified the principle of Individual Competence as one of the guiding principles of their 1988 report. The presumption of individual competence was in many ways the cornerstone concept of the reforms, and the innovation that enabled the taskforce to empower communities and educators to break free of the claustrophobic and untrusting grip of central bureaucracy. Controlling
1.2.4 Individual competence assumes that most authorities people are competent to carry out the tasks given to them and that nearly everyone will have a 1.3.5.9 Under the current system, considerable effort by controlling genuine commitment to doing the best job authorities goes into prescription or possible for all learners. The presumption of proscription of what others may do. For individual competence encourages the instance, the department currently development of initiative, independence, personal produces and maintains over two dozen responsibility and entrepreneurial abilities. To volumes on rules and procedures, including nine pages prescribing how a assume the opposite is to cut off the education school is to equip its metal workshop. system from the benefits of commitment and Authorisation of a building project enthusiasm that develop when people feel involves 15 or so steps—each one of confidence and trust has been placed in them. which must be approved before the next stage can be embarked on. In this 1.2.5 The concept of competence also extends to environment, even minor change seems parents. We feel that parents want to be involved momentous: one education board more fully in various facets of the education of senior administrator held out to us as their children and the overall direction of our evidence of progress that his board now offers school committees a choice over proposals is to encourage this. (Picot Report, the colours to be used in repainting 1988) schools. - Picot Report, 1988
182. The Taskforce on the other hand appears to be selective in its presumption of individual competence. It clearly accepts that it should be extended to education practitioners, but it appears not to extend in the same way to communities or bureaucrats. NZSTA believes that the presumption of individual competence needs to be extended uniformly across the system. Exceptions should be treated as just that, exceptions to be managed, not defining features of particular stakeholder groups. 183. We agree in principle with the Taskforce’s statement that decisions should be made at the appropriate level. We clearly disagree with some of their conclusions about what the appropriate level is. 184. The bureaucratic structures that Tomorrows Schools replaced were predicated on the assumption that ‘the appropriate level’ was as close as possible to the Minister of Education (see sidebar).
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 43
Analysis and Commentary
185. Tomorrows Schools was based on the assumption that ‘the appropriate level’ was generally as close as possible to the student.
The board of trustee model is premised around ‘one school one board’. This contributes to boards and principals/tumuaki being exclusively focused on their individual school, and He kapiti hono, he tatai prioritising what they feel are the best interests hono of their particular school. While it is natural for boards and principals/tumuaki to want the best That which is joined for the students they work with, these decisions together becomes an can result in negative consequences for other unbroken line schools, or for other students - Taskforce report, p.43-44
Why we need change If you do not know where 186. NZSTA strongly agrees that after 30 years, changes are you come from, then you needed to the present system. Over that time pedagogical, don't know where you are, political, legislative, governance, leadership, and and if you don't know administrative best practice have evolved and present where you are, then you system settings are not always keeping pace. don't know where you're going. And if you don't Learning from the past know where you're going, 187. The past contains wisdom and successes as well as you're probably going mistakes and miscalculations. We remain concerned that wrong. the Taskforce report does not appear to engage ― Terry Pratchett substantively or constructively with earlier thinking or explicitly seek to acknowledge and preserve the relevant learnings and successes of earlier generations. We had that with the school committees, that is what tomorrow’s schools was implemented to address, successfully I may Kia whakatōmuri te haere add! – School trustee whakamua:
I walk backwards into the 188. NZSTA believes that the issues that we currently future with my eyes fixed perceive with the system largely relate to implementation, on my past rather than the fundamental concepts and design principles. Even the concept of parent choice, one of the more troubling dimensions of the present system, remains an important NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 44
Analysis and Commentary
concept for the future of our schooling system. It is not the concept of parental choice as an expression of power-sharing and tino rangatiratanga so much as the post-1989 Rogernomics interpretation of how parental decision-making manifests in the education system that is problematic.
It seems to be going backwards, before tomorrow schools. Prior to tomorrows schools, this was a similar system. – School trustee
189. We believe that the refresh of our schooling system to be fit for purpose in the 21st century needs to proceed as an unbroken line, with our eyes fixed on the past 50 years rather than as a stochastic series of time-bound interventions. 190. If we are to shift to a system that appears to many to recreate the pre-1989 environment of DHB-style education boards, then we should be doing so with a clear and explicit understanding of how that system-before-last is remembered, what the proposed differences are, and how we will ensure that we preserve the best while mitigating the risks of all our previous experiences. How will the rito (our proposed system), grow and flourish from the the awhi rito (the previous system) and the tipuna (the system(s) before that).
… the feeling from the report is that the board becomes an enhanced home and school committee, not the home and body of the school. E.g. Page 12. Boards will not be responsible for decisions on suspensions, exclusions and expulsions etc. - School trustee
191. We need, for example to understand the unintended consequences not only of the Tomorrow’s Schools model, but also of systems similar to the taskforce’s proposals that have been tried in other jurisdictions. In Canada, where schools are governed by boards at a district rather than an individual school level, provincial governments are currently engaged in a review of those district-level boards because their student outcomes vary between districts.
Back to pre tomorrow’s schools, e.g. we have a culture in our school that suits some students needs that are not available in other schools in our region, te reo being just 1 part of that. - School trustee
192. School trusteeship can be a powerful means of increasing social capacity. One of the potential unintended consequences of the Taskforce proposals is that this will be lost to New Zealand communities, that parents and communities – and potentially principals and staff as
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 45
Analysis and Commentary
well - will feel disempowered, as they did pre-1989 if these proposals are adopted. We need to have a much more substantive conversation about how we might mitigate risks like these.
Strengths and weaknesses of the present system
193. The greatest strengths of the present system are • Authenticity - A direct connection between a local community and the localised education offered to its children and young people through the local school curriculum (authentic learning) • Diversity – the opportunity for communities and educators to identify practices that are effective for individual students and cohorts of students who attend their school, and to modify their existing processes and practices to meet the needs and contexts of those students, e.g. rural-urban; refugee or migrant; • Community ownership, accountability and development – this is the other side of the direct, authentic connection between a community and its school. • Cost-effectiveness – although the present model is not perfect, the vast majority of schools are well or very well governed. It is not clear that other jurisdictions that have embraced other forms of school governance have displayed any clear overall advantage. The New Zealand system of local, site-based school boards of trustees delivers these results by harnessing the genuine interest and goodwill of local community members, as an act of community service at minimal cost to the school, the education system, or the taxpayer. • Democracy in action – participation in school governance, whether as a trustee or as a voting participant is an important foundational step in engaging local citizens in the democratic processes of our society. While this is not the core purpose of elected school boards of trustees, it is an important collateral benefit that society gains from the process. 194. The greatest weaknesses are • Democratic process – the main weaknesses of school boards of trustees are those of any democratically elected body. While we have no desire to change this, we do acknowledge that democratic process inevitably means a lack of centralised control over the individuals who are elected to office. However NZSTA’s role in supporting and educating school boards of trustees means that this ‘weakness’ is mitigated to a far greater extent than any other group of local officials that we are aware of. • Lack of ongoing government support and investment • Inconsistent policy implementation – inconsistent and sometimes counter-productive approach to school governance issues and policy implementation by the Ministry of Education and Education Review Office. • Cost-effectiveness – the progressive failure of effective central or regional support services has created a need for schools to reinvent for themselves resources, processes and information that could be developed more effectively through collaboration creates a level of unnecessary duplication of time, effort and funding.
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 46
Analysis and Commentary
The BoT election process does not guarantee that you get the best capability or skills onto your Board. In addition to this, it is difficult to get wide representation of the community with multi-cultural schools. Even our community consultation is not completed by the majority of the school. There is a gap between working parents (more likely to be BoT members) and the stay at home parents that interact with the school on a regular basis. - School trustee
NZSTA suggestions for building on the strengths of the present system
195. Based on our own experience and that of our member boards, and based on the analysis presented in our publication Twenty-First Century Schools18, NZSTA’s submission to the Taskforce19 offered a summary list of suggested ‘do’s and don’ts’ if the Taskforce wished to build on the strengths of the present system. These are noted below, along with a summary of the relevant Taskforce proposals: Do’s: Keep self-governance and self-management as keystones of the system • The Taskforce proposals remove self-governance in favour of governance district hubs. Retain boards’ Crown Entity status • The Taskforce proposals replace boards with district education hubs as the crown entity Retain and reinstate schools’ connection to local community as the main driver of accountability and partnership • The Taskforce proposals severely undermine the effective partnership between the school and its community, by reducing it to a matter of administrative convenience. Base schools and boards of trustees’ catchment / community on genuine shared interests and community boundaries • The Taskforce proposals are unclear, but appear so far to promote economies of scale and administrative convenience ahead of genuine community of interest. Free up boards’ time & energy to focus on strategic planning & oversight instead of property & compliance
18 NZSTA, May 2018. Twenty-first century schools: Using the review of Tomorrow’s Schools to build an education system for the future. https://www.nzsta.org.nz/assets/Tomorrows-Schools-education-reform/2018-System-review-of-Tomorrows- Schools/180516-Tomorrows-Schools-Discussion-paper-FINAL.compressed.pdf 19 NZSTA, August 2018 NZSTA Submission on Tomorrow’s Schools Review https://www.nzsta.org.nz/assets/Members/Submissions/2018/Tomorrows-Schools-July-2018.pdf
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 47
Analysis and Commentary
• The Taskforce proposals completely remove boards’ authority over strategic planning and oversight, relegating them to a token advisory function with ‘responsibilities’ but no authority or accountability to make that meaningful. Remove financial and policy settings that drive schools to compete for students instead of collaborating for shared success • The Taskforce proposals appear to be consistent with this suggestion. Develop shared understandings of what school governance actually is • The Taskforce proposals clearly illustrate the fractured understanding among government agencies of what governance is, how to distinguish governance from management functions, and how to identify and design good practice governance for the education system Develop better understanding of what boards of trustees actually do among government agencies and the public at large • The Taskforce proposals demonstrate a limited and deficit understanding of the roles boards of trustees carry out in our present system, and how those roles and responsibilities relate to governing and managing functions. Develop better ways of recognising the extent and value of the board’s role • The Taskforce proposals demonstrate a willingness to engage in this conversation. We look forward to engaging substantively in that discussion once a better understanding of the actual extent and value of the board’s role is reflected in their thinking. Continue to invest in boards’ capacity and capability • The Taskforce proposals demonstrate little genuine understanding of the capacity and capability of school boards of trustees overall, and no constructive proposals for maintaining or leveraging that pool of skills, experience and goodwill in the refreshed system. Don’t’s Disestablish boards of trustees • The Taskforce proposals effectively disestablish boards of trustees by removing the purpose for which they exist while leaving the shell in place. Amalgamate boards so they lose touch with their local roots within their community • The Taskforce proposals to transfer the governing function to the local education hub board would almost inevitably mean that the governing body loses touch with the local roots in the community. Make boards of trustees invisible when considering Crown Entity regulations – boards of trustees comprise the majority of Crown Entities • The Taskforce proposals not only make boards of trustees invisible, they strip them of their crown entity status entirely. Treat boards as if they are large corporates • The Taskforce proposals re-imagine the governing body at hub level where they may indeed fit the large corporate model more closely than community-based boards of trustees do.
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 48
Analysis and Commentary
Perpetuate the myth that ‘the school’ is only operational and stops at the Principal – with the board of trustees as a separate entity • The Taskforce proposals convert this myth into reality by removing all authority and accountability from the board of trustees and vesting it instead in the principal or the hub board (comprising a majority of ex-principals and other education practitioners). Treat boards of trustees as if they are outposts of the Ministry of Education, whose main purpose is to rubber-stamp Ministry policies • The Taskforce proposals vest the legal authority currently held by school boards of trustees instead in the district hubs that would replace the Ministry regional office. Keep making education a political football • The Taskforce has agreed that cross-party consensus is necessary. We would go further and say that public consensus is also necessary. Keep making boards the scapegoat for things that have not been adequately thought out or implemented • The Taskforce proposals appear to perpetuate the scapegoating of school boards of trustees by framing boards of trustees as the problem to be solved, and education practitioners as the solution. 196. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the Taskforce has embraced an approach to school governance that is largely inconsistent with the position NZSTA has mapped out. 197. The remainder of this submission explores those differences in more detail. 198. NZSTA is excited to be involved in the next phase, which will be working out what we have to do to ensure that this system makeover produces the best possible education experiences and outcomes for our students. Notwithstanding its weaknesses and overall superficiality, the Taskforce report provides a useful starting point.
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 49
Analysis and Commentary
Governance | Ngā Mahi
Whakahaere
199. The Taskforce report appears to confuse governance with Governance and accountability and compliance. While accountability and compliance are important aspects of governance, and all management three are important elements of an effective organisation and all three overlap, accountability, compliance and governing One easy rule of thumb is that are separate and distinct activities both conceptually and in governance is the process of practice. defining and maintaining the rules and protocols that a society What is governance? or group of people will operate under (including how rules are 200. Governance is not simply about accountability – made) and for what purpose, accountability is part of governance, but so are leadership, while community engagement, and strategic thinking. The governing body is kaitiaki of the community’s future, it’s management is the process of using hopes and aspirations. It is not simply a mechanism for the available people and reporting on year-to-date or year-on-year progress. resources, according to the rules and protocols, to achieve that 201. Much progress has been made in understanding the nature of governance in different contexts since the current purpose. Act was originally drafted thirty years ago. In 1989, management was an emerging field. Organisational Powers and functions leadership and governance were understood simply as of boards subsets of ‘Administration’.
202. Until recently, there has been no accepted definition of 13 Board has complete discretion what ‘governance’ actually means. Instead, there has been a A board has complete discretion to plethora of lists describing specific things people might do perform its functions and exercise its while undertaking a governance role – which to some extent powers as it thinks fit, subject to this explained ‘how’ but did not address the central question of and any other enactment and the ‘what’. general law of New Zealand.
203. There are now a number of useful definitions that identify what governance is, not simply how it operates. The two main Role of the principal contexts for thinking about governance have been developing countries (political and economic governance, linked to key 76 Role of the principal ideas about government and nationhood) and corporate (1) A school’s principal is the board’s activity (corporate governance, linked to key ideas about chief executive in relation to the organisational development and business decision-making). school’s control and management. The school context has elements of both political and (2) Except to the extent that any corporate governance. enactment, or the general law of New Zealand, provides otherwise, the 204. New Zealand schools operate a stakeholder governance principal— 20 model . According to Balarin (2008) this model is based on (a) shall comply with the board’s general policy directions; and (b)subject to paragraph (a), has 20 Models of Corporate Governance (Table 5.1) presented by Balarin et al in the 2008 Schoolcomplete Governance discretion Study. to manage https://researchportal.bath.ac.uk/en/publications/the-school-governance-study as the principal thinks fit the school’s day-to-day administration . NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 50 - Education Act, 1989
Analysis and Commentary
the understanding that communities, government, principals, staff, students, employers, proprietors, and other interest groups (stakeholders) all have different interests. Boards of trustees are constituted as stakeholder representatives What does a board elected or appointed by stakeholder groups. The board’s role under this model is to make policy/strategy, balance do? stakeholder needs (in this case, with a strong weighting towards the educational needs of students) and to “control21 First and foremost a board is management” (principal & senior staff). accountable for student progress and achievement to its parents, community 205. In New Zealand, the Ministry of Social Development and the Crown. The board also has the presents a useful description as part of their strategic overall responsibility and accountability governance self-assessment tool22: for the school | kura. “A strategic governance Board is focused on the future The legal responsibilities of boards of while operating in the present. It operates in a transparent trustees are determined by the and accountable way to: Education Act of 1989. Schedule 6 of the Act outlines the functions and o oversee and protect the organisation’s vision, powers of boards: mission, values and resources 4 (1) A board is the governing body of o recognise environmental indicators of change, its school. uncertainty and opportunity (2) A board is responsible for the o identify and manage opportunities, risks and legal governance of the school, including compliance setting the policies by which the school o support the organisation to adapt and remain is to be controlled and managed. relevant 5 (1) A board’s primary objective in o drive the organisation’s future direction, including governing the school is to ensure that every student at the school is able to shifts in focus and/or positioning to meet changing attain his or her highest possible needs.” standard in educational achievement. Intelligent accountability (2) To meet the primary objective, the board must— (a) ensure that the school— To be accountable is not merely to carry a range of tasks or obligations…or to keep proper (i) is a physically and emotionally safe place for all students and staff; and accounts. It is also to…provide…evidence of the standard to which those tasks and obligations are (ii) is inclusive of and caters for students discharged… All accountability presupposes some with differing needs. forms of trust. So it is an illusion to think that we -NZSTA website can forget about trust and concentrate solely on accountability either in daily or in public life…it
21 In the New Zealand school context this essentially means monitor and manage performance in line with the school’s policies and strategic plan, and the wider legal context. 22 Ministry of Social Development (MSD) Strategic Governance Self-Assessment Tool https://www.msd.govt.nz/documents/about-msd-and-our-work/work-programmes/investing-in-services- foroutcomes/03-strategic-governance-capability-self-assessment-template.pdf
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 51
Analysis and Commentary
is…absurd to think that trust can be eliminated from professional and public life… - Onora O'Neill, 27 October 2009
206. Following the work of Baroness Onora O’Neill, NZSTA has Identifying adopted the concept of Intelligent accountability – also known as Intelligent trust. (See Appendix) stakeholders 207. Accountability isn’t the same as punishment or suspicion. Which organisations, groups or persons Accountability is the process of showing we are are important for the legitimation of trustworthy, so that others know they can trust us. That the school’s strategy, decision making, includes identifying the limits of our trust. Baroness O’Neill and the quality of the service delivery? describes this as “intelligent trust”. Likewise, when we require And which parties are in a position to accountability from our staff or each other – whether it’s in the evaluate and give valuable feedback in form of financial variance reports, EOTC risk assessments, order to improve the quality of codes of behaviour, professional standards, curriculum education? With respect to multiple reports, or something else – the point is so that we can know, accountability processes, (Hooge and and show, the reasons why we choose to extend our trust to Helderman, 2008) distinguish four them. In education, getting those decisions right is crucial. different categories of stakeholders: primary, internal, vertical, and Multiple accountabilities horizontal. In education, parents and students are 208. Along with the lack of clear and relevant evidence or the primary stakeholders. Teachers and strong chain of logic in some key areas, the Taskforce report other educational and non-educational demonstrates a general lack of understanding of the nature of staff are internal stakeholders with a governance in a school environment or the realities of the clear interest in the success of the multiple accountabilities and compliance requirements in the school. At slightly more distance, present system. Governing a school is not equivalent to governments and organisations governing a small or medium-sized business enterprise. formally operating on behalf of 209. As the table below from the OECD illustrates, there are at government (such as inspectorates or municipalities) operate as vertical least four core forms of school accountability (see next page). stakeholders. Finally, all other Each of those in turn has subsets, each of which an effective organisations, groups, or persons in the governing board must maintain at all times. school’s environment with some level 210. Central government is primarily concerned with vertical of interest in the school are horizontal accountabilities, and these are the focus of Ministry and stakeholders. Treasury analyses. Horizontal accountabilities (see the - OECD, 2012 diagram Rich Accountabilities in schools below) are the preserve of the professions and practitioners, associations and communities.
Perhaps taking things like enrolment, and buses, and property, learning support. and donations back to the centre make sense because government has wanted to manipulate these politically since the beginning, so put them in hubs where a national or possibly
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 52
Analysis and Commentary
regional policy can be struck, then leave the rest of the decision making back out close to the child. – School trustee
211.
Source: OECD (2012)23 p.9
212. The concept of multiple (or rich) accountabilities is important to the present discussion as a way of capturing the nature of schools’ day-to-day reality in a way that traditional models of pseudo-corporate accountability that underpin the Ministry of Education and Treasury24 suppositions about the nature of school governance in New Zealand do not.
