Conference 2000New Zealand
Parents in school decision-making
"The New Zealand Experience"
1.1
Introduction
The New
Zealand compulsory education sector has undergone
enormous and dramatic change over the past decade.
New Zealand’s 2,660 schools are governed and
managed by approximately 18,000 people, elected by
their communities to ensure that the wishes of the
community are considered in the running of the
school. It has not always been that way.
2.1 The
1989 Era
In order
to gain an understanding of school based
parent/caregiver decision-making in New Zealand it is
necessary to undertake a brief trip back in history
to pre 1989 in New Zealand education.
Prior to
1989 New Zealand’s education system was overly
centralised. All primary schools had an elected
school committee which had no real statutory powers.
In many cases the main focus was in fund raising for
their school. The decision making power at that time
largely rested with an intermediary board structure
of 10 education boards.
For
practical purposes the board structure controlled and
administered primary education on a regional basis,
including exercising powers relating to resourcing,
property, staffing and the hiring and firing of
teachers and principals.
In
reality the "firing" part of the hiring and
firing equation was more illusionary than real and
under performing teachers or teachers subjected to
disciplinary processes were merely shifted from one
school to another rather than the issue itself being
faced and dealt with.
In the
secondary sector each school had an elected board of
governors which had limited employment powers but
again the essential control rested with another
agency, the regional offices of the then Department
of Education.
In both
primary and secondary schools active participation by
the school community in the running of schools was
very much on a grace and favour basis and largely
rested on the extent to which the principal of that
school welcomed community participation.
In
reality there was virtually no ability for the parent
voice to be heard and much less influence in the
running of their local school in any tangible way.
3.1
Overview of education changes in New Zealand 1989
In 1987,
David Lange, New Zealand’s then Prime Minister
and Minister of Education, set in place a task force
known as the Picot Task Force to review the
administration of education in New Zealand schools.
The task force found that New Zealand’s
administration structure in education, which had
existed in much the same way for 100 years, was
overly centralised, over complex and in need of
extensive reform.
The task
force reported back in 1988, producing a
comprehensive analysis of the needs of the compulsory
education sector.
In this
report, Administering for Excellence [known as
the Picot Report], the task force surmised.
"An
effective administrative system must be as simple as
possible and decisions should be made as close as
possible to where they are carried out. Because the
state provides the funds and retains a strong
interest in education outcomes, there must be
national objectives, and clear responsibilities and
goals ...
Individual
learning institutions will be the basic unit of
education administration. This is where there will be
the strongest interest in the educational outcomes
and the best information about local circumstances.
People in the institutions should make as many of the
decisions that affect the institutions as possible -
only when it would be inappropriate should decisions
be made elsewhere."
The task
force identified that the old education system was
"cumbersome":
decision-making
within the system was slow;
certain
groups seemed to have achieved the high
ground in terms of critical resource and
curriculum decisions;
the
system was non transparent.
In fact
it was pointed out that the old system was not one
system, but a number of systems, with some overlaps
of functions. It was very often confusing and
frustrating for those trying to work through the
labyrinths of educational decision making; in short,
a major exercise in bureaucracy.
It was
noted, at the time, the underlying aims of the Picot
reforms were to increase the responsiveness of the
New Zealand education system and increase the
satisfaction with education of all the significant
stakeholders. The stated purpose of the Tomorrow’s
Schools Reforms was to improve the education
system by:
improving
learning opportunities for all students;
having
a system responsive to local needs;
better
use of the educational dollars;
The
listed improvements would come about through:
greater
parent/caregiver involvement with the school;
greater
decision making authority at the school
level;
greater
control of expenditure.
From the
communities perspective the Tomorrow’s
Schools Reforms were about simplifying and
removing bureaucracy and empowering parents.
The
scene was therefore set for reforms within the
compulsory education sector that were most dramatic
and unusual.
4.1 The
New Zealand model
While
decentralisation was increasingly being examined in a
number of other countries in the case of the New
Zealand scenario the model proposed was one of
"self governance", where each school was to
have its own governing body with full employer powers
and which was to be directly accountable to
parents/caregivers and the school community.
Trustees
were elected by the parents and caregivers of pupils
at an individual school to "control the
management [governing] of that school. Parents and
caregivers, through the New Zealand reforms, were
given the opportunity to become involved in the real
decision making affecting their local school and
their child’s education.