Accountability is a core concept of public administration, yet disagreement about its meaning is masked by consensus on its importance and desirability. …. Transparency, liability, controllability, responsibility, and responsiveness are defined as distinct dimensions of accountability, providing an improvement on the current state of conceptual fuzziness. …[This] provides a vocabulary for the core argument: that conflicting expectations borne of disparate conceptions of accountability undermine organizational effectiveness. This phenomenon [is] labeled multiple accountabilities disorder… - Koppell, 200525
23 Hooge, E., T. Burns and H. Wilkoszewski (2012), Looking Beyond the Numbers: Stakeholders and Multiple School Accountability, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 85, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k91dl7ct6q6-en 24 See Accountability in the New Zealand schooling system https://conversation.education.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/TSR-Accountability-paper.pdf 25 Koppell, 2005. Pathologies of Accountability: ICANN and the Challenge of “Multiple Accountabilities Disorder” in Public Administration Review January/February 2005, Vol. 65, No. 1
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 53
Analysis and Commentary
213. The existence of multiple accountabilities, and particularly multiple competing notions of what those accountabilities are and to whom they are owed, can and does undermine organisational effectiveness. This has been dubbed ‘multiple accountabilities disorder’. 214. This scenario is very familiar to boards of trustees principals and teachers in New Zealand schools.
Rich Accountabilities in schools
Source: Lingard, 201726
215. However, these issues and frameworks are largely invisible in the Taskforce report or in the analysis offered by other government agencies, yet they go to the heart of how school governance works, and in particular, how it works here in New Zealand. 216. If school governance in New Zealand needs reforming, it is in the understanding and management of the plethora of explicit and implicit accountabilities imposed upon the sector, and the understanding of how to support effective strategic governance at system level rather than continually trying to mitigate the symptoms of inadequate and inappropriate design and implementation of public policy.
The governing role in schools
217. The discussion of governance at school level is complicated by the fact that many of the responsibilities assigned to school boards of trustees under the Education Act are actually high-level management functions rather than governance. Managing property development, and many of the compliance requirements identified in the Act and in Ministry regulations fall into this category.
26 Lingard, 2017 Reconfiguring accountabilities in education through multiple partnerships. New Zealand Association for Research in Education (NZARE) Blog 18 December 2017 https://nzareblog.wordpress.com/2017/12/18/lingard-accountabilities-2/
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 54
Analysis and Commentary
218. However, boards of trustees are first and foremost concerned with strategic governance of their school, with a focus on the core purpose of promoting positive student outcomes27. Strategic planning, community engagement and ensuring positive student outcomes are the core governance roles. Qualities of a good 219. This means that there are indeed some areas of boards’ current responsibilities that can be usefully board of trustees supported by a network of local service centres. It also means that providing support for these business- and In considering the role of school boards management- oriented activities is entirely possible of trustees within the compulsory without compromising the board’s status as the education system, we should be mindful of the qualities that distinguish governing body. a good board of trustees: • Good knowledge of the school Effective school governance • Where they want to take it • How to get there 220. NZSTA resources for boards of trustees over the • Good relationships with Principal & past several years have described four key aspects of staff effective school governance: Accountability, Leadership, • Enjoys the trust of the community Representation and the Employer role. This system is • Possesses the appropriate skills & currently being migrated to the new NZSTA BoardSURE experience framework, which identifies eight pillars of effective • Has access to the support & school governance. The eight pillars are: professional development needed to augment or improve those skills • Governance process • Cultural • Good working knowledge of responsiveness and inclusion education system in its entirety – for • Employment • Board culture example, policy settings, ‘eduspeak’, and key educational concepts • Student Achievement • Community • Competent and confident (Conscious engagement competence) • Financial & property • Wellbeing • Collaborative.
221. Each of these areas can in turn be broken down into - NZSTA more specific tasks and responsibilities.
27 Schedule 6 of the The Education Act 1989 states: 5 Board’s objectives in governing school (2) A board’s primary objective in governing the school is to ensure that every student at the school is able to attain his or her highest possible standard in educational achievement.
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 55
Analysis and Commentary
Source NZSTA BoardSURE brochure 2019
222. In each area of the board’s governance role, there is a bottom line – the compliance requirements imposed by the government, professional bodies or other stakeholders. However the focus of an effective board of trustees is not on compliance – which should be a given – but on the dictates of good practice, and how far the school’s practices and outcomes exceed the compliance requirements. 223. There are some key questions that need to be clarified at this stage, that are unclear from the report as it stands. All of these have some basis in the report, or the subsequent statements from taskforce members, and all will have a bearing on whether in fact community-based boards of trustees will be any more than a tokenistic nod to the concept of community engagement and tino rangatiratanga for local school communities. • Will it be optional to have a board in a school? • Will it be optional for a school / board to belong to a district hub?
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 56
Analysis and Commentary
• Will it be a requirement for school management to interact with boards in any meaningful way or will the real action be between the school management and the supervising hub (e.g. Kahui Ako)?
Self-governance and self-management
224. The Taskforce report appears to conflate the self-governing and self-managing aspects of our present school system. New Zealand schools are currently self-governing through their own independent board of trustees (Part 2, S13), and self-managing through the principal (Part 1, S76). 225. Self governance has been proven to work in a large number of schools and is improving overall all the time. NZSTA sees some real benefits in allowing schools to remain self- governing and self-managing with different levels of support being provided by hubs as needed developing service-provider ‘hubs’ 226. It would be a backward step to go back to centrally managed schools and lose the abilities of some highly competent trustees.
Strengths of Board Governance
227. The Governance section of the Taskforce report notes that a number of board members, particularly from higher decile and larger schools, were very confident about their ability to carry out their governance responsibilities. It contrasts this with members who are elected with little understanding of governance and the board’s role. The report notes that overwhelmingly the people the review spoke to were clear about the importance of close relationships between a school and community and many see this as the most valuable function of boards of trustees: ”It was clear that parents want to be involved and have some input in their school, particularly around its philosophy, culture and direction, and the welfare and wellbeing of students.” 228. However this clear message from the people they spoke to does not seem to have been reflected in the Taskforce’s proposals.
Strategic Leadership
229. Boards provide strategic leadership and direction to schools through the Charter and policy framework which give direction to guide all school activities and decisions. Leadership involves setting direction, vision and strategy to ensure that every student achieves their educational potential.
Representation
230. New Zealand school boards of trustees are structured as a form of representative democracy. As the name suggests, it is based on the trusteeship model of representation, as opposed to the delegate model.
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 57
Analysis and Commentary
The process is called representative democracy for a reason. The community elects those people Trustee model of they wish to represent them. Often, if the Board representation is functioning well, no election is required because the community is happy with the A trustee is someone who acts on progress the school is making. behalf of others, using their knowledge, – School trustee experience and intelligence upon a certain field. The Trustee Model contrasts with the Delegate Model as this time constituents 'entrust' their 231. In the board's decision-making process, all trustees work to elected representatives to represent take into account all relevant information, and to vote in the best them however they see fit, they are interests of all students and community groups, regardless of given autonomy to vote and behave in which position individual trustees hold across the table. the best way for their constituents.
232. Confusion arises when people expect school trustees to act Edmund Burke, who formulated the as delegates advocating for a particular agenda or subgroup model stated in a speech "You choose a within the community rather than trustees with a responsibility member indeed; but when you have to put those limited perspectives aside and consider the chosen him he is not member of Bristol, interests of all parties impartially. but he is a member of parliament... your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement; and Trusteeship is voluntary. However, each trustee he betrays, instead of serving you, if he is from within the community. While it may not sacrifices it to your own opinion".
always capture all cultural groups within that community, it is still a far better model than Delegate model of using a hub to do it. There are NAGs in place representation that direct boards to engage with Maori and other cultures. It is highly likely that no one in A delegate is someone who is elected to represent and convey the views of the hub will have any links to the community of others. The Delegate Model of a particular school, particularly if they are representation suggests that looking after 100-125 schools. representatives have little or no capacity to exercise their own - School trustee judgement or preferences. They are merely elected to be the mouthpiece of their constituency and act only the way their constituents would want them to, School boards of trustees regardless of their own opinion.
Joseph Tussman, stated "The essence of 233. NZSTA supports in principle the intention to …reorient the representation is the delegation or roles of boards and school principals/tumuaki so that they are granting of authority. To authorize a able to focus on their core responsibilities, however successive representative is to grant another the governments have clearly signalled that the core responsibility right to act for oneself. Within the limits of a school board of trustees is to govern their local school as of the grant of authority one is, in fact, trustees for their local community. This makes it difficult to committing himself in advance to the reconcile this statement of intention with the Taskforce’s decision or will of another".
Source: Wikipedia NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Models_op. 58 f_representation#cite_note-2
Analysis and Commentary
proposals to strip boards of trustees of their governance responsibilities and effectively return them to the status of a school committee.
This is already the case. A board's main focus is this. However, …you need control of expenditure to be able to do this effectively. We do not need another layer of bureaucracy.
234. NZSTA member boards have a range of views about the Taskforce proposal to reorient the board’s role. Around 60% of respondents to our recent survey disagree with the Taskforce view that transferring the governance responsibilities from school boards of trustees to district hubs would improve boards’ core focus. 235. The main area of concern is a misalignment between the responsibilities envisaged for the board (parent engagement, strategic planning, student outcomes) and the authority required to deliver these things. The taskforce proposals appear to maintain boards’ responsibility and accountability for these core functions, while reallocating the authority to deliver on those things to the proposed network of hubs.
The role of the board
The governance / management interface is working well overall. It is about a strong, high-trust relationship between BOT and School/principal. These things take time to establish but on the whole provide a great framework for community-led school improvement.
236. NZSTA welcomes the Taskforce’s recognition that to be fully effective, boards of trustees need to be focussed on the key functions of student experience and outcomes (purpose), strategic planning and oversight (progress) and community engagement (participation). As we have already noted, these are the three key governance functions for New Zealand schools.
Anything that is designed to improve and help narrow the focus of trustees and make resources more available and accessible and more evenly distributed would have to be a big step forward.
237. We also welcome the recognition that boards of trustees need to be better supported and valued for the role they play in our schools.
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 59
Analysis and Commentary
Do you agree that giving the responsibility for governing your school to an education hub (100-125 schools) instead of the Board of Trustees would improve your Board of Trustees' core focus?
Strongly Neither agree nor Agree, 11% Disagree, 22% Strongly disagree, 38% agree, disagree, 23% 6%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Over Figure e: NZSTA member survey, March 2019
238. the past thirty years boards of trustees have tended to be judged by their price, not the value of the work they do in governing the school. In part, this is because the discipline of governance is still not well understood in many government agencies who still tend to confuse it with senior management accountability. Although accountability is an important aspect of the governing role it is not one-dimensional, nor is it all there is to effective governance.
Some of the politicians and administrators responsible for accountability processes are operating within an extrinsic motivation perspective. Indeed, the concept of assessment driven instruction fits within such a perspective. If educators feel too much pressure of extrinsic motivation through an accountability system, there is considerable risk to the quality and extent of their motivation as educators. - Terry Crooks28
239. NZSTA and its member boards have maintained for many years now that the core work of boards of trustees is routinely compromised by non-governance requirements such as property management and being used as conduits for Ministry attempts to compel compliance from principals. They are also heavily constrained by a lack of recognition and support for the volume and importance of work the Ministry expects of boards.
A BOT that doesn't have full governance is called a "committee" - School trustee
28 Crooks (2007) Some Criteria for Intelligent Accountability Applied to Accountability in New Zealand. https://www.fairtest.org/some-criteria-intelligent-accountability-applied-a
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 60
Analysis and Commentary
240. We recognise that the Taskforce’s expertise is not in governance or democratic representation. As such it is understandable that they appear to have misunderstood the nature of the governance function, and misallocated this role to the proposed network of support hubs. 241. It is time for that to change.
System barriers
242. Apart from questions about the adequacy of overall resourcing, which are outside the scope of this review, system barriers to boards of trustees being as effective as they could be include: • distracted by property management • mixed messages from ERO and Ministry of Education about board roles and responsibilities (Boards are clear about their role, however it’s not always evident that officials they deal with are equally well informed.) • compliance burden and Ministry of Education expectations • lack of system support for genuine community partnership • lack of coherence and continuity of government policy (policy churn)
Finance and property
243. There is a strong feeling among those who responded to our survey that authority over the school’s resources is critical to a board’s ability to govern.
This is what we mostly do now, but having oversight of the finances and property are a key part to ensuring the infrastructure and resources are available to see students succeed. - School trustee
244. Again the issue is that so-called responsibility without the authority or accountability to discharge that responsibility is at best tokenism, and at worst is setting boards up to fail.
Community-raised funds
245. The report proposes that boards of trustees would hand over all other aspects of budget responsibility to the principal or hub but would still be responsible for locally raised funds. While we endorse the notion that hubs would not be given power to annex additional funds raised within the community, this begins to sound suspiciously as if board of trustees’ main role may evolve to become overseeing fundraising in their schools similar to Parent-Teacher Associations – which NZSTA and its member boards are vehemently against. 246. Despite the fact that locally raised funds can account for as much as 30% of a school’s operating budget, fundraising has never been part of a board’s core role, and schools’
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 61
Analysis and Commentary
locally raised funds have always been treated as part of the school’s overall budget, at the discretion of the board in its role as the governing body.
Is the Board of Trustees self-governing model working consistently well across the country?
247. According to our survey, member boards of trustees are evenly divided in their view about whether the taskforce is correct that the self-governing model is not working consistently well. However when we asked whether transferring the governing function to a district hub would improve consistency, only around 25% agreed that it would. 61% disagreed.
Is the Board of trustees model working?
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
The Board of Trustees self-governing model is not working consistently well across the country. 6% 32% 19% 29% 14%
Giving the governing role to an education hub would improve consistency 6% 19% 14% 23% 38%
Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree
We currently have immediate access to support and governance. The hubs will be lethargic and over run by special ed issues and property matters. It’s a huge step backwards to create hubs. I remember the South Auckland Education Board and how huge and cumbersome it was. All the education money goes into bureaucracy instead of to the pupils /schools. Too many chiefs with too large a stake in maintaining their own jobs. – School trustee
248. We have repeatedly been told by Ministers that school boards of trustees will continue to govern their schools under any new system, but that the focus and structure of school boards of trustees may change. We have taken them at their word on that.
Trustee elections
249. The Taskforce comments that board elections are not particularly well contested, and suggests (p.39) that the fact that not all schools find it necessary to hold a vote at each board election indicates a failure of the system. In our experience, the opposite may in fact be true.
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 62
Analysis and Commentary
The demands of the role may help explain why board elections are not particularly well contested. In 2016, a board election year, 43% of schools did not have a vote for their board because there was no contest for the positions. Around a fifth of boards do not have the five parent trustees that they should have. - Taskforce report, p.38-39
250. Many boards of trustees have proactive succession planning practices that ensure the required number of candidates, with the required skills have been identified and recruited before the election period. 251. A school where the parent community is satisfied with the level of consultation and the work the board is doing may also be less inclined to generate a contested election. 252. Some boards do indeed have issues finding the requisite number of trustees with the requisite skills - which may indicate that we need to be more proactive about promoting alternative governance arrangements. Other schools, including many kura kaupapa Māori practice governance models that include substantially more than the default 5-7 parent trustees. This too may be evidence that the way the board of trustees model has been implemented to date has not been flexible enough. 253. NZSTA is very willing to pursue these ideas further. However, we do not accept the Taskforce’s reasoning that 43% of boards holding uncontested elections is a sound reason for depriving the other 57% of that opportunity. 39% of voters (40% of black voters) did not exercise their right to vote in the 2016 US Presidential elections29, yet no-one is suggesting that is a valid reason to deprive the 60% - 61% who did of their voting rights.
254. The key question for NZSTA is: what evidence does the Taskforce have that a more removed and technocratic governing body will be more effective and make more
29 Source: Pew Research Centre, 2017. Black voter turnout fell in 2016, even as a record number of Americans cast ballots https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/05/12/black-voter-turnout-fell-in-2016-even-as-a-record- number-of-americans-cast-ballots/
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 63
Analysis and Commentary
acceptable decisions than a properly resourced and supported community-based democratic one?
Boards’ capacity and capability
Most board chairs and principals thought their board as a whole understand their responsibilities under the Education Act well or very well. Most boards also understand the concept of stewardship well or very well. However, they were slightly less confident about some cultural aspects of their work. NZCER, 201930
255. One of the criticisms levelled at boards of trustees is that they do not have a sufficient range of skills and experience to govern an organisation such as a school. Some data is collected and made available on the Ministry’s Education Counts website, but there is no clear or reliable indication of the skills base that school trustees collectively bring to our education sector. NZSTA has therefore asked respondents to our February survey to identify the occupations of current trustees serving on their board. The results are presented in the diagram below.
30 Results of the 2019 NZSTA annual survey of school boards of trusees. New Zealand Council for Educational Research (NZCER), March 2019. p.5.
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 64
Analysis and Commentary
Trustees by occupation
Never Other health worker 3% employed Other 2% 2% Clergy (e.g. Minister, Rabbi, Imam) 1%
Community work (unpaid) 4% Education professional Community work (paid) (e.g. principal, teacher, 8% ECE teacher, academic) Student 4% 13%
Full time parent 5% Other education work 8%
Other legal or justice Legal professional (e.g. sector work 4% lawyer, consultant, judge) 2%
Defence Financial services 3% force 2%
Police officer 3% Property or Company director in construction someone else's tradesSelf-employed3% business(es) 4% tradesperson 2% Self-employed Health Property or construction consultant or and management 3% Healthcare adviser 2% safety Office work 5% professional professi… 1% Employment Business or HR Management or other Other profession owner 5% professional business professional 5% (please specify) 3% 2%
Figure as at 25 March 2019
256. In summary: • 25% work in education (professional or non-professional, including students) • 20% work in the community – either paid or unpaid (including clergy, full-time parents, community workers, non-professional healthcare workers) • 19% of all trustees are in one of the professions • 17% are in business Figure as at 5 March 2019
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 65
Analysis and Commentary
• 9% are in the services or the justice sector. • 5% work in trades • 2% have never been employed • 2% answered ‘Other’.
Source: NZSTA survey March 2019
257. As this data has been gathered from a self-selected group, results are indicative rather than statistically robust, however it does provide a useful insight to support the anecdotal evidence about the skills and experience of people who comprise our school boards of trustees.
There is plenty of support available to address these matters. If skills are lacking ask for support. That's what NZSTA is for. – School trustee
258. The Taskforce’s statements about on difficulties to get boards with the right expertise and experience are at odds with the views of board members. 259. Around 80% of respondents in the 2019 NZCER Survey31 said they agreed or strongly agreed that their board was well equipped to serve the school community. Respondents to our member survey about the Taskforce proposals emphasised that they actively seek to extend the board’s skillset through co-option or retaining external advisers as required.
31 NZCER, 2019. Results of the 2019 Annual Survey of school boards of trustees
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 66
Analysis and Commentary
Any Board has the power to co-opt on a specialist for projects or if needed skills are missing from a Board. The problem is that Boards can feel frustrated at the lack of support or easy available advise from MOE regarding particular elements they need to deal with. - School trustee
260. By contrast, in the 2018 Institute of Directors and ASB Director Sentiment Survey32 57% of directors considered that their board had the right capabilities (skills and experience) to deal with increasing business complexity and risk, and only 33% believed they had the right capability to lead the digital future of their organisation.
It's just a matter of seeking help when needed and when this happens you have the very best outcome- a body which knows the school community intimately and which is professional in its approach to solving issues in school. Policies define the process and when these are up to date and adhered to, you're a pretty sure track to a successful outcome. - School trustee
Representation
261. The importance of the partnership between a school | kura and its community cannot be stressed enough. Trustees represent their community and actively seek the input of parents, staff and students. 262. NZSTA’s annual board survey showed that most boards consulted with their parents and whānau, and students over the past year. Just over half had consulted with the wider community and fewer than half said they had consulted with local iwi and/or hapū. Boards mainly used the views of these groups to inform the school strategic plan or charter, and to inform board decisions on student well-being, progress and achievement, as well as curriculum33.
Representing the community
263. The Taskforce’s statements about school boards of trustees not effectively representing or including their communities, are at odds with the views of board members.
32 Institute Of Directors (IOD) Director Sentiment Survey 2018. p.15 https://www.iod.org.nz/Portals/0/Publications/IoD%20027%20Sentiment%20Survey%202018.pdf 33 NZCER, 2019 p.5
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 67
Analysis and Commentary
264. In the 2019 NZCER Survey 80% of respondents strongly agreed or agreed that their board was representative of the community34. 265. Over 75% of respondents to our member survey on the Taskforce proposals disagreed or strongly disagreed with the Taskforce’s assertion that it is difficult for boards of trustees as currently constituted to represent their community. A similar number disagreed or strongly disagreed with the proposition that transferring the governing role to district-level hubs would make it easier for boards to represent their community.
Representing the community
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
It is very difficult for boards, as currently constituted, to represent their community 1% 10% 11% 38% 40%
Governing hubs would make it easier for you as a board of trustees to represent your community 4% 6% 13% 26% 51%
Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree
Source: NZSTA member survey, March 2019
Support for Boards
266. The Taskforce report says that the roles and responsibilities of boards are too wide- ranging and complex. The present system does indeed give the board a broad mandate to deliver the aspirations and direction for each school.
Boards could remain the way they are, and recommendations around the other parts of the education sector could be implemented instead, and the whole system would soar. Taking responsibilities away from the boards, is like throwing the baby out with the bath water.
267. What seems to be lacking or at least variable is the level of support to boards who need specialist support. Interestingly these areas are the same as those identified in the Ministry’s 2011 Performance Improvement Framework (PIF) review35 as needing development: services for interventions to schools, provision of infrastructure to schools, Crown entity monitoring.
34 NZCER, 2019 p.27 35 State Services Commission, 2011. 51 Performance Improvement Framework: Formal Review of the Ministry of Education – June 2011 https://www.ssc.govt.nz/sites/all/files/pif-moe-review-june2011.PDF
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 68
Analysis and Commentary
…At conference I was part of the large secondary schools’ group… a lady talked all about her problems, but she dominated it. I never got the feeling that anyone got the chance to share about a very capable, good board. When you have a good board, that is the norm. if you asked me what is good about a board? Its way easier to explain and have conversation around the negatives. Positives aren’t such a speaking point.
268. The Taskforce notes that unless a board funds additional support itself very little specialist support is available. This is only partly true. The Treasury notes in a supporting paper to the Taskforce36 that Education Service Centres were set up to provide full administrative services to boards if required, but ‘became unviable’. This was one of the consequences of the ‘invisible hand’ of the post-1989 market model being applied to education. 269. NZSTA provides a wide range of services and support to boards, however this is still constrained by the resourcing available. There is considerable scope to build NZSTA’s role further to provide increased support to boards.
What is working well
270. Our discussion paper37 notes that what has worked well is: • Connecting the school to their community • Access to local, cultural professional and practical expertise • An internal audit and self-review function • Creating a unique identity for each school • An internal appeal process for school-based issues • Tapping into the pool of good will that exists in the community.
Once I had kids, I wanted to involve myself into my kids’ education once they were at school so I joined a board. The report was kick in the guts stuff: my heart, what we put into our schools, and how we help our children succeed. When I got the report, I thought is there any point in keeping on going. I wanted to extend myself, I wanted
36 New Zealand Treasury, 2019. Governance in the New Zealand Schooling system https://conversation.education.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/TSR-Governance-Paper.pdf 37 Twenty-First Century schools – p.93
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 69
Analysis and Commentary
to go to all NZSTA workshops. Reading this report made me feel like all my hard work was wasted. - School trustee
Build Further
271. The NZSTA Governance Internal Evaluation Tool (IET)38 is an easy to use online tool to help boards identify areas where they need to improve their governance practice to support the board’s primary focus is the ongoing improvement of student achievement. 272. This tool is currently being migrated to our new evaluation tool, BoardSURE and will be rolled out during the second half of 2019. A key part of BoardSURE is assessing whether boards effectively and consistently plan, monitor report and self-evaluate. 273. A further action to strengthen board consistency is to introduce a requirement for compulsory board training and build our Kōrari (Aspiring Trustees) programme.
Boards are not the problem
…, we also heard about significant issues with the current board model. Many trustees and principals/tumuaki talked to us about the responsibilities and workload placed on boards being too great, particularly around property, health and safety, finance and student discipline. We also frequently heard about members being elected with little understanding of governance and the board’s role as governors… (Taskforce report, p.36)
274. There are indeed a number of issues with the implementation of the current model. The Taskforce report fails to provide a convincing analysis of whether these issues are with the implementation, or whether they are with the underlying philosophy of the community engagement model. 275. Accurately assessing whether the issue is that boards of trustees will never have the competence to govern schools effectively, or whether it is the failure of the system to adequately support and resource them makes a huge difference to the appropriate policy response. 276. The Taskforce report clearly takes the position that boards of trustees are ipso facto39 incapable of competently governing their schools. There is no compelling evidence to support this position, and what evidence is presented appears to demonstrate a significant
38 See https://www.nzsta.org.nz/advice-and-support/professional-development/governance-internal-evaluation- tool-iet/ 39 Ipso facto is a Latin phrase, directly translated as "by the fact itself", which means that a specific phenomenon is a direct consequence, a resultant effect, of the action in question, instead of being brought about by a previous action. It is a term of art used in philosophy, law, and science [Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipso_facto. Accessed 25 February 2019]
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 70
Analysis and Commentary
confirmation bias40 – that is, evidence that appears to support that conclusion is preferred over evidence that contradicts it. Thoughts about democracy We also frequently heard about members being elected with little understanding of governance Many forms of Government have and the board’s role as governors (in relationship been tried, and will be tried in to the role of the principal as Chief Executive)... this world of sin and woe. No one Taskforce report, p.36 pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the 277. While this may be so, we have also heard from a number worst form of Government of the trustees who spoke to the Taskforce either at NZSTA’s except for all those other forms 2018 national conference or elsewhere, who say they are upset and bewildered that the tone and content of their that have been tried from time conversations are not reflected in the report. to time.…
- Winston S Churchill, NZSTA Recommendation 3
➢ That school Boards of Trustees retain the authority and responsibility to govern their school. The difference between a democracy and a dictatorship is that in a democracy you vote first and take orders later; in a dictatorship you don't have to waste your time voting.
- Charles Bukowski
Democracy, good governance and modernity cannot be imported or imposed from outside ...
- Emile Lahoud
40 Confirmation bias, also called confirmatory bias or myside bias, is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's preexisting beliefs or hypotheses. It is a type of cognitive bias and a systematic error of inductive reasoning. [Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias. Accessed 25 February 2019]
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 71
Analysis and Commentary
Community participation and partnership
Civil society ... [refers to] a wide array of organizations: community groups, non-governmental organizations [NGOs], labour unions, indigenous groups, charitable organizations, faith-based organizations, professional associations, and foundations. - World Bank41
Boards of Trustees and New Zealand’s civil society.
278. Boards of Trustees facilitate community dialogue, growth, and more innovative approaches to teaching and learning in classrooms across the country. For over thirty years the New Zealand School Trustees Association has nurtured, supported, trained, upskilled an estimated total of around 100,000 citizens in the area of school governance. 279. The positive externalities of this engagement have extended into workplaces, sports clubs, non-government organisations and community groups. The net effect of such engagement has been the nurturing and growth on an essential element of civil society within New Zealand: The School Board of Trustees. 280. In transferring the authority and legal recognition of local citizens acting as members of a school boards of trustees to ministerially appointed district boards, the proposed changes are putting this element of civil society at risk. 281. When mobilized, civil society - including School Boards of Trustees, sometimes called the ‘third sector’ (after government and commerce) - has the power to influence the actions of elected policy-makers and businesses, in particular by • holding institutions to account and promotes transparency; • raising awareness of societal issues; • delivering and facilitating services/innovation to meet new education needs, food and wellbeing needs; • implementing disaster management, preparedness and emergency response; • bringing expert knowledge and experience to shape policy and strategy; • giving power to the marginalized; and • encouraging citizen engagement. 282. The maintain of existing structures and resources is essential in nourishing this Civil society element.
41 The World Bank. Civil Society: Overview http://www.worldbank.org/en/about/partners/civil-society#2
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 72
Analysis and Commentary
A democratic, stakeholder model remains crucial to the effective practice of governing schools. By deliberating and reconciling social and cultural differences, governance constitutes the practices for mediating particular and cosmopolitan worlds and thus the conditions for engaging young people in their learning, as well as in the preparation for citizenship in civil society - Ranson, 201242
283. Fully functioning and resourced Boards of Trustees, who are engaged in real time and authentic decision making, role model to students the functionality of an important element of civil society. 284. Fully resourced and functioning Boards of Trustees also have a clear role – one that should not be diminished - the ability to raise concerns, influence government policy and create meaningful dialogue between policy-makers and the public should not be relinquished lightly. How can power to govern be given, mostly successfully exercised and then redacted. Boards of Trustees are an integral part of New Zealand’s civil society and the proposed reforms put both under attack. The net loss would represent a substantial loss to democratic society.
Civil society means community partnership
285. Community participation at governance level is essential to create partnership with the local community and to embed the place of civil society throughout the system. This includes student participation, which is a crucial part of any 21st century school community. 286. In this new-look system the “community DNA” needs to be not only embedded into the system but the status and mana of that community needs to be explicitly recognised and valued by other stakeholders as one of the keys to education success.
It is interesting to note that the reforms of school administration in the later 1980s purported to give local communities greater control over the education of their children, yet much of this control was then withdrawn through tighter specification of school curricula and their enforcement through legislation and the activities of the Education Review Office (Codd, McAlpine & Poskitt, 1995). – Terry
Consultation with parents and whānau
287. The NZSTA annual survey43 shows that boards of trustees’ practice is shifting from the reactive (checking parent and whānau satisfaction) to more proactive consultation to inform
42 Ranson, S, (2012) Schools and civil society: corporate or community governance. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2012.635670 43 NZCER, 2019 p.22
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 73
Analysis and Commentary
board decision-making about the charter or strategic plan, student progress and student wellbeing, property or curriculum.
Views used to inform board decisions in 2018: Parents and Students Iwi and hapū whānau School strategic plan / charter 79 43 53 Student well-being, progress, achievement and pathways* 71 59 41 Check satisfaction levels 51 39 22 Property and finance* 48 36 19 Curriculum* 46 36 32 Other* (Appointment of a principal) 4 <1 7
Haven’t used their views 1 7 17 Don’t know 2 6 8 Source: NZCER 2019
Consultation with students, Iwi and Hapū
288. In 2018 more than 50% of boards of trustees reported using consultation with students to inform decisions about students’ well-being, progress, achievement and pathways or strategic planning, and to check student satisfaction levels. 289. Similar numbers of boards report consulting with Iwi and hapū. Consultation with Iwi and hapū ranks the lowest of the three groups overall. NZSTA has been making a conscious effort to lift member boards’ awareness and expectations about consultation with Iwi, hapū and whānau over the past year or so including development of resources such as Hautū44 and Haepapa45 and a prolonged focus in membership materials. For example STAnews carried the Poutama Pounamu publication Connecting with Māori Communities: Whānau, Hapū and Iwi46 as a series of articles throughout 2018.
Didn’t Board consideration of and answer consultation about Tiriti o Always Sometimes Rarely Never this Waitangi:2018 question
The board considers how the policy or 37 34 14 5 9 practice relates to te Tiriti o Waitangi The board consults with parents and 15 35 28 13 10 whānau about how the policy relates to te Tiriti o Waitangi
44 Hautū: Māori Cultural Responsiveness Self Review tool for Boards of Trustees. https://www.nzsta.org.nz/assets/Maori-student-achievement/Hautu.pdf 45 Haepapa: Effective Governance in Māori Medium https://www.nzsta.org.nz/assets/Professional- Development/HAEPAPA-Effective-Governance-in-Maori-Medium.pdf 46 Poutama Pounamu Connecting with Māori Communities: Whānau, Hapū and Iwi https://poutamapounamu.org.nz/assets/resources/site/module8-v20a-up-16Apr15-w-image_5Jan16.pdf
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 74
Analysis and Commentary
The board consults with local hapū 12 27 30 19 11 and/or iwi about how the policy relates to te Tiriti o Waitangi The board consults with principal and 31 32 18 9 10 staff about how the policy relates to te Tiriti o Waitangi The board does not consider te Tiriti o 6 21 20 29 5 Waitangi Source: NZCER 2019 p.23
290. Bicultural competence and honouring Te Tiriti o Waitangi are areas of continuing focus for NZSTA and its member boards of trustees, as they are for central agencies and other stakeholder groups.
Where is the community in the Taskforce proposals?
291. The Taskforce report is quite exclusively focussed on how the system will work at a bureaucratic and technocratic level, with very little consideration of how community members will engage the system (apart from formal complaints) or how the democratic principles that motivated the Tomorrows Schools reform will be honoured. In fact, it seems clear that they will not.
We don’t do it for the money. If you take away the trust from those people and the work they have done, and undervalue that, then how will you build that up again. I was ready to walk away some time ago, till NZSTA and ERO came out saying that the power belonged to the board. Some of us knew this, but the engagements with the teacher and principal made us not feel this way. When the sector let us know we had the power, that’s what kept me in governance. – School trustee
292. The Taskforce Report assumes that if ‘professionals’ are in charge, then parents and communities will therefore be happier and better served. It falls short of providing evidence, or even a convincing argument to support this. 293. This is a fundamental question for policymakers on which the Taskforce has not offered any analysis or evidence: Does the government still trust local communities to steer their children’s schooling, in partnership with educators and government agencies, or not?
…we have a model here that has been developed and evolved over time, [people] who are focused on the changes needed for our
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 75
Analysis and Commentary
kids… I have had my children suspended and excluded. I have been on both sides… I have been empowered from governance to be a better mum, aunty, foster carer etc. – School trustee
294. It is clear that the Taskforce does not believe they should. What is less clear is whether their reasoning is sound, as they do not offer any. Nor do they offer any analysis of why the flaws that they identify in the system have arisen. Without that analysis, there is very little assurance that the solutions they propose are solutions to the problems that actually exist, or to problems that look superficially similar.
The community connection and local identity of individual schools would be lost. It may work well for larger and more urban schools but country/rural schools need local people around the table. - School trustee
Empowering communities
295. The most important success factor for any proposed change will be that the review empowers the people closest to the children and young people at the heart of the system - local communities - to actively pursue their aspirations for the education of their children and young people. The best way to do that is through a community-led governing body that is permitted and supported to govern well. We are not convinced that the Taskforce proposals have achieved that.
We can all do a strategic plan or annual plan, but we need to look at budgetary constraints. How many goals can you achieve without a budget? If you are taking away finances, they are fundamental in planning a strategic plan.
296. One of the recurring observations we have heard from boards of trustees is that for hubs to succeed, they will need to be adequately supported and resourced; but if boards of trustees were being adequately supported and resourced there would be no need for hubs in the first place. The hub proposal in itself does nothing to address this issue. There is a general assumption that hubs will be more ‘efficient’ because they will be able to generate economies of scale (usually expressed as not needing to ‘re-invent the wheel’). While this is no doubt true, hubs will also generate substantial additional costs in terms of the enhanced level of support and expertise they are expected to offer schools over and above what is currently being provided.
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 76
Analysis and Commentary
297. Many of these services and supports have existed in the past and have been successively eroded over the years in an Good management effort to contain costs, including the costs associated with a large central or local bureaucracy such as the School Support practices networks of the 1990’s. 298. At an operational level, NZSTA sees a lot of merit in the 1.2.11 The government's main functions proposal to re-establish a network of service and support are to decide upon national objectives, centres across the country. However, transferring the to establish funding priorities, to review governing role away from communities and vesting it in those and audit institutions' performance in service centres raises a new and different set of issues. the light of the national objectives, and to manage the property owned by the 299. The proposal to vest the governing role in district-level education system. hubs needs to be thoroughly examined with the same rigour that is applied to the operational proposals. We need a full 1.2.12 Ministers need high-quality and credible analysis of the relative costs and benefits – in advice on which to base policy, and so terms of effectiveness as well as efficiency – of diverting we see a clear need to separate policy funding away from the development of an active civil society advisers from the providers of through school boards of trustees and into the creation of a education to eliminate any potential district level governing structure. conflicts of interest. Advice to government must be freed as far as 300. There’s an old saying that there’s no point having an open possible from self interest, so that it has door if the mind behind it is closed. Likewise, there is no point the credibility and neutrality that is touting the importance of ‘community voice’ unless it’s required of it. someone’s job to listen and respond to it. 1.2.13 Learning institutions deal directly with the consumers of education, and so are in the best position to take Building and sustaining highly functioning boards decisions on the means by which the is a holistic discipline, separate and apart from the national objectives set by government executive function. When both a board and its are to be met. executive pull in the same direction with strong clarity about their distinct and mutually dependent 1.2.14 What is required is a system which will allow individual institutions roles, there occurs a synergy that propels a to respond to the specific needs of their nonprofit or business or government entity to community and which has clear lines of thrive, strengthening its impact on the people and control and responsibility. All learning communities it serves47. institutions should be provided with the funds and information to enable them to meet the national objectives of the 301. NZSTA is looking forward to working with other education system, while having control stakeholder groups through the practicalities of how the more over how they use these resources. The useful of the Taskforce proposals can be successfully intention is to form a partnership implemented. between the community, the learning institution and the government which will reinforce the mutual interests and cooperation that should inform our most important national endeavour.
- Picot report p.5
47 Govern for Impact (formerly International Policy Governance Association) https://governforimpact.org/images/GFI-empowering-boards.pdf )p.7
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 77
Analysis and Commentary
Student suspensions exclusions and expulsions
Boards have powers that allow them to make decisions that can significantly impact on the life of a young person and their family. We heard of the far-reaching consequences of student suspensions, exclusions or expulsions, and of the costs of there being no right of appeal within the present system. How was it, the Children’s Commissioner asked us, that jockeys, owners of race horses and rugby players all have more appeal rights than children or young people do when it comes to decisions about their education future? (Taskforce report, p44)
302. We have real concerns about the taskforce’s proposals about student suspensions, exclusions and expulsions.
Most suspensions, expulsions and exclusions are well handled by boards of trustees at school level
303. While we accept that some boards may make mistakes some of the time, we do not accept that this is the norm. In 2017 (the latest year that data is available on Education Counts) there were 800,334 enrolled at New Zealand schools, but only 3,000 exclusions or expulsions. Of the 4,200 suspensions in 2017, Boards of Trustees decided to lift 45% of all suspensions. Around 9 out of 10 of these were lifted with conditions placed on the student. Decisions in the other 55% of cases were to extend the suspension in 17% of cases, to exclude in 33%, or expel in 5% of cases48.
Table 1: Estimated stand-downs, suspensions, exclusions and expulsions, 2017 Enrolled students 800,334 Stand-downs 23,500 suspensions 4,200 Exclusions 1,600 expulsions 1,400 Total 30,700
304. Responses to our 2018 survey indicate that the average amount of time each board of trustees spent on student behavioural issues alone was somewhere between 7 and 16 hours in 2017. This suggests that the additional capacity required in a hub to cover suspension, expulsion and exclusion in a hub covering 100-125 schools would be between
48 https://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/147764/2017-Stand-downs-Suspensions- Exclusions-Expulsions-Indicator-Report.pdf
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 78
Analysis and Commentary
2,100 and 10,000 hours per annum (between 1 and 5 FTE) simply to sit on the hearings for student suspension, expulsion and exclusions. 305. Data shows that the number of stand-downs, suspensions, exclusions and expulsions has dropped from a combined total of 3.7% in 2000 (37 per 1,000 students) to just over 3% (30 per 1,000 students) in 2017. It peaked in 2006 at just over 4% (40 per 1,000 students). 306. It also shows that schools consistently choose the least serious disciplinary processes (stand-down or suspension) over exclusion or expulsion.