Through
a locally elected board of trustees the school’s
community would be free to make education,
professional, and financial decisions which would
enable local people to meet the needs of their local
students.
The new
self governing focus was to be tempered by
maintaining a national curriculum, national
standards, with some central policy making in
administration functions, and a centrally based
review and audit agency [Education Review Office]
which would audit the performance of boards on a
regular basis.
With
more local control standards in education would no
longer be uniformly imposed from the centre but would
allow for local differences, and allow schools to
develop in ways which met the distinctive needs of
the local community.
In this
local responsibility lay the greatest potential for
good but, conversely, perhaps also its greatest
risks.
5.1
Boards of Trustees
The
reforms of 1989 saw boards of trustees being placed
at the heart of the reformed compulsory education
system. Boards are made up of three to seven elected
parent representatives, the principal, staff
representative, and for secondary schools, the
ability to have a student representative. Boards also
have the power to co-opt up to four additional
members for equity/cultural reasons or to obtain
particular expertise. Those coopted are for all
intents and purposes full members of the board for
the period of their cooption.
Trustees
are elected by the parents and caregivers of the
pupils of an individual school for a three year term.
The
first election of trustees occurred in April 1989,
with real concerns expressed at that time that boards
could be high jacked by pressure groups. In fact this
was not an issue and in excess of 2,660 schools were
defined as electorates, returning officers appointed,
voting papers designed, printed and distributed, and
advertisements placed.
It is
now a matter of record that the first elections were
successful and some 17,000 new trustees set about
drawing up their charters. Successful elections have
since occurred in 1992, 1995, and 1998, with the 1998
elections being very successful in electing a board
for each of the countries 2,660 schools.
6.1
School Charters and National Education Guidelines
The Tomorrow’s
Schools reforms were predicated around the
premise that each board of trustees became an
autonomous self managing, governing body. This has
been achieved through creation of boards as legal
entities with their own specific rights and
obligations. As the governing body every new board
was required to develop a charter which became the
base guiding document of the school. The
charter’s significance is reinforced through the
Education Act 1989 which provides that:
"...
every charter has effect as an undertaking by the
board to the Minister to take all reasonable steps to
ensure that:
(a)
the school is managed, organised, conducted, and
administered for the purposes set out, or deemed to
be in the charter, and
(b) the school and its students and community achieve
the aims and the objectives set out or deemed to be
contained in the charter."
The
charter is in effect a signed agreement between the
board and central government which reflects the
values and priorities of the local community along
with national goals and objectives.
As time
has passed trustees have increasingly taken on board
that the charter is a "living document" and
one which boards may want to review, alter, or modify
from time to time to best reflect the current values
or priorities of their school community. The National
Educational Guidelines, [NEGs] which contain a
statement of goals for education in New Zealand, as
well as curriculum and administrative requirements,
are deemed to be part of every school charter, and
set out the contractual arrangements school trustees
have with the Crown [government].
The
curriculum and administrative requirements of the
NEGs are specified through ten National Education
Goals as well as National Administration Guidelines
[NAGs]. These NAGs set out six major responsibilities
that fall upon boards of trustees.
curriculum
requirements;
employer
responsibilities;
financial
and property management;
documentation
and self review;
health
and safety;
administration
related to the best management practice for
all schools.
7.1
Statutory Empowerment of Boards of Trustees
Boards
of trustees are empowered under the Education Act
1989 to run their schools:
"except
to the extent that any enactment of or the general
law of New Zealand provides otherwise, a
school’s board has the complete discretion to
control the management of the school as it sees
fit."
The Act
also provides that:
"the
school’s principal is the board’s chief
executive in relation to the school’s control
and management
and
"except
to the extent that any enactment with the general law
of New Zealand provides otherwise, the principal -
(a)
shall comply with the board’s policy directions;
and
(b) …. has complete discretion to manage as
the principal thinks fit, the school’s day to
day administration"
8.1 The
notion of governance
There
has been much debate in New Zealand, between
stakeholders/government and between stakeholders
themselves, over whether the Education Act is in fact
confusing in its empowerment of board and principal.
Indeed,
it is fair to say that the governance/management
interface has at times been a source of considerable
discontent, at both the national level and as a cause
of friction between a number of boards of trustees
and their principal, at the individual school level.
The
governance/management distinction was interpreted as
equivalent to that between policy and programme, with
the board responsible for setting objectives and
monitoring their achievement, and the professional
responsible for formulating and implementing the
detailed programmes by which they would be achieved.