Age-standardised suspension rates per 1,000 students 45.0 40.0 35.0 30.0 25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Stand-downs suspensions Exclusions expulsions
Source: Education counts
307. This is not the picture painted by the Taskforce report. It is however consistent with NZSTA’s own findings in our 2018 survey of the support provided to schools to cater adequately for students with significant behavioural needs (see chart below).
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 79
Analysis and Commentary
Estimated number of instances in 2017 school year
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Time-out (at school) Referral to dean, assistant principal or other senior staff Referral to school counsellor Detention Referral to other agency (not MoE) Stand-down Referral to social worker / CYFS Time-out (out of school) Restricted hours of attendance Physical restraint Class lockdown or relocation Other arrangements with parents or caregivers Formal suspension Police callout Exclusion Seclusion School lockdown Trespass notice Other emergency services callout Refused enrolment Expulsion Other
Source: NZSTA membership consultation, June 2018
Context and balance
308. Decisions about how to respond to undesirable student behaviour involve complex decisions, balancing the needs and rights of the student with those of their peers; the responsibility to ensure that the student continues to receive an education with the responsibility to provide a safe and healthy environment for other students and staff.
One thing that might be easier is the ability to make the "right" decision in suspension cases. The pressure we feel from our staff and Principal (and even sometimes disgruntled parents) when sitting on a suspension meeting to exclude a child who is immensely challenging and really disruptive to class due to their high learning support needs sometimes feels akin to blackmail to
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 80
Analysis and Commentary
be honest. This is despite all our attempts to keep it professional, confidential and without conflicts. If an If an independent party came in and took the evidence as it should be taken to make such a decision, this could be beneficial. Firstly for the student, and secondly for the community. - School trustee
309. No decision-maker is going to go unchallenged all of the time. 310. Decisions are also seriously constrained by the limited resources available to schools to proactively meet the needs of all students, and reactively in terms of the full range responses that are deemed acceptable or unacceptable at any given time.
Independent right of review
311. The Taskforce highlights ‘power imbalances’ between boards and students, parents and whānau as a problem that needs to be addressed, yet the solution they propose is to remove decision-making and rights of review of operational decisions affecting those students, parents and whānau to a more remote and centralised location than the board.
Many people believe that this power imbalance between boards and students, parents and whānau with genuine grievances needs to be addressed. (Taskforce report, p44)
312. The Taskforce proposes that hubs will provide an independent point of appeal against suspension, exclusion and expulsion decisions. 313. The Taskforce is unclear whether this review would be to hub operational staff or to the Hub’s governing board (i.e. the employer of the staff who made the decision, as currently). However it is hard to see how the hub’s governing board would have the capacity to undertake these processes for 100-125 schools, so we assume that the proposal is that it will be devolved at operational level to the hub’s operational support staff.
Education Hubs, rather than school boards, would be responsible for all processes after a suspension has been initiated by a school principal. If a school principal suspends a student, the Education Hub would be responsible for working with the school principal, and other principals/ tumuaki if necessary, to ensure that the student’s rights are upheld, that they are treated fairly, and that they have access to continued quality education provision. - Taskforce report
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 81
Analysis and Commentary
314. The Taskforce also proposes that review decisions should be made by the hub, not the school board of trustees. This means that the proposed right of appeal would not be independent, it would be an appeal to the same body making the decision. This proposal sets hubs up to be judge, jury and executioner with no checks or balances. It does not resolve the perceived problems of the current system, it simply transfers them to a more remote and inaccessible authority.
The suspended student must be front and centre of all considerations, deliberations and decisions - no-one else. My firm belief is that the board is the right body to make the critically important decision that will impact on the child's future (positive or negative)- BUT with support. My own experience was to join a board where suspension was the step before automatic exclusion. The board was of the opinion that if a student was suspended, the principal and staff must have exhausted all other options and its job was to 'get the kid off everyone's back and let them get on with teaching the good kids' - always under the veil of 'it's for your own good'. It was VERY hard work and I didn't make myself the slightest bit popular with anyone but, by crickey, we turned that around! … boards do have the opportunity to set the culture and make the change - I've seen it happen. Being a trustee means taking on the tough stuff too.
315. It is hard to see how having these review decisions (let alone the initial suspension, expulsion or exclusion decisions) made more remotely and mechanically at hub level, with right of review only to the same hub that made the initial decision will improve the accessibility, the power imbalance or the outcomes for students. 316. We suggest that a more sensible and constructive response is to empower the unempowered, not to disempower both sides.
Perhaps the sad thing about taking it away from the board though would be that trustees, if they are brave enough, have a chance to set a standard of inclusion, tolerance, care and respect that may have be missing in some communities ... A board that genuinely takes inclusion as a core value, will bravely find ways to ensure all are included and valued within their school. Therefore starting the discourse whereby genuine change can happen because the culture starts to change...from the top. The challenge is that we are human and such noble acts are difficult and require much
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 82
Analysis and Commentary
courage - not to say it can't be done though. - School trustee
317. NZSTA is currently engaged with the Office of the Children’s Commissioner on a pilot process for a genuinely independent review of these decisions. The pilot independent review process is available to students and families in NZSTA’s Southland and Northland regions for the duration of the pilot throughout the 2019 school year. The initial pilot programme will be limited to reviewing decisions to exclude or expel students at secondary schools. The review will involve the review panel, the school’s board of trustees and the student who has been excluded or expelled and/or their parent/s or caregiver/s49.
Stand-downs, Suspension Expulsion and Exclusion current processes
318. These decisions can be difficult and complex. Although its uncomfortable for boards of trustees to carry that responsibility, that's a really important element of the system: It should be hard, it should matter to the people making the decision, because it is an important decision that affect a child's whole life. Do we want it to become a remote decision made on administrative grounds by someone who sees 300 of these a month, or do we want it to be a big deal for people close to the situation, who only deal with a few of them, because it is an extreme situation?
The suspension hearing system is only as robust as the players own ethics, understanding of what is involved for the student if suspended and excluded, what the school has already put in place for the child, how has the family interacted in the plan, and what actual $ resourcing can be further put in play for this child etc. – School trustee
49 See Appendix
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 83
Analysis and Commentary
Supporting schools effectively
319. We are excited about the possibilities of developing a Administration well-thought-out support function providing professional leadership and support and/or a parallel business services hubs? bureau function. This might well be vested in regional hubs. …for the Review of Tomorrow’s Schools (Review TS, or RTS), it is necessary to 320. That said, we have concerns that the notion of hubs expand that label to be Education envisaged in the Taskforce report is underdeveloped. Hubs Administration Hubs (EAH) since most appear to fulfil a multitude of functions throughout the of the tasks seem to be administrative report, some of which are not easily compatible with as they support the school Boards of others. Trustees. To take a 21st century 321. The Taskforce report clearly reflects a view of education perspective, it is necessary to governance as a subset of administration, and this develop a re-lensed view of these highlights the need to tease out the distinctions between organisations as Education Catalysis the disciplines of governing, leadership and management. Hubs (ECH), since that suggests the ability to purposefully re-develop education with a 21st Century perspective that takes advantage of the The current model works. We represent our research, collects thinkers, and community so that pervades our discussions encourages innovation. For Aotearoa New Zealand education futures, it with the principal anyway. The governance should lead to research-based vs management model works effectively objectives and enable Principal and – School trustee teacher professional development. Each Hub should be able to develop a specific set of objectives that are relevant to the schools in that focus 322. Our concern with the proposals as presented by the grouping. Taskforce is that they do not adequately tease out the Adding Education (administrative) Hubs, distinctions between business needs, professional support as defined in the TS Review Report, for teaching and school leadership, governance functions, seems to be returning to the time in the accountability processes, and the control functions of the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and early 1980s present Ministry compliance regime. when we had regional Ministry of 323. Failure to adequately think through these Education offices, PLUS Education complementary functions and develop a nuanced and Department Offices that were focussed response to each facet will set up the hubs to fail. responsible for maintenance and staff For example, allocation. That system resulted in poor management of buildings and allocation • how does hubs’ involvement in developing principals of staff. There were too many parallel as school leaders interface with the role of the administrative strands and response Teaching Council? time was very slow. TS was needed for recovery of the maintenance • how does hubs’ involvement in developing strategic programme and better management of plans covering all the schools in their district, interface resources. The Boards of Trustees with the board of trustees’ responsibility for developing (including my own as Chair of a Year 1-6 their own school’s strategic plan? school) were able to respond more • who will ensure that resourcing is reasonable and effectively and rapidly improved the appropriate to meet the stated expectations given that standard of the physical resources and learning support through effective governance. NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 84 - Graham Foster, March 2019 Analysis and Commentary
the EEO will not be evaluating individual schools if the hub is both the provider and the evaluator? (This is the issue schools currently face with the Ministry’s dual role in respect to Disability and Learning Support) • how can there be “opt-in” or “opt-out” provisions if hubs are the governing body? 324. We also have concerns about the imbalanced representation of key sector stakeholders in the proposal for hubs’ governing structures and responsibilities. The active involvement and professional judgement of principals and ex-principals is a key success factor in any schooling system, alongside students, communities, teachers, and boards. However they are not the only voices that matter.
Hub models overseas
325. NZSTA recognises that the hub model proposed in the Taskforce report has strong parallels with the system of school governance practices in the USA and Canada. 326. We acknowledge that there are many School Boards in Canada and the USA that govern a group of 500 or more schools, with commensurately large budgets. In this context, the Taskforce proposals appear moderate. However, that begs the question whether the US schooling model is one that we wish to emulate. Those school boards exist in a highly politicised environment, with student achievement and equity issues that far exceed those New Zealand currently faces.
Legal responsibilities and liabilities and what scares most people away from standing for a BOT – School trustee
327. Our point here is that we have much to lose, just as we have much to gain by making such significant changes as the Taskforce proposes to the fundamental dynamics and power balances in our system of school governance.
[Hubs] should not assume the legal responsibilities as an Employer of the Principal under the Employment Act, nor as Person Conducting a Business or Undertaking (PCBU) under the Worksafe Act. – School trustee
328. This is not a reason to dismiss the possibility of change out of hand. It is however sufficient reason to require a thorough investigation of the pros and cons of any change, the costs incurred in achieving any gains that may be made, and the factors that may mitigate risk and minimise unintended negative consequences (key success factors). 329. We also recognise the work Cathy Wylie has done over the last three decades researching alternative models of school governance, and particularly the Edmonton model.
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 85
Analysis and Commentary
Hubs should not govern schools Lack of Information 330. The Taskforce proposes that hubs have wide ranging legal powers in the areas of governance, management, 3.4.2 Many of those making communicating with and advocating for parents. NZSTA submissions to us referred to the supports the idea of a regional service provider such as a hub difficulty in finding out where decisions but not the Taskforce’s proposal that district-level education are made in the Department of hubs should replace the school’s board of trustees as the Education and the education boards, school’s governing body. and the grounds on which they are made. For example, a teacher may be
dissatisfied by an education board decision not to grant paid leave, only to find that the decision was really made We recommend that Education Hubs would in the Department of Education: the assume all the legal responsibilities and liabilities education board was either currently held by school Boards of Trustees. This implementing national rules, or had sought and received a ruling on a case would include responsibility for school quality and outside the rules. In another example, performance, principal and teacher employment, parents who have a concern about 5YA property funding and property development, teaching performance find that trying financial management including final approval of to have the matter resolved involves a school’s annual budget, health and safety, and the principal, the school committee, the education board, and the inspectors of human resources services. the Department of Education—with Taskforce report, p.49 none of these having a clear responsibility for making the decision.
331. NZSTA sees the hub’s value in a supporting and enabling 3.4.3 In such an environment there is an role, which we do not believe to be compatible with the erosion of confidence and an relationship dynamics of governing. A governing body leads, undermining of the likelihood of navigates and directs. A representative body represents. A effective co-operation between service provider takes direction from their client’s needs. institutions and consumers. It reinforces the need for central direction by failing to build on the ability of people to look evenhandedly at the Education Hubs would carry out government options available to them and to make policies, but have considerable discretion in decisions for themselves. The lack of implementing them at a local level information places great importance on -Taskforce report p.46 administrative rules and instructions and reinforces the culture of dependence we referred to earlier.
332. We simply do not believe that the proposal for hubs to be - Picot taskforce, 1988 p.27 the instrument of implementing government policies in schools, with the implications of compulsion and compliance that activity brings with it, is compatible with the service delivery culture that will be necessary for hubs to provide effective support to schools in their catchment area.
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 86
Analysis and Commentary
333. It is possible (although not always easy) to combine governing and representing or representing and service delivery. We do not believe it is practicable for one organisation to attempt all three.
Educationalists are about raising student achievements. But are they strategists? Do Lack of Information they know anything about governance? If Too often statutory authorities, advisors are on localised curriculum and principals and administrators have been assessment, you would want an proscribed in their ability to seek out other options for obtaining services or educationalist. In the lay people, we have products. Schools are often required to expertise on property and finance and accept services, such as the provision of governance. We have big strategic thinkers. equipment, furniture and supplies from – School trustee education boards and regional offces, whether or not the nature and kind of what is being provided is precisely what they would have chosen themselves. Legal responsibilities and liabilities This inevitably leads to the disadvantages of any monopoly. There is, to say the least, an absence of ability to look elsewhere or even to test We have currently processes in place to whether what is being provided is up to employ the staff. We have legal help if standard. needed. This may not be the case at all - Picot taskforce, 1988 p.27 schools. - School trustee
334. The Taskforce proposes that education hubs should assume all the legal responsibilities and liabilities currently held by school Boards of Trustees, and that those responsibilities should be vested in a governing board of directors, appointed by the Minister. At least half of those directors would be education practitioners.
Its all a bit too P.C already and "too many Laws" simply makes more people criminals by default. Politicians think they must make laws to control everyone simply to fix a small group who need better funding, monitoring , support and training. - School trustee
335. This proposal effectively dismisses the three-legged-stool model of partnership between communities, educators and the government and vests the authority and decision-making power currently held by the government and local communities in the hands of principals and ex-principals. While we have the greatest of respect for education practitioners as
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 87
Analysis and Commentary
education practitioners, our experience is that those skills and experiences are substantively different from those required to govern.
If we have hubs then absolutely they should assume all legal responsibilities and liabilities. – School trustee
336. It is undoubtedly possible to provide professional development to build that capacity and capability in education professionals. It would be offensive to suggest that education practitioners are somehow intrinsically better or more trainable than other members of the community, so it is not clear why it would be better to train educators to govern as well as (or instead of?) on the profession they have chosen, or why such a degree of institutional capture would be more desirable than training members of the local community to govern.
Principals need to be accountable to a board and to work together for the best outcomes for kids. - School trustee
Governing the hubs
337. NZSTA strongly opposes the Taskforce proposals that district-level hubs should take on governance of the schools in their district. We have no such problem with the idea that hubs themselves are governed by a board of directors with authority limited to the governance of their hub as a service provider. Alternatively, a governing board could be formed at national level with responsibilities for the network of hubs but excluding the schools those hubs provide services to.
Despite references being made in the draft document to some state education systems in Australia, having worked with principals and parents in that country who are associated with these systems, they are no model for New Zealand to follow. Parents feel totally alienated and unimportant in influencing these systems and would love to have the influence and power which New Zealand parents have over the education of their children. –Br. (Sir) Pat Lynch
338. We have a preference for the majority of hub directors to be elected by school communities however we welcome further discussions with other sector stakeholders to unpack the relative merits of appointing or electing hub directors.
Ministerially appointed group of directors.
339. Practising educators are not governance experts. In point of fact, many practising educators are avid users of NZSTA’s governance support and advice services. How will the
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 88
Analysis and Commentary
Minister ensure that the hub’s board of directors is focussed on governance expertise if fewer than half of them are appointed for these capacities and capabilities? 340. The Taskforce proposal is management focused not governance focussed, which may be highly appropriate for a professional committee or representative organisation but misconstrues the core functions of a governing board. It would perpetuate ongoing confusion between governing, managing and supporting that would almost guarantee the model would quickly become dysfunctional.
This is making the same mistake of confusing representation and governing roles ... You do not need to organise everything as if it’s a trade union. – School trustee
Local area strategic and annual education plans
341. NZSTA supports in principle the proposal that we develop ways for schools to collaborate more explicitly and effectively on collective planning and reporting across geographical regions, networks or communities of interest.
Good schools go out and find out what they need to do to improve. It is good to have to do a Charter and action plans so that one has to stop from the busyness of running a school and consult and think about the path ahead for your school. - school trustee
342. Regional support hubs might well have a role in collating, supporting and facilitating this collaborative planning and reporting but we believe this should be complementary to the foundational work done at each school – as close as possible to the community and professional staff who know the children and young people best. 343. The Taskforce’s recommendation for regional planning by governing hubs to replace individual school level planning by school boards of trustees, principals, staff and school communities as the cornerstone of school governance would in our view be highly undesirable and undermine the school’s ability to develop an authentic, localised school culture and curriculum.
… there may be some merit in this so long as the responsibilities for financial prudence and planning and property management don't become further bogged down in a bureaucracy. - School trustee
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 89
Analysis and Commentary
344. The area of planning and reporting is a classic case in point where a centralised administrative compliance regime has increasingly driven out the focus on a localised agreement between local schools and their local communities. Compounding this by transferring the authority and responsibility to a centralised hub would disempower communities, staff, principals and boards of trustees. We recognise the Taskforce’s recent statements that this was not their intention, but it would almost inevitably be the result.
Interventions in poorly performing hubs
345. We also have concerns about the proposals for intervention in poorly performing hubs. The need for this section highlights the high-stakes nature of the governing hub. A dysfunctional or poorly performing principal or school board may affect as few as 20 or as many as 4,000 students. A dysfunctional or poorly performing hub board would affect around 40,000 students. The risk to student achievement of one hub requiring intervention is by definition equivalent to risk of 100 school interventions.
So on the one hand, this system doesn’t work at bot level; on the other hand we’re going to recreate it at hub level. Why does that make sense? – School trustee
346. The total rate of statutory interventions in New Zealand schools is currently 4%. 1% of New Zealand schools have a Commissioner, 2% have a Limited Statutory Manager working alongside the board. 1% have less intrusive support mechanisms in place. Statutory Interventions in place as at March 2019 78J Provide Specified Information 1 78K Specialist Advisor 11 1% 78L Action Plan 3 78M Limited Statutory Manager 59 2% 78N (1)(2) Commissioner 24 1% 78N (3) Commissioner) 3 Total 101 4% Total schools 2,514
347. Statutory interventions act to limit or remove the authority of a board, and can leave a school leader in situ who has lost the trust and confidence of the parent community. An LSM or Commissioner needs to be explicitly tasked with strengthening parent voice directly through the school community and not at second hand via the principal.
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 90
Analysis and Commentary
… again how do we address power balance between principal & community? …Is this always the boards fault, or is it sometimes a … principal acting out? – School trustee
348. It is ironic that the Taskforce advocates on the one hand that “mechanisms to intervene in poorly performing schools are weak” (p.46) and that at school level this is so problematic that it warrants the removal of all boards of trustees’ governing role, but at the same time is satisfied that a non-performing governing board at hub level, affecting many dozens of schools is a simple matter of the minister dismissing the hub’s board of directors. 349. The logic must be applied consistently. If the present level of statutory intervention in schools – 101 in all – is evidence that the system is beyond saving, then the failure of one hub, once, would likewise prove the system broken beyond saving. This is hardly indicative of a robust or sustainable proposal.
Once identified, poorly performing Education Hubs would be supported by an expert, appointed by the Minister. The Minister will maintain the ability to dismiss non-performing directors or Education Hub boards. - Taskforce report, p.53
350. The Taskforce recommendation is ambiguous, but we assume that the Minister’s proposed powers to dismiss ‘the hub’ would be limited to dismissing the hub’s appointed board of directors rather than the entire hub staff. 351. This lack of clarity is a telling illustration of our concerns about the underdeveloped thinking around the hub proposals. The Taskforce report is consistently vague about whether the proposed ‘hub’ powers referred to are vested in the paid staff of the hub, or the hub’s governing board.
NZSTA Recommendation 4 ➢ That the concept of hubs should be developed, with responsibility for supporting and providing a comprehensive range of services to schools
Hubs should not manage the schooling network
The Education Hub would also take decisions on network provision, including the opening and closing of schools. This would ensure the integrity of the network, particularly in relation to ensuring equity, and ensuring that resources are efficiently used. While maintaining parental choice as far as possible, the Education Hub
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 91
Analysis and Commentary
would also review existing enrolment schemes (also known as enrolment zones) for fairness. It would establish new enrolment schemes if necessary, and adjust enrolment schemes as required, in consultation with schools and communities. - Taskforce report, recommendation 2 p.49
352. NZSTA does not support the proposal for hubs to take on the role of managing the schooling network. We do not consider decisions about mergers, closures or interventions to be compatible with the hubs’ service delivery role. 353. Creating service hubs has potential to promote collegiality and stronger local, regional and national connections. It is not necessary or desirable to remove boards of trustees’ authority as the governing body in order to achieve it. On the contrary, there is nothing in the Taskforce proposals to prevent hub-level territoriality.
Monitor board performance and have the power to dismiss school boards
354. NZSTA strongly rejects the proposal that hubs would have the power to dismiss school boards. School boards of trustees are elected representatives of the community, not servants of the hub.
Education Hubs would work with school boards to maximise their effectiveness in working with school principals/tumuaki about strategic planning, self-review, student wellbeing and engagement, and board elections. This would mean there would be no longer a need for a national contract with NZSTA to train and support boards.
Tsaskforce report p.52
355. As noted elsewhere in this submission, it is not necessary to remove the authority of being the governing body from school boards of trustees in order to provide operational support to their school. 356. We find the Taskforce’s comment that “…This would mean there would no longer be a need for a national contract with NZSTA to train and support boards” to be gratuitous and unhelpful.
Annual planning and reporting
357. We see considerable merit in streamlining the planning and reporting process and refocussing it away from heavy-handed compliance toward substantive reporting to key stakeholder groups school community, local network of schools, and government. 358. Under the Ministry of Education’s watch, we have seen a progressive erosion of the school’s accountability to its community in favour of by-the-numbers administrative
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 92
Analysis and Commentary
compliance. This is complicated by mixed messages about governing and managing that the Ministry and ERO have presented over that time. 359. NZSTA proposes that instead of the Taskforce proposals, the government seriously consider adding monitoring and quality assurance of school boards of trustees’ charter, strategic and annual planning to the schedule of services NZSTA is engaged to provide. This would ensure • A single coherent perspective on what constitutes effective governance practice in New Zealand schools • Cohesion with the professional development that boards of trustees already rely on to develop their capacity and capability in planning and reporting
Schools would gather and report annually on progress, achievement, wellbeing and belonging, as part of their annual report. Education Hubs' websites would host the schools’ strategic and annual plans and the schools’ annual report to provide whānau with a single point of access to information about each school. The Education Hub and principals/tumuaki would agree the most appropriate common tools for data gathering on wellbeing and belonging. Progress and achievement data will be guided by the outcomes of the Ministerial Advisory Group on Curriculum, Progress and Achievement. – Taskforce report, p.52
360. Apart from the question of who serves whom in the relationship between boards of trustees and hubs, we see considerable merit in the other elements of the Taskforce proposals for planning and reporting. These can work just as effectively with boards of trustees retaining their governing role and hubs providing local support and co-ordination. NZSTA’s expertise and support in school governance practice will be a critical success factor in any scenario.
Advocacy and complaint services for parents and students
Education Hubs would provide a whānau and student advocacy service, which would be used where parent or student approaches to the school to resolve an issue have not been successful. A restorative approach would be taken so that concerns can be resolved in a positive and helpful manner. – Taskforce report, p.52
361. The same is true of the Taskforce’s proposals relating to more generalised parent and student advocacy and complaints services. If the Taskforce’s proposals are adopted it will not be decisions of the board of trustees that are the subject of parent and student
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 93
Analysis and Commentary
complaints, as boards of trustees decision-making powers along with their status as the governing Crown Entity will have been transferred to the hub. 362. If boards of trustees are confined to a purely advisory role as proposed by the Taskforce then it will be the hub making the decisions that parents and students wish to appeal, or the school principal on advice from the hub. It is a nonsense in these circumstances to propose that hubs can provide an “independent” disputes and appeal service.
Hubs would also provide access to an independent disputes and appeal service for parents, whānau and students. This service would ensure the complainant is provided with a support person under all circumstances. A restorative approach would be taken so that concerns can be resolved in a positive and helpful manner.
Hub decisions and decisions by the independent disputes and appeal service would also continue to be subject to investigation through current Ombudsman, Children’s Commissioner and High Court channels.
– Taskforce report, p.53
Hubs should support schools
363. NZSTA also welcomes the proposal to reinstate effective support and services for schools through a district hub model, particularly for property, health and safety and teacher professional development. The continual erosion of these services over the 30 years of Tomorrows Schools has placed huge burdens on boards, principals, staff and communities and compromised students’ experiences and achievement levels.
There are already sufficient checks in place and support systems to enable boards to meet their responsibilities under the legislation. A hub will not fight as hard for a particular school's needs (either property or education related) as a board will. – School trustee
364. The inclusion of a new governing body at district / hub level will add complexity to the governing structure. We consider that the Taskforce proposals as drafted would undermine these aspects of the Hubs functioning if enacted in full.
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 94
Analysis and Commentary
…Education Hubs supporting schools have the knowledge, flexibility and resources to be able to respond to the needs of individual schools. – Taskforce report, p.43
365. NZSTA agrees in principle that if education hubs are to support schools effectively then they will need to “have the knowledge, flexibility and resources to be able to respond to the needs of individual schools”. This is a given. The real issues, which the Taskforce report does not address, are • what level of staffing will be required to achieve this? • will it be more or less efficient and effective than the current system? • what other alternatives exist, and are any of them better than geographically-defined hubs of 100-125 schools? • where will the staff come from, and how will their skills, experience and dispositions need to differ from staff of existing agencies and stakeholders?
Creating effective service-delivery Hubs
366. The Taskforce report mentions inconsistency amongst the existing 11 Ministry regions. Given the lack of capacity this indicates within the Ministry, where will they find staff with adequate capacity to man 23 hubs, with expertise in areas beyond their current mandate? It won't just happen. There needs to be appropriate system design reinforced by processes and feedback loops to ensure it.
… I feel that we have wasted a lot of time on property and the process is inefficient, but I think it is the ministry not the boards that make it that way. – School trustee
Collaboration – Kahui Ako
367. Allowing Kahui Ako to be properly embedded might address the perceived issue of autonomy creating a competitive market. This would be a possibility where CoLs themselves see it as part of the answer. Unfortunately there also seem to be a number of CoLs that have been implemented in a way that they neither wanted nor benefit from, so it would need to be optional.
Evaluation and review
The performance of the Education Hubs would be of prime importance. They would have to be held to the highest standards of performance on
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 95
Analysis and Commentary
outcomes, processes and relationships. For this reason, we recommend that a new independent Education Evaluation Office (EEO) (see section in Central Education Agencies) has responsibility for providing regular reports on Education Hub performance against their KPIs. – Taskforce report p.54
368. NZSTA strongly supports the principle that education hubs along with every other aspect of the system should be reviewed regularly against agreed KPIs however we believe that the evaluation and review components of the Taskforce proposals require further consideration and refinement. 369. We support in principle the concept of the Education Evaluation Office (EEO) reporting directly to Parliament (Taskforce report page 20). We see considerable value in the EEO evaluating the entire value chain of central agencies, hubs and schools in order to avoid the siloing of responsibilities and the creation of externalities which may fall out of scope as the reporting criteria and protocols harden over time.
Education hubs review schools against KPIs
As each Education Hub would be required to have KPIs relating to the performance of the schools in the Education Hub, we expect that a newly constituted EEO would not have responsibility for reviewing every school in the country, although it may carry out sampling reviews in schools as part of its Education Hub review. – Taskforce report p.54
370. We have concerns about the provision that schools will not be independently reviewed. The proposal that schools will be reviewed by their service provider is unsatisfactory and leaves open too much scope for scapegoating of school boards, principals and communities for issues arising from failures in service delivery.
Teaching support
371. NZSTA strongly supports the development of a cohesive national network of teacher support and professional development. We agree that such a network would need strong and active links to other key education stakeholders and agencies, including other providers (hubs).
Teacher trainees need to learn their craft with regular time spent working alongside teachers for more than 6 weeks at a time – School trustee
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 96
Analysis and Commentary
372. We do not consider that is necessary, or useful, to dismantle the system of community- led, site-based school governance in order to do so.
Leadership Advisers
373. NZSTA sees real value in the proposal to provide substantive and coherent leadership support and advice to school principals and aspiring principals. It will be important to ensure that these leadership advisers are working collaboratively with the Teaching Council of New Zealand and with NZSTA’s governance experts to ensure a shared understanding of the relationship between governance, leadership and management activities in our schools.
Learner Support
374. NZSTA supports in principle the proposal that service delivery hubs should take responsibility for ensuring the availability of appropriate, adequate and timely Disability and Learning Support services to students.
Business support
375. NZSTA supports in principle the proposal that service delivery hubs should provide business support services to schools, including • property development and maintenance • health and safety advice • human resources services • digital technology services • procurement services • property maintenance • accounting services • financial reporting and monitoring, and • other services as required. 376. Again, we see no need to dismantle the system of school governance in order to offer effective operational support. In fact maintaining the governing role of the board and establishing hubs as a service provider simplifies some of the issues that have obviously caused the Taskforce some concern, such as delegation back of property and management of staff. 377. NZSTA is well positioned to provide this business support, particularly in the areas of human resources and health and safety where we already have active hubs operating across the country providing this advice along with governance advice and support. It would be entirely possible for NZSTA to expand its coverage further to incorporate the other services envisaged in this section of the report.
Governance support
378. Given the Taskforce’s proposal to remove all governance responsibilities from boards of trustees and vest them instead in the hub’s regional board of directors it is unsurprising that
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 97
Analysis and Commentary
the report does not consider the issue of governance support or where that might come from. 379. It seems naively optimistic to assume, as the Taskforce has done, that handing over governance responsibilities to a board comprising more than 50% who are chosen for skills and experience that are not related to effective governing practice will result in a system of governance that requires no support at hub level. This failure to provide proactive support and capacity-building while retaining the power to dismiss a hub board that does not perform adequately is setting these boards up to fail.
…This is why we have NZSTA, Insurance underwriters etc. This so called, Education hub would still need an underwriter will still need NZSTA etc etc – School trustee
380. Our experience is that governing bodies themselves need peer support, advice and mentoring, professional development and moderation of practice (including a mechanism for sharing good practice) between boards.
NZSTA do a great job, why change this? – School trustee
381. NZSTA successfully provides those services and opportunities to current boards of trustees. When and if regional service hubs are created, we strongly suggest that NZSTA continues to provide governance support and advice as required to individual school boards of trustees through the network of hubs to ensure that all parties • develop a sound and coherent view of what school governance is (and is not), • understand each other’s roles and responsibilities under whatever new system is implemented • have access to formal and informal peer support networks and communities of practice relating to the discipline and expertise off governing schools. Employment
382. The board is currently the employer of all staff at the school and is responsible for a range of decisions and tasks that arise during the employment relationship. This involves ensuring there are policies, plans and programmes in place to meet all requirements related to employment including what being a good employer means, the appointment of key staff, dealing with staff concerns and complaints and staff performance management.
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 98
Analysis and Commentary
Leave all employment responsibilities with the school with support from the HUB – School trustee
383. Although day-to-day management of staff is part of the board’s standard delegation to the principal, the board remains responsible for acting as a good employer toward the principal, and ensuring that the principal behaves as a good employer towards other staff
Boards of trustees should retain the employer role
384. Feedback from NZSTA member boards indicates a strong disagreement (81% either disagree, or strongly disagree) with the proposal that regional hubs should take over the employer role from boards of trustees.
Who should the employer be?
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Boards should not employ or appoint the principal. 5% 6% 9% 28% 52%
Boards should have up to 50% membership of committees to make principals/tumuaki’ appointments and retain final right of veto on their 23% 34% 17% 11% 15% appointment. Principals & teachers should be employed by the hub. The hub should reserve the right to transfer staff among the schools they govern (e.g. 5% 8% 10% 15% 61% review every 5 years).
Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree
Source: NZSTA Member survey, March 2019
385. If sign off for all employment decisions went to a unified board who was managing over a hundred schools as the employer, decision making would be slowed significantly and delays in resolving employment matters would increase. For example, a serious misconduct issue at a school would then need to go to a regional board for final decisions regarding outcome. Handling this sort of issue could be incredibly time consuming for a regional board considering the large size and diversity of the education workforce.
depending on details, I would not mind if the hub were the official employer of teachers and principal. – School trustee
386. There is some merit in the suggestion that some parts of the employer role would be better delivered by a properly resourced regional HR service. However, we do not agree with the taskforce recommendation that regional hubs should be the employer of staff. This
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 99
Analysis and Commentary
model is in place in the USA and Canada, where they have a much more centrally constrained curriculum and teaching model. Are these really the educational models we wish to emulate?
The employment relationship creates accountability to the Community (through the Board). – School trustee
387. Regional hubs would likely to be slower to respond to employment issues, as well as less responsive to and aware of each school’s particular needs due to bureaucratic processes and capacity. The current education model provides flexibility, the ability for community voice and local curriculum. If one regional hub board exists as the employer for multiple schools, the chances are that board would understand the needs and context of the school diminishes. It is difficult to see how there would be adequate representation for some of the smaller and remove school and the true understanding of their needs. A one size fits all approach would struggle to be equitable for all schools in one district.
No....will completely depersonalize the process and disconnect from the community. - School trustee
388. Providing the regional board with the ability to appoint a principal, (with input from the community board) seems problematic. The key components to appointing a successful principal in the community is an understanding of the specific context, fit and needs of each school community.
Recruitment is more about a lack of people wanting to be principals, and a lack of experience. - School trustee
389. While there is no denying that boards need expert process and educational advice in appointing and appraising a principal, that advice and support currently exists. In 2015, NZSTA started a programme of endorsement for educational consultants, in order to assure that there was some quality control over the type of support available to boards. The process for vetting those includes: • Attending workshops where NZSTA national and regional advisers deliver sessions on best practice appointment and appraisal practices • Checking of references, including previous current employers/boards as well as regional checking with regional ministry and other education sector partners • Interview • Evaluation of documentation used in appraisal, reference checking, (for full endorsement)
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 100
Analysis and Commentary
• A commitment to use NZSTA resources, or their own approved resources • Terms and agreement for endorsement which requires following of legislation, best practice and NZSTA guidance, templates and resources 390. It is likely that if the hubs were to provide this consultant/ resource were to come into the hubs, the same or similar people would be used, but potentially again, with less ability to choose people with local knowledge, specific areas of importance to each board’s goals and potentially with greater constraints as resources tend to diminish the greater layer of bureaucracy
I already have a robust appraisal process conducted by a credible external appraiser. - School principal
391. Currently an untagged allocation exists in the operational grant, but the amount is not sufficient to cover a robust appraisal process. We recommend that the Ministry considers once again tagging a proportion of operational funding to be earmarked for principal appraisal as had occurred previously.
Financial matters and staffing are too crucial to school outcomes to be taken away from competent boards. Implementing an effective strategic plan requires the Board to have empowerment and authority ie to be the employer, to have ability to build funding links with the community, and to control the budget. - School trustee
392. Additionally, the Ministry should make grants available to boards who need to recruit a principal, as funding a consultant is a significant expense for small schools and often this lack of resource is significant in boards trying to go it alone. Especially for those schools who find it hard to attract principals in terms of location and may turn over a principal every two or 3 years. In order to receive the funding, the school would need to follow a robust process, with advice from NZSTA and an approved consultant.
NZSTA Recommendation 5 ➢ That the Ministry c. considers once again tagging a proportion of operational funding to be earmarked for principal appraisal as had occurred previously d. makes grants available to boards who need to recruit a principal.
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 101
Analysis and Commentary
I have no faith that a "back of house" Ministry "hub" has the necessary expertise to hire a principal. I have found that it is helpful to have board members who work outside of the education sector be involved with hiring teachers and deputy principals. Our interview processes are very robust. We would no doubt engage an independent specialist to be part of any principal recruitment process to ensure that the technical expertise is there. In short, the current system works. - School trustee
393. We have real concerns about how school differences would be accommodated under the Taskforce proposals. Again, the Taskforce appears to be sacrificing school culture, curriculum and pedagogical flexibility in favour of aggregating power in the hands of a relatively few.
The community voice would get lost around what sort of principal was a fit for the school and it’s particular culture. External support is available to boards for both recruitment and performance management of principals.
… I doubt if the hub would hear that ground swell of comment from parents and staff that Boards are exposed too throughout the year. - School trustee
Principal appointment and appraisal
394. The appointment and appraisal of the principal are the key decisons that any board undertakes. 395. There is no evidence that the entire principal recruitment process lacks credibility. There is no doubt that it can be strengthened, and the endorsed consultant programme provides a platform where a more effective “fee for service” recruitment and HR generalist offering can be made by NZSTA. There is no evidence that boards have consistently failed to fulfil their obligations as the employer of record, and to have these decisions led by a regional hub is an unwarranted attack on a founding premise of democratic, community-led education.
If the Principal is not employed by the Board and is answerable to the hub then the Board has no say over the strategic direction of the school. Just a glorified PTA – School trustee
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 102
Analysis and Commentary
396. The appraisal and retention process can in some areas be strengthened by boards, principals and central agencies alike developing a better understanding of the board’s roles and responsibilities to • ensure that the principal is supported in practical ways such as resources, professional development and effective delegations to build the best learning environment for their students • acknowledging that part of the board of trustees’ legitimate role as a Crown Entity is to require accountability from the principal for meeting the strategic goals and objectives established in the board’s strategic and annual plans.
Principal recruitment and appraisal
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Principal appointment and appraisal are not always robust, or even credible, because boards do it 7% 26% 14% 27% 25%
Governing hubs would make principal recruiment and appraisal more robust and credible 6% 16% 17% 26% 34%
Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree
Source: NZSTA Member survey March 2019
397. There is also general disagreement from trustees with the Taskforce’s rationale for change on the grounds that principal recruitment and retention would be more robust and credible if transferred to a regional hub (34% strongly disagree, 23%disagree, 17% neither agree nor disagree that giving this role to a hub would make principal recruitment and performance management more robust and credible).
I am concerned about a 14-person panel going into a principal appointment process. I have been through it twice at two different schools. I have spoken to many others, the entire board is always involved. 14 would be a lot of people on a panel… [and] appointing a new principal every 5 years would be hard. – School trustee
398. NZSTA currently provides advice and support on principal appointment and appraisal to boards of trustees. NZSTA is committed to continuous improvement of our support services to schools and would be open to a review of the Ministry’s resourcing for principal appointment and appraisal services to determine whether and how the services currently offered be extended to better meet the needs of school boards.
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 103
Analysis and Commentary
Boards often involve a professional in their appraisal of the principal’s performance, but again, their expertise is variable … - Taskforce report p.38
399. Expertise can easily be secured by one of the proposed regional support hubs from the existing stock of consultants that operate in the sector. However, as noted relying on an expert with a ministry team that is removed from the school increases the risk of appointing a principal who does not fulfil the aspirations that the parent community have for the academic success of their children.