Professional integrity would be preserved by
maintaining a functional distinction between policy
and programme.
Of
course the reality is that neither good governance
nor good management is achieved simply because it is
legislated for and that the legislation does no more
[and can do no more] than provide a permissive
framework within which boards, in conjunction with
their principal, can determine their own
governance/management structure according to the
expectations of their communities and in the best
interest of their students.
In
practice the governance role undertaken by boards of
trustees of New Zealand schools has many facets,
including.
enacting
centrally determined, legislative,
regulatory, and other requirements;
ensuring
that the views and interests of the community
are reflected in the decisions they make;
accountability
to both the crown and their local electoral
community through the charter;
ensuring
that the principal, as chief executive,
manages the school effectively and in
accordance with national requirements and
local objectives;
the
board is the employer;
the
board is ultimately responsible.
9.1
Employer responsibilities
A
critical part of the shift in power to the board of
trustees came with the board assuming the role of
employer.
The
board’s powers are little different from that of
any other employer except that the board is however
subject to "good employer" provisions and,
where a board remains centrally funded for
teacher’s salaries, the board is subject to
centrally determined staffing schedules. The
board’s employer powers are determined through
two pieces of legislation, the Education Act 1989 and
the State Sector Act 1988, and amendments.
Legislation provides.
that
each board
that the
board has
and
is
required to act independently on matters
relating to decisions on individual employees
in respect of appointment, promotion,
demotion, transfer, disciplining or the
cessation of the employment of any employee.
In
practice, much of the employment role is delegated by
individual boards to their principal, as the
board’s day to day manager, although each board
will itself determine to what extent. This varies to
a significant degree amongst boards, with smaller
more rural boards of trustees generally tending to
retain a more "hands on" approach to the
employment issues than for larger more urban schools.
In the
majority of cases, the board will ratify appointments
and will retain the power of dismissal.
10.1
Intended Model as against current reality
The Tomorrow’s
School model envisaged that boards of trustees
would control all resourcing required to manage the
school, and would become fully autonomous.
Boards
would receive and control
and the
Ministry of Education would be a small, tightly
controlled policy development body with no service
role for schools.
To date,
all property funding has not yet been devolved to the
school level.
In the
early 1990s, the teacher unions mounted a vigorous
campaign against the bulk funding of teachers’
salaries but in 1995, boards were given the choice to
opt-in to "direct resourcing" of teachers
salaries. Some 10% of boards entered into direct
resourcing for a term of three years. Because boards
were "direct resourced" on a formula basis
[and lower than the top of the scale], boards could
stand to "win" or "lose" under
the option. Suffice to say that many boards found the
option unattractive although the fact that boards
taking up the option were released from the centrally
determined staffing schedules was an attraction.
The
direct resourcing option now known as the "fully
funded option" [FFO], was enhanced in mid-1998
by funding at the top of the scale for secondary
schools and at a weighted average across the
qualification groups for primary schools. Since this
enhancement an increasing number of schools [now in
excess of 25% of all schools] have elected to take up
the FFO, and a steady increase of schools entering
FFO over the next year or two is anticipated.
The FFO
[still commonly referred to as "bulk
funding"] continues to be a matter of great
contention to the teaching force generally and
particularly to the New Zealand secondary school
teachers’ union, the New Zealand Post Primary
Teachers’ Association [NZPPTA]. It has not been
uncommon for secondary teachers to withdraw
"goodwill" [that is, extra curricular
activities] where the board of trustees of their
school has taken up the FFO.
11.1 So
how is the New Zealand experience working?
By and
large we know that local decision making is working
well.
Over the
past 10 years, trustees have grown into their role,
and are certainly more confident and questioning but,
at the same time, they accept and acknowledge the
vital need to promote and foster the partnership with
the professionals and their schools and the community
which elected them.
We know
that very few people, school communities, and
teachers would not want to see a return to the old
system. The flexibility for a board to manage
resources as it sees appropriate has seen improved
buildings and grounds, a unique local flavour
introduced to schools, appointment processes,
disciplining and sacking of staff at the local level
and the ability to make decisions without
bureaucratic interference.
Overt
accountability has forced boards to be more open to
the community and parents/caregivers and to accept
that the board itself is accountable for the
consequences of its own actions.
There
have been failures but this has been quite rare over
the past nine years and with less than 50 incidences
from 2,660 boards.