A principal we appointed 5 years ago, she’s really enjoyed getting into the school culture, and now she is ready to make new changes and progress in the school. If you know that you are going to have to leave in 5 years, you are probably not going to put your heart and soul into it. – School trustee
Career development and secondment opportunities
400. We do see a lot of merit in the Taskforce’s suggestion of strengthening the career paths and enable secondments or transfers between schools. We are keen to explore the possibilities for collaborative arrangements between boards to enable this, in a way that does not disempower school communities or professional educators in the process. 401. In the event that hubs are constituted as service providers with a strong teaching and learning and leadership development support capability we would see this as an area that hubs might well have a valuable role in facilitating - not mandating.
Being employed by the Education Hub would offer the opportunity for teachers/kaiako to be seconded to other schools or to the Education Hub, so that their expertise could be shared more widely. In the same way, Education Hub staff may be seconded into schools to ‘reconnect’ and gain up to date experience or to work on specific projects. Education Hubs would also facilitate secondment of teachers/kaiako into central agencies, and of staff in central agencies into schools. – Taskforce report, p.52
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 104
Analysis and Commentary
Support for the board’s employer role
402. NZSTA recognises the need for substantive Human Relations (HR) support and advice in schools, which we currently provide. It has only been in the past few years that NZSTA was able to convince the government to fund proactive HR advice to schools. Prior to 2014, government funded support was limited to assistance in resolving employment disputes. NZSTA’s network of regional hubs has been developed largely with a view to providing this enhanced employment advice and support to schools.
Boards should employ principals and teachers. Some outside help like some one come in and help us. Its about ownership. – School trustee
403. The operational reality is that schools with a student roll below 400 are more likely to have difficulty resourcing a requisite level of HR capability & capacity to ensure that the Board is able to fulfil the compliance of its “employer of record” obligations. Notwithstanding the challenges that smaller schools face, the need for HR support is evident throughout the sector.
What is currently supported under the Ministry contract with NZSTA
404. In an ideal world, employment services to schools would include a bespoke HR service for every school requiring support. If this is part of the Taskforce’s positioning, then NZSTA wholeheartedly supports it. 405. Support for the board’s employer role was substantively upgraded following Budget 2014, however NZSTA is still aware that demand to help boards proactively meet their good employer responsibilities. Meeting this demand does not require a structural change in the provider, only a review of the desired outcomes and the resourcing required to achieve them. NZSTA would welcome the opportunity to discuss this with officials at any time. 406. For example, there is a need for schools to access affordable HR services to cover the mechanics of recruitment, remuneration and retention. Performance issues around competency and compliance will also continue to benefit from the provision of external expertise. NZSTA is well placed to extend its support to schools in both of these areas as resources permit. 407. HR practice workshops delivered by the regional advisers which focus on upskilling trustees and principals on the mechanics of good employment practice have always been well attended. These resources are based on the HR toolkit developed by NZSTA. 408. Since 2014, NZSTA has developed and currently provides a series of nationally available HR resources, that promote a best practice approach within the school environment. This includes on-line guides, resources and templates as well as online learning modules which cover employment matters such as • principal appointment, • the employer role, • principal appraisal,
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 105
Analysis and Commentary
• HR record keeping, • leave management, • health and safety, • Kahui Ako • safety checking requirements of the Children’s Act. 409. There is also regional delivery of workshops based on this content available from regional advisers.
how does the hub structure address this? May be one of the areas where hubs have a useful role to play. Does it need to take all other decision-making from boards to achieve it?
410. Since the expansion of NZSTA services and support via regional hubs was introduced, the response time for inquiries has improved and the level of satisfaction has increased. In this area we are to some extent the victims of our own success, as the increased level of awareness has in turn led to increased demand for a broader range of services and support.
The need for continued employment support
411. The education sector complex and highly specific meaning that educational HR specialists are currently hard to hire and train. NZSTA’s experience and the ability to provide peer support and mentoring in this area would be hard to replicate.
Boards always have an option of co-opting, or using a consultant for advice. Board members are quite capable of deciding who and what they want in a principal. The issue again is around time spent on the whole process, which is where using a consultant is good. – School trustee
412. NZSTA Regional Advisers are successfully providing in-depth advice to schools on specific and complex matters which require personal support, and have union involvement or are identified of a higher risk to students and staff, and resolving these at a board level. 413. It is common for principals as well as trustees to be unfamiliar with the specific legal requirements where a crown entity is the employer of record. Whilst there is an overlap between the principles of public and private law in the board’s employer role the source of authority emanates from the Crown. Consequently, there are constraints and expectations in the exercise of their authority which are often not fully appreciated 414. Where there is a break down in the board - principal employer relationship, there are significant stresses placed on all parties. Both trustees and principals can find it difficult to navigate the complexities, time commitment, and emotional turmoil required to oversee and
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 106
Analysis and Commentary
complete a formal disciplinary process. Similarly, both principals and trustees can become frustrated with the requirement to follow a staff performance or disciplinary process that they feel is moribund by pedantic processes. 415. Principals could certainly benefit from an expanded and accessible proactive regional HR service. Additional substantial resourcing from the Ministry would be required. As NZSTA successfully provides the existing expertise in this area, the most efficient and effective way of meeting this need would be to build further on that capacity by resourcing NZSTA to further expand the range of proactive HR support available to schools.
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 107
Analysis and Commentary
Teaching | Ngā Mahi Ako
416. Responses to our survey from member boards show a strong sense of loyalty and respect for the teachers in respondents’ schools, and a reluctance to develop what many perceived as a more impersonal, “cog in the machine” approach to staff placements.
Teachers are not consumable employees they are a mixture of professional, artistic and loyalty. They like stability and they need to feel valued not simply moved like chess pieces around a board because someone else’s school also needs talents like theirs. - School trustee
Moving staff between schools
417. The Taskforce proposes that teachers and principals would be employed by the hub, to teach in the district governed by the hub's board of directors. The hub would reserve the right to transfer teachers and principals within the district, in much the same way that the principal reserves the right to transfer them between classrooms within the school.
We are told that educationally powerful relationships matter, it makes no sense, in this context, to break teachers' relationships to the community. - School trustee
418. The Taskforce doesn't address how this would work for integrated or special character schools, with the requirement for tagged positions, or the requirement of all teachers appointed in special character schools to uphold the values and ethos of the school.
Yes. We wouldn't have these problems if we had better trained teachers, more teachers available workforce strategies in place to respond to changing demographics... advanced planning for new schools and special schools and satellite units.,the ablity to make the school a place where the community and families can be supported. – School Trustee
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 108
Analysis and Commentary
419. We recognise the Taskforce’s intention that reassigning non-performing staff or those who are a poor fit for the school they find themselves in may function as a form of proactive capability-building in those employees. However the risk of transfer being used as an alternative to substantive professional development or if necessary, disciplinary action, is a real one.
The report does not address the key issues facing schools - lack of interest in teaching profession, rewarding excellent teaching performance, strengthening teachers pedagogy and skills, planning to deliver teaching more effectively without as many teachers
420. One of the issues of the past system (pre-1989) was that the Education Boards used the ability to transfer principals that weren't performing in one school on to another school in its district in the vain hope that the problems would go away in the next school. Of course, the problems inevitably reappeared. NZSTA has ongoing experience of a small but persistent stream of teachers and principals avoiding disciplinary action by transferring out of a school before formal action can be taken, and then reappearing in the midst of similar issues at another school before moving on again. 421. Boards of trustees have also expressed concern about the wellbeing of teachers and staff under such a system, their motivation and ability to engage meaningfully with a community they may be unilaterally uprooted from by a third-party employer, and the messages this sends about the way we value the expertise and personal commitment of the teachers in their schools.
Implications for school culture
422. Boards have expressed real concerns about the implication of hubs’ discretion to transfer principals or teaching staff for the ability to develop and maintain a local school culture.
Teacher Education
423. We welcome the Taskforce’s recognition that Initial Teacher Education and Professional Learning and Development are not currently providing teachers with a consistently high quality, fit-for-purpose platform from which to develop as excellent teaching practitioners. 424. We agree that a network of service hubs across the country has the potential to provide more coherent and comprehensive teacher education and career pathways however we caution again that the creation of service hubs is not the solution in and of itself. Further work is necessary to develop this concept to a point where we can be confident that teacher education and support is both well designed and well delivered.
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 109
Analysis and Commentary
Teacher education is a bit broken. I think it has suffered since it became an university based subject rather than a practical one. The flow of teachers is poorly planned and now that it has greater professional recognition it has less trainees. I would be open to the discussion of new models. - School trustee
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 110
Analysis and Commentary
Schooling Provision | Ngā Momo Kura me Ngā Hononga
Honouring te Tiriti o Waitangi
425. As a sector, we are still learning what it means to honour Te Tiriti o Waitiangi in a meaningful way. Ensuring that Te Tiriti is given active expression in all schools and kura requires • stronger and more formal connections between schools (or clusters of schools) and their local Iwi, hapū and whānau groups, for example through the school charter • capacity building - strengthening Initial Teacher Education, and professional development for boards, teachers, communities and officials – e.g. by maintaining and expanding NZSTA’s professional development and support for bicultural competencies • ongoing support and public education. 426. More than that, a genuine commitment to meeting treaty obligations would include an invitation to Iwi to lead this conversation.
Kura Kaupapa Māori
427. The Taskforce report proposes a separate hub to cater to Kura Kaupapa Māori schools. It is critical that this decision is made by Ngā Kura Kaupapa Māori themselves and not imposed on them. NZSTA has not specifically surveyed member boards of Kura Kaupapa Māori about their preferences at this point. The views expressed in this submission are therefore general in nature rather than reflective of the views of Kura Kaupapa Māori. 428. That said, there are a number of issues relating to Māori-medium schools including Ngā Kura a Iwi and Ngā Kura Kaupapa Māori that he Taskforce report does not adequately address. We offer no answers here, only questions that need to be answered. 429. We recognise the government’s obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi to promote education options that work for Māori, as determined by Māori.
We recommend that as part of the Crown’s obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi active consideration be given to the establishment of a specific national Hub for Kaupapa Māori education settings, which would not be geographically based. This Hub would be co-designed and established with iwi Māori to ensure connected and parallel pathways for ongoing support and promotion of Kaupapa Māori ākonga. - Taskforce report p.49
430. NZSTA has no specific view on the proposal to create a separate hub for Kura Kaupapa Māori. We do have some questions, for example
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 111
Analysis and Commentary
• If there are advantages for Kura Kaupapa Māori in having their own hub, does that logic also extend to other special character school groups such as State Integrated schools, Montessori schools or area schools? • At what point do the advantages of having a dedicated specialist hub outweigh the advantages of having a Aspirations of Maori universal hub, such as the transmission of ideas and practices between different communities and pedagogical people traditions? 431. The policy option proposed by the Taskforce is to organise (…continued) schools into hubs by geographical location. As the Kura Kaupapa Māori proposal illustrates, there are other ways of 7.2.6 It must be recognised, however, categorising schools into groups. that Maori educational interests are • What would be the advantages and disadvantages to often overlooked or subordinated to organising hubs according to pedagogical tradition or the interests of the majority. To guard community of interest rather than geographical location? against this happening in the future and to ensure that Maori interests are given 432. If the option of a separate hub for Kura Kaupapa Māori is due weight in the educational decision pursued these questions will arise (as they may do anyway) and making process, we have recommended we will need to have answers ready. a measure which we believe will serve to protect Maori people, and Parallel development or integrated development indeed all minorities, against undue pressure and influence from the 433. The conversation about parallel development for Māori- dominant community. Under the medium schools, serviced through a separate hub is preferable system which we propose, groups to making a meaningful commitment to accommodating Māori- whose needs are not being met medium alongside “mainstream” or kaupapa Pakeha schools is adequately within the existing an important one. This is not simply a question of administrative institutional framework will have the convenience, it goes to the heart of how we as a society right to opt out of the existing school practice our commitment to biculturalism and honour te Tiriti o system and to create their own Waitangi. Either option has risks. The main risk of pursuing a institutions. This measure will give parallel development option is that it becomes tokenism. The education institutions the incentive main risk of an integrated option is that it becomes assimilation. required to provide for the needs of all minorities in their local community. - Picot Report p.66-67 Treaty responsibilities
434. Treaty responsibilities fall on all schools and education institutions, not only Māori-medium. Regardless which option might be preferred if the Taskforce proposals were adopted, we would like to see a much more substantive discussion of how the refreshed system would strengthen the system’s capacity and capability to meet our Treaty obligations across the board. While a clear focus on Māori students’ academic achievement is an essential part of this, it does not in itself address the structural component of system bias. We need a much more holistic and pragmatic discussion of these issues than the Taskforce has so far provided.
Te Aho Matua
435. We question whether or how the Taskforce proposals are consistent with the guiding principles of Te Aho Matua and the implications for Kura Kaupapa Māori schools. It would
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 112
Analysis and Commentary
be useful to have a more substantive and informative discussion of this in the Taskforce’s final report.
Governance in Māori-medium schools
436. Empowering Māori communities to determine the type of education they want for their mokopuna tamariki and Aspirations of Maori taitamariki was one of the Picot taskforce’s key motivators for vesting the kawanatanga of schools in the local community. people 437. The Taskforce’s proposals to remove tino rangatiratanga 7.2.5 The concerns expressed by Maori from school communities by transferring the governing role people in submissions were taken into away from the board of trustees to a remote hub is account in our general approach to the particularly problematic for kura and wharekura where question of reform. We set out in the whanau governance is practiced. These issues are not belief that the education system should addressed at all by the present Taskforce, and they need to be responsive to all sections of the be. community, irrespective of cultural or social background. Maori people increasingly wish to be involved in the Integrated and special character schools education of their children. We see the need for a system that recognises and 438. It is not clear how State Integrated schools fit into the supports the culture, values and Education Hub model. language of the Maori people. In order to promote this objective, we opted for changes which would encourage community involvement in determining We are a Catholic School - unless there is good the character and the direction of local representation for "integrated schools" our institutions. Our key recommendation special character emphasis will be lost – in this respect is the requirement that institutions operate according to a School trustee charter to be drawn up in consultation with local groups and to be approved by central government, We are convinced Property that this change, together with the others we have recommended, will 439. Currently issues such as property are handled differently result in an education system within in New Zealand’s 329 State Integrated schools (11% of the which Maoris have considerably more student population). State Integrated school boards currently scope than they have at present co don’t have the burden of property and have assistance from exercise a fair measure of influence the regional Catholic Education Office (CEO). This points the over their children's education. …(continued) way to a governance model that allows boards to focus on things other than property etc, but still retain the governing role of the board. 440. The only points directly addressing the provisions for State Integrated or special character schools in the Taskforce’s report relate to the transport allowances - rather a minor point.
Tagged teachers/ principal requirements
441. It is not clear how the taskforce proposals will apply to tagged principal and staff positions in State Integrated and special character schools.
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 113
Analysis and Commentary
Separate hubs for State Integrated schools?
442. Integrated schools collectively are frequent flyers to the Advisory and Support Centre (ASC), indicating a higher need for support on average than State schools. Would we create a separate, nation-wide a separate hub for integrated schools (as proposed for ngā Kura Kaupapa Māori), merge them fully into the State model, shift State schools to match the Integrated school model or operate a dual model within each hub? 443. This raises a further question: If we begin creating separate nation-wide hubs for different categories of schools, how does this mesh with the concept of a combined geographical district that encompasses the full range of educational diversity in the area? What criteria would be applied to ensure consistency – or would there be a case for Intermediate and Middle Schools to have a separate nation-wide hub as well?
Meet the needs of all children and young people regardless of where they live
444. NZSTA agrees that all schools and kura need to be adequately supported so that they can effectively meet the needs and aspirations of every student. This includes • continuing to invest in improving the capacity and capability of the teaching workforce • funding formulae that take into account actual and reasonable expenses, not just regression curves • policies that explicitly recognise the issues facing rural and remote schools. The work of the cross-sector Rural Education Reference Group (RERG) is an important element in identifying and dealing with these issues • ensuring that Disability and Learning Support is properly resourced to be responsive to student need • specific policies to ensure a high-quality workforce is available in rural and remote schools • introduce universal design principles (not just Universal Design for Learning) as core principles for inclusivity in all aspects of education.
Working together
445. Promoting collaboration between schools and between schools, ECE and tertiary providers to provide better educational experiences and outcomes for all the children and young people in an area will be a critical success factor for the refreshed education system.
Don't have Hubs!!! COL's are bad enough. – School trustee
446. Doing this effectively will depend on encouraging schools to cluster or collaborate in naturally evolving systems, not arbitrarily enforced CoLs dictated by officials. Collaboration is not a silver bullet for all schools in all circumstances; if you’re the best performing school in your area then collaboration may not be in the best interest of your students. We need to consider what benefits collaboration will bring to students and staff at high-performing
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 114
Analysis and Commentary
schools as well as those at lower-performing ones. We need an intelligent and nuanced approach to collaboration that recognises it as a means to an end, rather than an end in itself.
In our experience, the COL in our community is starting effectively to achieve this – School trustee
447. We need also to ensure that policy design and implementation remains consistent with the theoretical or pedagogical model it is based on if we expect it to be effective. As the difficulties of the CoL experience show us, system design and implementation will be different depending on whether we are aiming to create a distributed network, communities of practice, or a nationally or regionally centralised system. It is not clear from the Taskforce report what the foundational concept of their education ecosystem is.
We are part of a collective network through the catholic education office and we must retain our ability to look after our network of schools in order to maintain the special character and catholicity of each school. There are few catholic schools in the northland area. Because of geographic spread we do not compete. we must retain our right to send our children to a catholic school. It would be a disadvantage is this was lost. -School trustee
448. To promote a more collaborative environment at school level we must • remove financial incentives to competition for students including roll-based component of principal salaries • encourage facility sharing and specialisation -e.g. Spanish class here, French class there… • encourage development of community-based education groups to engage proactively with local boards of trustees
Encouraging more schools and kura to work with local community groups and organisations
449. NZSTA supports the principle of encouraging collaboration between schools and their local community, whether it be at an individual or group level. At the same time, it is important to be clear about the purpose of such activity and not just promote it as an end in itself. To that end we need to • reduce and streamline compliance requirements • provide clear, consistent, lasting guidelines about what ‘achievement’ is and how communities are part of it (undermined by initiatives like National standards)
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 115
Analysis and Commentary
• promote constructive conversation about what community groups and organisations have to offer schools & vice versa. Every man and his dog with something to sell wants access to a classroom or a staffroom – they are not all of equal merit.
The Middle School idea really probably must come to the fore, having been on Intermediate boards for 7 years now I am immensely frustrated with the good students we have sent forward out of our Decile 1A school only to watch them languish in Years 9 and 10 and lost all that we achieved! That is a not uncommon message, so bring them on. (Intermediate school trustee)
The quality of our schools.
450. The Taskforce proposals appear to overemphasise variation between schools and underemphasise variation within schools. In NZ more than most jurisdictions the biggest differences in student achievement is NOT between schools, but between classes in the same school.
Whole of government approach
451. The education sector alone cannot right all these social issues raised in the report. A joint approach by MoE, MoH and MSD could be considered to provide easy access to a range of social services through the school, as proposed. 452. Likewise, schools have a unique and crucial place in our society. Yes, it will be important for education policymakers and providers to work with other agencies. It is also important that schools’ core responsibility to be the place where children and young people receive a high quality education is protected and maintained.
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 116
Analysis and Commentary
Competition and choice | He Tauwhāinga, He Kōwhiri
454. There is an implicit, and sometimes quite explicit, statement in the Taskforce report, that competition between schools was because of boards of trustees. To the extent that boards were not strong enough in holding their principals accountable it is true. BUT over many years there is simply no argument that bums on seats was very largely driven by principals (it gave them salary increases ....). So let's remember the source of the problem and ensure that hubs are given the right powers.
as a parent [my] decision making was not only based around the "perceived" reputation on student achievement, but also on the intangible feel of the school environment for our children. – School Trustee
Parent choice and competition
455. Disempowering boards won't stop parents avoiding some schools to enrol their children at 'better' schools. In fact, this practice is likely to increase because parents will no longer have a mechanism by which they can actively work towards improving their local school. 456. Whatever structure school governance takes, parents will still want to send their children to schools that they perceive as being 'best' (whatever 'best' might mean to them). Is it possible and/or desirable to aim for a truly equitable school system, where each school is the equal of the others?
When I was deciding on which school to enrol my 5-year-olds at (both equidistant from home. both with a good reputation for student achievement and, according to the ERO reports, little between them) I chose the one with what I considered to be the best ethos. One was involved in the early stages of what we now call 'modern learning environments', the other was more traditional. The options were fairly equitable and yet I distinguished easily, based on what I perceived to be the 'best' school for my children. -Parent
457. A parent living rurally might have very different ideas on what 'best' would mean for their children from someone in the middle of a city. An equitable system may not mean that all schools will be 'the same'. - I think that there may be a danger of attempting a 'one size fits all' model if schools are governed by regional hubs.
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 117
Analysis and Commentary
458. The opportunities ‘the system' provides for its students to achieve their potential should be equitable.
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 118
Analysis and Commentary
Disability and Learning Support | He Mahi Āwhina i te Ako
459. NZSTA welcomes the recognition that existing provision for disability and learning support creates impossible choices for boards and principals. This is certainly consistent with the experience of our member boards, and NZSTA staff who support them with these issues.
…having worked in the special education are for a number of years, the biggest barrier to positive outcomes for disadvantaged children is lack of resourcing, and that which is available is contestable and the bar is set too high to access. Access is not based on the educational needs of the child but on the limitations of resourcing, i.e. the height of the bar is set at a level that matches the limited resources, nothing to do with educational needs of the child, most children who require assistance miss out. School trustee
460. There is a strong consensus that disability and learning support is an area that requires significant improvement, and NZSTA endorses this view. NZSTA’s workload with concerns and complaints arising from the systemic failings of learning support services has been high this year. Real change is needed in this area.
… does this response demonstrate an unequivocal commitment to, and an understanding of, what is needed for all students to be included and valued in education? (i.e. an inclusive education) And will these recommendations deliver a system that supports schools to do the best for every child? - Disability Rights Commissioner, Paula Tesoriero50
461. Boards of trustees are often left trying to bridge the very real gap between the level of resourcing and practical support provided by government agencies and the reasonable expectations of students and whānau. The Ministry of Education is also the arbiter of parental complaints about the quality of education that schools are able to provide on the basis of the Ministry’s resourcing.
50 STAnews Issue 290 March 2019
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 119
Analysis and Commentary
Our BOT want to be involved in everything that affects the well- being and education of our special needs students. We have experienced new school designers who would not listen to what was best for students with severe Autism. - School trustee
462. This is an unsatisfactory situation to say the least, and one which the Taskforce proposal to extend the remit of the proposed Education Evaluation Office to the effectiveness of Ministry operations might be of very real assistance with. Although the Ministry is far from a neutral or disinterested party in these matters, it is difficult to get them to acknowledge it.
The current situation
463. Schools struggle to be adequately resourced. This in turn can lead to reduced access to school for students, either by arrangement with families or by students being excluded from school when resourcing is inadequate to meet their needs and to keep other students or staff safe.
Principals spend hours negotiating much needed learning support resources- sometimes in response to a high needs student and/or behavioural issues. Adequate Resourcing in this area is a high priority. – School trustee
464. This situation also entrenches “unhealthy competition” between schools and between whānau as principals, teachers and families spend too much time competing for these limited resources and managing the consequences of inadequate resourcing instead of proactively supporting the student in need.
Hubs may help, but they are not the answer
465. More coherent hub-based support might help, if the necessary people and resources are available to meet the need but hubs are not a magic bullet. Providing disability and learning support through hubs instead of existing agencies will not in itself solve the resourcing and equity crisis. We need to make realistic provision for students with disabilities and learning support needs on an “actual and reasonable” basis, not simply a rationing of existing budgets. We also need to consider whether we can make better use of other responses such as specialist schools and satellite classrooms to help bridge the resource gap.
Many [boards of trustees] already know this and are doing all you can to ensure inclusive education for all children at your school. Sometimes doing so is to your own detriment because it requires you to stretch the rules you work under. So, consider whether the recommendations in the report will empower you to put children at the centre of every learning
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 120
Analysis and Commentary
decision, and provide the supports and resources to facilitate that. _Paula Tesoriero
466. Principals and boards of trustees are often the meat in the sandwich when families demand that their local school provides the resourcing and support that is their right, but the Ministry of Education abdicates responsibility for ensuring that system-level responses are adequate by placing the onus on individual boards of trustees in the name of “self-managing schools”.
We currently have immediate access to support and governance. The hubs will be lethargic and over run by special ed issues and property matters. Its a huge step backwards to create hubs. I remember the South Auckland Education Board and how huge and cumbersome it was. All the education money goes into bureaucracy instead of to the pupils /schools. Too many chiefs with too large a stake in maintaining their own jobs. – School trustee
Where are these people / resources coming from?
467. NZSTA is aware of a need to do more to help boards understand and implement the strategic governance role of boards in the area of learning support. This includes being explicit and clear in their vision and mission and strategic goals, to place inclusivity front and centre for principal and community to see. Boards also need to be proactive and meticulous in getting assurance from the principal that they are complying with those values and strategic goals in the day-to-day management of the school. That’s governance. 468. The bone-deep knowledge that to do so will be putting the principal in an impossible position in light of the constraints imposed by the lack of access to people, technologies or specialist knowledge that is needed, creates a real dilemma for some schools. A good employer does not require the impossible of their staff, or sanction them for being unable to do the impossible, yet this is what boards of trustees around the country are routinely expected to do.
Agree with the concept, but where is the capacity across the network and concern that secondment will add pressure to an already stretched teaching workforce Perhaps starting with one per cluster of schools (on a total roll number) would be start. Surely a U1 school doesn't require, and doesn't have the capacity, to employ a full time learning support coordinator – School trustee
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 121
Analysis and Commentary
469. We are sure that the government can find the funds in its budget if it wishes to do so. It is less clear how we will generate the additional (well trained, highly competent) resources and bodies on the ground that we will need to make it work. There is already a huge shortfall of people and resources to provide disability and learning support.
What will actually change?
470. This feels like moving the chairs on the deck. Real change will not be achieved by paying off Ministry of Education staff and reappointing them the next day to continue the same work in the same way for a Hub. In the absence of a strategy to boost the specialist education, healthcare and mental health services workforce we do not see how the vison for disability and learning support can be achieved. 471. Changes need to occur in Initial Teacher Education, workforce planning and the development of a specialised paraprofessional workforce at a bare minimum. The voice of students and whānau must be given a place at the centre of professional and administrative processes, and sufficient resources must be made available to enable schools to deliver on their legal and ethical responsibilities to students. 472. Professional Learning and Development (PLD) for support staff and teacher aides must be mandatory and relevant to the child’s needs or condition. A child with ADHD has very different needs from a child with Aspergers Syndrome and yet, in most cases, they get the self-same support - a teacher aide who can mind them and is authorised to use physical restraint when required.
Learning support coordinators
473. NZSTA supports in principle the idea that every school has a Learning Support Co- ordinator (LSC) however we have reservations about the implementation of these proposals. For example, it is not clear that every school will need a full-time dedicated broker of learning support, or that one such position will be enough in every school.
We need dedicated SENCO / learning support coordinators. – School trustee
474. Nor is it clear how much practical difference the provision of a Learning Support Coordinator will make if the specialist capacity they are meant to broker is not available. SENCO51s and RTLBs52 currently work with teachers, families and students to put in place plans etc to address students’ needs. They also advise senior managers of what is the best plan going ahead. In some schools and for some families this is working. It is not entirely clear what is intended for these positions. Will the focus on providing brokerage through the LSC reduce the number of people available to actually provide learning support?
51 Special Education Needs CoOrdinator 52 Resource Teacher, Learning and Behaviour
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 122
Analysis and Commentary
NZSTA Recommendation 6 ➢ That further consideration is given to the issues of developing and maintaining the system capacity and capability needed to effectively deliver on the Taskforce’s aspirations for disability and learning support.
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 123
Analysis and Commentary
The role of the principal | tumuaki
475. We have reservations about the Taskforce’s specific proposals relating to the Principal | Tumuaki role. It is not at all clear that some of the proposed mechanisms such as the ‘delegate back’ proposals in Recommendation 2 will actually achieve the stated intention of reorienting the role to focus on their core responsibilities, or make principal workloads more manageable.
Fulfilling the wide ranging responsibilities of boards often falls on principals/tumuaki … About half those who use New Zealand School Trustee Association’s advisory services are principals/tumuaki, illustrating the high management load on the principal/tumuaki (Taskforce report, pxx)
476. We note also that the Taskforce cites principal management workload and the fact that many callers to NZSTA’s Advisory and Support Centre as evidence that the principal is doing too much of the board’s governance role. Principals’ calls to the Advisory and Support Centre are generally related to the parts of a principal’s role that are delegated to the principal in their capacity as the board’s CEO such as employment of staff and oversight of property and financial matters including planning and reporting. These are areas that the Taskforce proposals propose should remain, sometimes even more directly on the shoulders of the principal. 477. NZSTA endorses the observation that there is a systemic confusion between governing and managing roles. This confusion is enshrined in the provisions of the Education Act 1989, which assigns a mix of governance and high-level management responsibilities to the board of trustees in line with the prevailing understanding that these were all simply part of “school administration”. 478. Despite the mixed messages from central agencies, and reflected in the Taskforce report, school boards of trustees are clear about their role and their governance responsibilities, and the principal’s role as the leader of learning (pedagogical leadership) and the board’s CEO.
It is is often difficult to get boards with the right expertise and capabilities …We have had concerns expressed to us around some principals/ tumuaki staying at the same school too long and becoming complacent when they would benefit from a new challenge. We have also heard of schools wanting to attract well regarded local principals/tumuaki to help them with their challenges. (Taskforce report, p41)
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 124
Analysis and Commentary
479. There appears to be a strong subtext in the Taskforce report that, whatever the question is, principals are the answer. This may be a conscious mindset, or it may simply reflect the history and life experience of the key authors.
Yes - these are complex roles. Perhaps schools should be resourced with an administration / business manager to cover these aspects to alleviate the principal's demands in this space. Or schools be paid more to cover this cost that the Principal is otherwise bearing. – School trustee
480. Under this model principals are granted more powers back from the Hub that previously sat with boards, they have no real accountability to their boards in the proposal as the board will not appraise them (or appoint them really). Then the Hubs themselves will be governed by a board that is to be made up of more than half "practicing educators”. 481. This does not sound or feel like a balanced or student-centred basis on which to proceed.
Principal appraisal
The taskforce also found that the principal appraisal process is variable in quality. Boards may be uncomfortable following up issues with a principal’s performance that have been identified in an appraiser’s report. _ Taskforce report
482. While this can be an issue, it begs the far bigger question of the quality of principal appraisers. We have about 30 or 40 people doing this in the greater Auckland area but fewer than 5 who work FOR boards and provide the employer with a performance report that a board can use to professional assist and develop their principal’s professional skills. 483. The majority of Appraisers are first and foremost the principal’s friend, and in some cases long tenures of appraisal with the same principals. In some cases appraisers and principals appear to have forgotten that education is about growth, being better, sharing ideas and moderating practice.
Really! Where is this B/S coming from that boards “lack the capacity or capability to carry out the employment of a principal”, if the board needs plumbing work done - we contract a plumber, if the board needs the services of an electrician - we contract an electrician, the same as if the board needs advice and or guidance with the employment of a principal - we contract the expertise /
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 125
Analysis and Commentary
experience we require, this is the only way that our school community has any control over process and outcomes. – School trustee
484. The recommendations about principal appraisal appear to be based on the rather naive assumption that the hub will manage the performance of failing principals. However removing the function to a hub doesn’t automatically solve the problem. For example, it is not clear how hubs would ensure that the quality of appraisers available to boards will be higher or more consistent than those currently available. 485. When there are performance issues, it's not always that boards have failed to act but the numerous obstacles to taking effective action that can see the board walk away from a difficult appraisal before seeing the journey to the end. The real power in these situations often rests elsewhere than with the board whose hands are tied by legislation and legalistic processes. It is not clear how introducing a hub-based appraisal and appointment system would alter these basic facts. 486. If the hubs are mainly populated with ex principals and teachers, we will have the same issue of reluctance to bag a fellow colleague. It will remain easier just to shift them on – particularly if the decision-maker is relatively isolated from the impacts of their decision. NZSTA Recommendation 7 ➢ That principal appraisal is one of the core services provided to schools by education hubs
Leadership centre
487. NZSTA supports the proposal to develop an effective school leadership centre. The Leadership Centre should be instrumental in promoting leadership styles that embrace and look forward to working in tandem with a governing board that pushes them to maintain high standards of transparency, accountability and consistency. 488. If principals are to retain the management responsibility of acting as the CEO of the school as well as the leader of learning then the School Leadership Centre will have to ensure a sensible portion of the professional development and support provided there will be on teaching CEO skills. Experience of the past 29 years is that the Ministry of Education has failed to grasp that nettle.
Leadership and Principal workloads
489. NZSTA agrees with a lot in the Taskforce’s chapter on leadership.
How does this statement match with the concept that the Learning Hubs will delegate back full responsibility to the Tumuaki working (presumably) in isolation from the support of a Governance group? – School trustee
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 126
Analysis and Commentary
490. There are also some areas they don't seem to have thought through so carefully. For example, if the Hub is going to take responsibility for property, to lessen principals' workload, but then delegates it directly back to the principal (without the board’s involvement) then how is this actually going to lessen the principal's workload? 491. If hubs are intended to allocate the business as usual of finance, personnel etc back to principals, actually not much has changed in the pressures on the time they have available for leadership.
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 127
Analysis and Commentary
Central Education Agencies | Nga Tari Pokapū Good Management Capacity and influence Practices 492. NZSTA takes issue with the Taskforce’s assertion that 1.2.10 Good management practices also agencies have lost the capacity and capability to deeply means an appropriate balance of influence schools in their core business of teaching and responsibilities between the local level learning "Because schools are self-governing”. and central government. We acknowledge that complete devolution carries certain dangers. New Zealand, The education conversation for the last ten for instance, has a small—but highly years have been dominated by National mobile—population which makes a certain degree of standardisation Standards and Communities of Learners. Two desirable; and it is also worth noting ill-considered ideas that the MOE did not lack that one of the main reasons for the capacity or capability to imposed on establishing a central Department of Education in 1877 was the prevention schools to the detriment of the learning of of parochialism. As well, some matters tens of thousands of students. – School are the concern of the state—such as trustee guarding against appointments to positions being unfair and unjust. In essence, our views are that the government should take only those 493. In our view, it is more true that central agencies have lost administrative decisions it needs to their influence because they have never really understood take; and that all other administrative the difference between co-construction and control; they decisions it should pass to the learning have dismantled the support networks that used to have institution. influence; and they no longer have the trust or credibility with practitioners or communities that they need in order to be 1.2.11 The government's main functions effective. are to decide upon national objectives, to establish funding priorities, to review 494. We have said before that realigning the configuration of and audit institutions' performance in the deckchairs from MOE National Office, MOE Regional the light of the national objectives, and offices, ERO and NZQA into a new pattern of MOE, Hubs, to manage the property owned by the and Education Evaluation Office will not in itself change education system. anything. That includes the capacity and capability to influence boards of trustees, school leaders, educators and 1.2.12 Ministers need high-quality communities. advice on which to base policy, and so we see a clear need to separate policy advisers from the providers of My impression is that some Boards are having education to eliminate any potential conflicts of interest. Advice to problems but the taskforce's way to deal with government must be freed as far as it is to throw the baby out with the possible from self-interest, so that it has bathwater. From what I have read still the the credibility and neutrality that is majority of boards are working ok, but I required of it. - Picot Report p.5 would suggest that the MOE is not. We have
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 128
Analysis and Commentary
to submit budgets, charters, building plans, 5YA, 10PP, enrolment zones, etc for approval David Lange reflects by the Ministry. Why is it that Boards are being blamed for things that have happened where I have to emphasise that equality of opportunity in schooling doesn't always MOE would have signed off? - School trustee mean uniformity of provision. What works in schools in a small town in Northland isn't always going to work in 495. Central agencies have lost the capacity and capability to schools in a small town in Southland. deeply influence schools because they have failed to adapt to Schooling which suits children from the realities of the post-1989 educational climate; they have prosperous and literate families won't abdicated responsibility for ensuring that the system they do justice to children from a different manage on our behalf provides students, communities, and background. This point was professional educators have the tools and resources to fundamental to the original model of succeed; and instead of reflecting critically on their own Tomorrow's Schools. While it was performance, they have settled into the relatively comfortable designed to give parents and the school community a voice in their children's pattern of scapegoating the agencies and individuals they education, it depended equally on the have been supposed to serve. government making available the resources which would ensure equality of educational opportunity. It is here, Disagree - we feel that agencies have lost the and I shall come back to this point, that capability to influence schools because they the failure of government has been greatest and most damaging… are under resourced, inefficient and bound up in administration - School trustee The department of education was to be replaced by a much smaller ministry of education. It would not itself provide 496. We do not believe that the Taskforce’s proposals do schooling. Its chief roles were policy- enough to ensure that this changes. making and policy implementation. In other words it was to advise the government on its goals while making Ministry of Education sure that schools had the resources of money, advice and assistance which 497. The ministry has been through several changes over the would enable them to reach their course of its existence. It has struggled at times with knowing objectives. its role and high staff turnover. While staffed with some highly competent people it has probably never been operating as The report also recommended that an effectively as it should. education policy council be set up, apart from the ministry, to bring a wider view to the minister of education In my experience the MOE is not consistent in any of and to make sure that the ministry's policy advice kept the confidence of its activities. – School trustee parents, teachers and the public. This recommendation was not adopted by the government, although for reasons which will become clear, I now think that we should have adopted it. 498. The lack of contact between Ministry advisers and boards of trustees has been a significant factor in creating distrust by - David Lange, 1999 boards of Ministry. Boards generally have only ever heard The Clem Hill Memorial from Ministry advisers if it is bad news, Lecture p.6
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 129
Analysis and Commentary
499. The loss of great services around PLD, and other areas has been a huge problem that really just illustrates the disconnect that seems to have been in existence from the beginning.
We are firmly of the belief that the best way to remedy this in an urgent manner (because the matter of poor student performance is an urgent matter) is to resource the Ministry of Education appropriately while also providing clear expectations to the Ministry to intervene quickly to provide whatever resource is needed to ensure the school is meeting the needs of students. Such interventions by the Ministry in schools that are failing their students should come at no cost to those schools. As a matter of equity, the costs of such interventions should be borne by the Ministry and the Ministry should be funded accordingly. - School trustee
500. Employment support for boards by the central agencies tends to be variable. Regionally we have observed a tendency for Ministry advisers to be dismissive of the board’s concerns and the constraints on them where there has been a break down in the relationship between board and the principal. At times Ministry advisers have facilitated or led employment processes to the exclusion of a school board. 501. A network of local or regional hubs focussed on support and service delivery has some real potential to redress this, but unless the focus and energy goes into a genuinely constructive and collaborative relationship that demonstrates clear and convincing differences from existing operating models then we are simply going to see 20 hubs doing what the current 10 or 12 Ministry regional offices already do, with no improvement in trust or influence.
While there are schools that are not performing to meet the needs of their students, the remedy is at hand - namely with the Ministry of Education fulfilling its obligations as laid out in the Education Act 1989 - School trustee
502. Although it has made some genuine efforts to break the mould, the Ministry’s foundational model and history particularly relating to governance and management issues has been a paternalistic tendency to give the sector what they thought we ought to want, rather than working with the sector to find out what we actually need and co-constructing solutions.