The
publication Reforming Education - the New Zealand
Experience 1984 - 1996 notes that (in March 1994)
the Minister of Education announced a school support
project which aimed to provide assistance to schools
suffering severe difficulties. In two years the
number of schools assisted by the project barely
reached three figures.
"A
strong and effective School Trustees Association
[STA] can claim a good deal of the credit for this.
Through its industrial mediation service, the STA has
been able to resolve problems, and tensions that
might otherwise have ended up with board and
principal at loggerheads, or even in the Employment
Court."
A recent
NZSTA survey which was conducted by the New Zealand
Council for Educational Research notes.
"Most
boards are confident about their work. They feel
supported by school staff and NZSTA, and supported by
parents and the local community - …
29%
of boards reported that they were on top of their
task, and another 52% described themselves as making
steady progress. 16% described themselves as coping
and 2% as struggling."
In terms
of partnership,
"There
is no sign that things have deteriorated since
[1989], despite heavy workloads. Relationships are
mostly good."
The
Education Review Office, [ERO], our audit agency,
after evaluating all boards at least once, commented.
"That
the system of local management of schools by boards
of trustees has begun well. The past five (5) years
have been a time for the community to test and
explore new relationships created by new
administrative structure."
12.1 A
Vital partnership - Boards and Principals
A key to
the success of the Tomorrow’s Schools reforms
rests in the dynamic partnership with our principals.
This partnership remains crucial to the continued
success of the New Zealand trustee model. Successful
schools have both an effective board and an effective
principal, and each contribute to the overall
objective of an effective school.
As noted
by ERO, effectively managed schools are those where
the board has an excellent understanding of the
different roles and responsibilities within the board
and where the lay board members know what the
principal’s needs and expectations are. In
return, the principal knows and understands the needs
and expectations of other board members. The
partnership in trusteeship has prospered where there
is a good understanding of the role of each partner.
Research has confirmed that a high proportion of
trustees, principals, and teachers, view their
inter-relationships as of good, very good, or
excellent quality.
13.1
Educational Outcomes
In
retrospect, New Zealand had a great opportunity to
attempt to "benchmark" education in 1989,
to provide a known base for attempting to measure the
educational outcomes of the reforms. While this
unfortunately did not occur we are confident that our
schools are hugely more dynamic, focused and
responsive to providing high quality educational
outcomes.
14.1
Reviewing the Model
While we
are confident that the great majority of boards are
both comfortable and effective in their role it is
true that a small proportion of schools have not
flourished under the Tomorrow’s Schools model.
This is not any indictment of the model itself as
some schools struggled under the pre-1989 centralised
system.
Rather
it indicates that the New Zealand model has not
proved to be a panacea for all New Zealand schools
and perhaps we need to look at more innovative ways
to assist these failing schools.
The
Ministry of Education is working towards a review of
the Education Act 1989 with a view to producing
legislation which better reflects the new more
permissive environment. As part of this review it is
anticipated that a degree of flexibility will be
established to acknowledge the possible need of
failing schools to look to different governance
arrangements but without undermining the obvious
strengths of the Tomorrow’s Schools model.
The
NZSTA, as the representative organisation of the
boards of trustees, will be working closely with
Ministry officials to protect the real parent input,
to ensure that local community control and that the
opportunity to develop in a way which meets the needs
of the community and its children is not diminished
in any way.
The
concept of triennial elections and the lack of
retirement by rotation, does mean that some schools
can experience a total turnover of the board and the
loss of expertise that entails. This aspect is likely
to be reviewed, although turnover is not all bad
given that trusteeship in New Zealand has the added
benefit of acting as a huge adult education programme
with a lot of people gaining considerable skills from
their experience.
15.1
Conclusion
In New
Zealand our reforms challenge years of conditioned
thinking. The government of the day may well have
envisaged boards of trustees quickly coming to grips
with self governance/management and working well in a
relatively short time. In fact, such huge reforms
take time to settle in but we can now claim that
trusteeship is generally flourishing.
It is
appropriate to conclude by quoting, David Lange,
Prime Minister, and the Minister of Education in
1989, and acknowledged Father of Tomorrow’s
Schools, who said at a recent NZSTA conference.
"I
knew in the early days boards would struggle under
the weight of their new responsibilities. I knew that
I was asking for a lot of goodwill from everywhere. I
knew that and I went right ahead and did it, because
I also know that there is no more powerful force than
parents who want their children to get a good
education."
Ray
Newport
Back to 2000 Book Index
|