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 130
Analysis and Commentary
Education Evaluation Office
503. The Taskforce proposes the formation of a new Education Evaluation Office that will be monitor and report on hubs as they govern schools. The EEO would be a Education separate crown entity that reports directly to parliament on the MOE and other agencies, including hubs. Evaluation Office
We recommend that an independent Education Evaluation Office is created. What evidence is there (or will be measured) To fundamentally improve the that restructure and rebranding ERO, NZQA performance of our education system will deeply and directly improve student we believe that a cross-party outcomes? – School trustee agreement on the long-term goals and evaluation indicators for our education system is essential. Therefore, the Education Evaluation Office should be 504. NZSTA supports in principle the proposal to create a new independent of the Minister and Education Evaluation Office. Both existing agencies have provide an annual report to Parliament done some useful work. However, both ERO and NZQA on the performance of our education have become heavily compliance- and process-driven. system.
The Education Evaluation Office would: » Report regularly on the performance I am supportive of a review. Why has it taken of our education system. This 30 years? Why is a process not regularly encompasses schooling, early happening? Reviews should be regular. – childhood education, and tertiary. School trustee » Evaluate the performance of the Ministry with a particular focus on: › Organisational culture and responsiveness; 505. There are significant gaps in the present oversight of the › The effectiveness of its system, notably the effectiveness of central agencies, which interdependent relationships we believe that the new EEO would have the potential to fill. with Education Hubs, the Teaching Council and other government agencies; and › Progress in meeting specified ERO provides an external evaluation that national educational goals. provides a report to schools about the quality » Provide regular independent of teaching and learning in individual schools. evaluation of Education Hub performance. The EEO is not a substitute for this. » Have no responsibility for reviewing – School trustee individual schools, although it may carry out sampling reviews in schools as part of its Education Hub 506. The new EEO needs to embrace a substantively different review. and broader culture and mission than ERO and NZQA if it is to be effective in monitoring and directing the system. It - Taskforce report p. XX needs to be holistic, multi-disciplinary, adaptive, rigorous in its understanding of evolving theory and academic discourse, research and evaluation, with an equally strong grounding in practitioner excellence.
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 131
Analysis and Commentary
We agree that state servants should be required to report directly to Parliament about the performance of systems under the direct control of a Minister without telling the Minister what is in the report. The fireworks and legal implications for 'no surprises' management will be incredible to watch – School trustee
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 132
Analysis and Commentary
Where to from here? NZSTA's role
507. NZSTA is highly effective at supporting boards of trustees, and one of the few organisations to have a system-wide perspective and responsibilities across the compulsory education sector. Over the years, NZSTA has carved out a well-deserved reputation as an ‘honest broker’ and a voice of reason within the sector.
NZSTA do a great job, why change this? - School trustee
508. Board capability has been the main focus of NZSTA’s activities for past decade or so – we are now focussing on improving capacity as well, through initiatives catering to aspiring trustees, accreditation for established good practice, and alumni networks. These initiatives are currently in progress.
Providing support services to boards
509. Recent organisational changes to provide more effective and comprehensive services, particularly following Budget 2014’s boost to support for boards of trustees, have further enhanced our effectiveness in this work.
NZSTA regional network of service and support hubs
The hub should be considering NZSTA as that hub. There are many things which have been done to support change and governance. - School trustee
510. NZSTA strongly supports the intention to re-establish system-level support for connecting schools with other schools. We do not see that it is necessary to disrupt the grassroots democracy and the principle of community ownership, vested in locally elected boards of trustees, in order to do that.
Most of the board chairs and principals (88%) said their board had used at least one of NZSTA’s advisory services over the past year. – NZCER, 2019
511. NZSTA currently operates seven regional hubs providing on-the-ground site-based support to boards of trustees and principals in core governance areas such as strategic planning, financial reporting, policy development, self-review, meeting procedure, community engagement, student achievement (schools’ core purpose) and employment practices. These services are provided free to boards under contract to the Ministry of
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 133
Analysis and Commentary
Education. NZSTA’s regional hubs operate on a service delivery model, as proposed by the Taskforce.
There are current core functions which many boards are currently poorly equipped to fulfill, e.g. property management, maintenance and aspects of decision-making such as student suspensions. It is worth noting that support from NZSTA in this regard is outstanding and greatly appreciated. – School trustee
512. Expanding NZSTA’s current regional capacity to fill the role envisaged in the Taskforce report would require the inclusion of two additional work streams to complement the existing service provision: • professional support for education practitioners • business support including property, financial and administrative services. 513. NZSTA is confident of its ability to adapt both its membership structure and its service delivery to provide effective advocacy, leadership and support to school boards and district service centres. 514. This could be achieved either through • NZSTA expanding its existing network of service delivery centres (regional hubs) over time, to provide a comprehensive offering of operational, leadership and governance support or • NZSTA offering nation-wide peer support and networking opportunities to individually constituted service centres.
Schools are very complex and a range of skills and knowledge is required. what support is there for principals stepping up in to these roles which require a whole other skill base. Community members with skills can have quite a significant part to play in the Governance. However it is a huge learning curve being in this role - yet the assistance provided by NZSTA is incredible. It feels empowering to be part of a school’s development. – School trustee
515. Either of these options would enable NZSTA to continue to add value to the system by • Retaining a broad focus on all aspects of school governance and operations • operating co-ordinated but distinct sets of services for boards and service centres, • offering
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 134
Analysis and Commentary
o governance expertise and support including localised curriculum; community engagement; student progress and achievement; strategic planning and reporting within district guidelines o professional development including train-the-trainer capability o practitioner support including teaching and learning; leadership; employment relations services o operational support including property; Health and Safety; strategic planning and reporting o dissemination of good practice including moderation and peer review o peer support networks o dispute resolution o a forum for discussion and advocacy with government, policymakers and other sector stakeholders.
A lot of time and effort would be wasted getting in people to get to know the situation when the boards have lived through it and written the policies. We always use NZSTA helpdesk and sometimes MOE personnel to support us. This is the best way. - School trustee
Trustee professional development
516. Data from NZSTA’s annual satisfaction survey shows that participation in NZSTA professional development has increased from 86% to 91% of all boards of trustees between 2015 and 201853.
[With] good guide lines and some training BOTs can do the job and do it well. – School trustee
517. There is still more NZSTA can do and will do as resources permit. Some of the issues that we are currently considering include • The implications of promoting some level of compulsory professional development as prerequisite for membership of a school board of trustees. Minister Martin has also raised this with us as a possibility for improving boards’ base-line capability. This would require legislative change identifying some level of professional development as a requirement for eligibility to serve as a school trustee.
53 NZCER 2019 p.9
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 135
Analysis and Commentary
• Expanding the range of support services NZSTA offers to boards of trustees to meet other perceived needs. We are currently in the early stages of exploring what services might be required, and how they might potentially be funded. • The parameters of the board’s employer role. Minister Martin made reference to this in her speech at our 2018 annual conference. We have yet to formulate any substantive thoughts on this issue. • The governance structure and needs of Communities of Learning (CoLs). This is a major weakness in the current design and implementation of CoLs and creates significant potential problems for their member schools. Some CoLs are managing this better than others. • More structural variations for boards of trustees. While current legislation does permit alternative constitutions for boards of trustees these provisions are not widely used, and it is possible that developing a small suite of alternative ‘default’ formats – e.g. recognised alternate options for small, rural or remote boards and whānau boards as well as the model currently specified in legislation might enhance governance practice in some situations. 518. All of this creates an obvious and natural progression by expanding the scope and reach of NZSTA’s existing network of support hubs to embrace the full suite of support services proposed in the Taskforce report. It seems clear that the development of a network of hubs would in practice require a melding of the expertise and resources currently held by NZSTA and Ministry regional offices. Growing these new service delivery structures from the service and support orientation of NZSTA regional hubs would have significant advantages over trying to transform existing Ministry of Education offices with their strong bureaucratic culture into effective service delivery depots. 519. The advantages of this approach include • Ability to provide a balanced and comprehensive coverage of governing, leadership, management, teaching and administrative services • A consistent whole-school approach • Connections into the community via school boards of trustees • Proven understanding of the differences and interrelationships between these various roles • A proven track record in service delivery and professional development • Proven ability and willingness to work collaboratively and constructively with other sector groups such as principals’ groups and teacher unions • Proven ability and willingness to deliver services outputs and outcomes to government specification • Existing service delivery infrastructure • Existing relationships with schools across the country
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 136
Appendix
Appendix - Accountability: Knowing and Showing
What do you think of when you hear the word “accountability”? It’s a word we often hear in the media, and we use it often in our role as governors and trustees of our local schools. But sometimes, listening to the media, you’d wonder if they can be talking about the same thing. It’s not unusual to hear reporters will say something like, “Here’s an interview with someone who says another person hasn’t been punished enough, so that means there’s not enough accountability.” But accountability isn’t the same as punishment.
“To be accountable is not merely to carry a range of tasks or obligations…or to keep proper accounts. It is also to…provide…evidence of the standard to which those tasks and obligations are discharged” - Onora O'Neill 27 October 2009
It’s not about punishment, it’s about trust In 2011 we ran an article about accountability and trust, based on the work of Baroness Onora O’Neill. In it, we said:
How do we know who we can trust? ...an effective system of accountability: • encourages us to be trustworthy, and • reassures us that we can safely place our trust in each other.
- STAnews (Issue 211, March 2011)
So, accountability shouldn’t be a negative, deficit thing. It does start from the position that our children’s wellbeing and education is important enough that their caregivers deserve to know that we are trustworthy – but that’s not an alternative to trusting each other, it’s the foundation for it.
Intelligent trust Accountability is the process of showing we are trustworthy, so that others know they can trust us. That includes identifying the limits of our trust. Baroness O’Neill describes this as “intelligent trust”. Likewise, when we require accountability from our staff or each other – whether it’s in the form of financial variance reports, EOTC risk assessments, codes of behaviour, professional standards, curriculum reports, or something else – the point is so that we can know, and show, the reasons why we choose to extend our trust to them. In education, getting those decisions right is crucial.
… All accountability presupposes some forms of trust. So it is an illusion to think that we can forget about trust and concentrate solely on accountability either in daily or in public life…it is…absurd to think that trust can be eliminated from professional and public life… - Onora O'Neill 27 October 2009
Done properly, accountability is the process of making informed decisions about where to place – or withhold – our trust, so that things don’t go wrong in the first place. In the words of Baroness O’Neill, it’s about finding “…intelligent ways of providing information [to] enable those who have no special expertise – and rather little time – to place and refuse trust with more security.”
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 137 Appendix
It’s a lot like creating a policy framework. We create policies that clarify what we are working together to achieve (sometimes referred to as strategic policy, or ends policies) and the behaviour we consider acceptable in achieving it (operational policy, means policies, or procedures). So, for example, we entrust the safety of our students to the classroom teacher – but we place limits on that, so if they are going off-site, or learning about working in a kitchen, or with power tools, we expect to be assured, through the principal, that our children will still be safe. It doesn’t imply any lack of trust in the classroom teacher, it simply means we share the duty of care to ensure that everything is being done properly. In fact, every policy framework reflects a set of accountabilities as well as responsibilities.
“Systems of accountability can provide evidence that helps the intelligent placing of trust: but only if they provide some usable and reliable evidence of trustworthiness…The important question in considering accountability is not…whether we can eliminate reliance on trust – we cannot – but when and how we should try to strengthen the evidence for placing trust intelligently by introducing or adjusting systems of accountability.” - Onora O'Neill 27 October 2009
It also follows that when we as a board are accountable to our community, it’s not just some box- ticking compliance exercise for the auditor. Accountability goes to the heart of our school relationships: How do our students and the people who care most about them know that we are worthy of their trust? What evidence can we show them? After all, we would expect some evidence of trustworthiness before we lend someone else our car, or the keys to our house – it’s not unreasonable. And it doesn’t have to be complex or overly formal…just convincing.
“There is no simple reason to think that we should always aim for more rigorous formal systems of accountability or that they will always serve us better than more direct relations of trust. All too often they raise transaction costs without securing high levels of trustworthiness – let alone of trust.” - Onora O'Neill 27 October 2009
Accountability systems don’t have to be complex and time consuming – in fact, the best ones aren’t. The best ones give us the security of knowing and showing why we trust the people around us as part of the everyday fabric of our daily routines. But they do need to satisfy us on both counts, knowing and showing.
“There is much at stake. When we refuse to trust the trustworthy we incur needless worry and cost in trying to check them out and hold them to account, while those who find their trustworthiness wrongly questioned may feel undermined, even insulted – and perhaps less inclined to remain trustworthy. And when we trust the untrustworthy we may find our trust betrayed, and lose whatever we staked, be it friendship, political aims or money.” - Onora O'Neill 27 October 2009
Or, in our case, our children: their wellbeing, their education, and their future.
References: RSS Beveridge Lecture 2009: Holding Accountability to Account delivered by Onora O'Neill 27 October 2009 at the RSS HQ, London See also: STAnews 211 (March 2011) Principal and board – trust plus accountability.
Source: NZSTA GovTalks resource https://www.nzsta.org.nz/assets/GovTalks/Articles/Accountability-Knowing-and- showing.pdf
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 138 Appendix
Appendix: A Vision for Education in New Zealand
- NZSTA Discussion Document November 2013
Appendices to NZSTA submission Education (Update) Amendment Bill Page 44/80
New Zealand’s education system does not currently have a single, unifying vision statement. There are a number of documents which put forward aspirations or aspects of a vision and these have a high level of alignment, but each is targeted towards a slightly different audience and a slightly different context.
This document attempts to draw these threads together to provide a starting point for coconstruction of a single, unifying statement of these aspirations in the form of a national vision statement for New Zealand education.
A vision for New Zealand education in the C21st. Education is at the core of our nation's effort to achieve economic and social progress. New Zealanders want our education system to prepare every student to function effectively in the world. Our vision as New Zealanders is to create a society where… The role of education in our society Every child in New Zealand is well prepared to function effectively in the world, develops personal agency and receives the encouragement and mentoring appropriate for their age, stage, and personal growth. Early childhood, school and tertiary education providers create a seamless and responsive education system based on a model of personal services being provided to students at all levels in an ethically robust professional context.
New Zealanders are confident in the quality of experience and education that our children receive from our formal education providers and this confidence is borne out by rigorous self-review and independent research.
New Zealand’s education system is recognised as a critical intervention in breaking cycles of disadvantage by delivering equity of opportunity for every student.
Learning and gaining mastery over new skills, knowledge and experiences are an intrinsic part of our shared experience as a society, and every citizen regards their formal education as the foundation for a lifetime of further learning through formal or informal channels. Student experience
Every child feels valued, understood and extended by their experiences in formal education3 and carries with them an ambition to continue learning and growing throughout their lifetime. Our education providers are extensions of our local communities and our society as a whole, where our children are safe and happy while they are learning. Education providers
Our educators are highly qualified, compassionate ethical and knowledgeable professionals who treat our children with respect and model the highest standards of scholarship, citizenship and selfmastery. They value the skills, knowledge and experiences our children bring to their education, and our communities and workplaces value the skills, knowledge and experiences our children acquire through formal education.
3 Formal education includes Early Childhood Education, schooling and tertiary education. It may be academic or practical in nature.
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 139 Appendix
Appendix: BoardSURE
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 140 Appendix
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 141 Appendix
Appendix: Independent review panel pilot
About the Pilot
The pilot independent review process is available to students and families in NZSTA’s Southland and Northland regions for the duration of the pilot throughout the 2019 school year. The initial pilot programme will be limited to reviewing decisions to exclude or expel students at secondary schools. The review will involve the review panel, the school’s board of trustees and the student who has been excluded or expelled and/or their parent/s or caregiver/s. The review process will be • fair and independent • provided at no direct cost to the student or the school • private and confidential to the panel, the people requesting the review, and the school. • quicker than existing appeals to the Ombudsman, Human Rights Commission or the courts. • be child-centred, accessible, quick, and consistent with natural justice.
There may be some incidental costs such as administration or travel. The Panel will make all reasonable efforts to meet at a time and place that is convenient to the student. Schools, boards, families and Panel members will have roles they are expected to fulfil for the pilot to work.
How it came about
This pilot is a result of discussions between the Office of the Children’s Commissioner (OCC), the Human Rights Commission (HRC) and the New Zealand School Trustees Association (NZSTA). The OCC is available to support families, schools and boards to ensure these arrangements proceed according to the agreed process.
Purpose
The purpose of the review is to ensure that the school’s decision-making o has done everything possible to reduce disruption to the student’s education o meets the board’s other legal obligations o facilitates a safe return to the classroom where feasible o supports health and safety issues. the Panel
Three people will be selected for each panel: • The Ministry of Education’s Director of Education • The NZSTA Regional Executive chairperson • A member of the local community with relevant skills and experience
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 142 Appendix
Participation is voluntary
There is no legal obligation for a student or a school to participate, or for the school to accept the Panel’s recommendations. However OCC, NZSTA and HRC strongly encourage schools within the pilot regions participate in the review process in good faith, as a demonstration of the board’s commitment to fair and effective processes and decision-making.
About the review
Seeking a review
You will need to request a review of the board decision, in writing. This can be done by emailing the OCC [[email protected]]or filling in the form on the website.
Who can seek a review?
• The student • The student’s legal guardian (if the student is under 16)
Who will attend the review hearing
The people who will take part in the review hearing are • The student and the parent or caregiver. • The board chair or the chair of the board’s disciplinary committee
The student and their parent or caregiver can bring a support person with them. The principal of the school may attend the hearing but may only speak in exceptional circumstances, if asked to do so by the panel54. the Panel’s recommendations
If the panel agrees that the Board’s decision to exclude or expel the student should stand, the panel’s recommendations might include: • how the student might be able to continue in school (including the principal’s duty to facilitate the student’s enrolment at another school if the student is under 16) • what support or resourcing the Ministry of Education or other agencies need to provide to ensure o that the student is able to continue their education and the school is able to meet their needs, OR o that the student is able to successfully transition into occupational training or employment.
If the panel agrees that the student should be reinstated, the panel’s recommendations might include: • whether it is in the student’s best interests to return to school immediately, • whether there are steps that need to be taken to ensure a successful return to school • a deadline for the student’s return to school • what further supports the school needs to put in place to ensure a successful return to school
54 Because the decision to exclude or expel is made by the board, not the principal.
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 143 Appendix
• what support or resourcing the Ministry of Education or other agencies need to provide to ensure a successful return to school • that the Ministry of Education and the school will o include the Panel’s recommendation on the student’s record and remove the original exclusion/expulsion decision. o notify the student and their parent(s) or caregiver(s) in writing that the exclusion/expulsion has been removed from the student’s record.
What schools can expect
Schools participating in the pilot can expect the process to • confirm whether the school has done everything possible to reduce disruption to the student’s education as required under s13 of the Education Act 1989 • confirm whether other supporting agencies have done everything possible to support the student and the school • decide if board’s decision was appropriate in all the circumstances • take into account the board’s other legal obligations • provide an avenue for resolving parental complaints about exclusion and expulsion decisions • help the board to improve the school’s formal student disciplinary processes
What people requesting a review can expect
Students over 16 will need to make the request themselves. For students under 16 the request will need to come from their legal guardian (parent or caregiver). Students and families participating in the process can expect the process to • give them a chance to explain why they think the student should not be excluded or expelled • be quick and not overly formal or intimidating • apply the principles of natural justice. • The hearing will be held at a place and time agreed between the panel, the people seeking the review. • The hearing will be held in private and is confidential to the people involved. Personal information may be discussed, and this needs to be done in private. • All the relevant information including the school’s records requested by the panel should be made available before the hearing so the panel has a chance to read it beforehand. • If new information does come up at the hearing, the panel will decide the fair thing to do about it.
The focus is on finding resolution, not apportioning blame. The panel will be expected to do what they can to make the student and their parent/s or caregiver/s feel comfortable and safe. It may include taking a break to enable the board and the student/family to discuss possible settlement options. The person requesting the review can make a request to incorporate kaupapa Maori practices into the proceedings.
NZSTA Submission on the Tomorrows Schools Taskforce report p. 144