IES betrayal: pity them, pity us, and pity the generations of children to come

In studying for a post-graduate degree in history, I seemed always to gravitate to a study of how people stood up to the injustice of unfair, authoritarian, or totalitarian rule – how people responded in those moral crucibles. An absorbing and horrific situation was the Anschluss Osterreichs – in that historical event I found encompassed, for situations large and small, the entirety of the behaviour of ruling classes, and the ruled.  In history, when I read of people going out of their way to co-operate with, say, totalitarian rule, I feel lesser as a human being; when people stand up to it, I am inspired. But I always know that both responses are part of the expression of human nature.

Which leads me to a matter laughably minor in comparison but in the context of our tiny country, still of some significance.  Is your principal a strangelover? The reference being to Dr Strangelove in the Peter Sellars’ film of the same name and subtitled How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb. Has your principal twisted this way and that to follow, as he or she always does, the government line, in this case to support IES and clusters?

Except in one crucial respect, my argument about strangeloving principals is summed up by the subtitle – strangeloving principals do not, at base, have to learn to love the government line, it is inherent in their intellectual and moral make-up. That is because we have much less free will than we think. Strangeloving principals, while often very competent principals, feel morally lost going against authority, they need someone to trust and believe in – so feel impelled to strangeloving.

But in the matter of IES, standing against it was, on the surface, not that big an ask. To read that as many as 20 clusters have volunteered is disappointing. Not much was being asked, they just had to display solidarity and wait. To see so many principals capitulating, undermining the stand of others and, even more seriously, the organisation that represents them – a representation to be even more needed in the future – was mildly sickening, but I understood, my understanding of human nature forces me to understand.

As it happens, I am presently working on a Primary School Diary that has me in 1989 standing outside the Hamilton Education Board knowing that I was going to have to spend the rest of my life fighting against or ameliorating as I saw it, the education effects of ruthlessly uncaring governments and their strangeloving fan club.

But then again, I suppose my free will gave me little scope for choice.

It was 1957, I was 18, in my second year at Auckland Teachers Training College and I had just come out of a film – a film about the First World War – Paths of Glory – starring Kirk Douglas who as Colonel Dax fought and failed to defend six French soldiers on charges of cowardice for refusing to participate in a suicidal attack. They were shot.

I walked out of the Regent Theatre, blinked in the harsh sunlight, turned left up Queen Street and left again up Wellesley, I can remember myself by the Art Gallery, the tears streaming down my face, saying, ‘I’m never going to let the buggers wear me down.’ A puny human vow, I know, in the face of life’s outrageous fortunes, but there it is, a formative moment, or more accurately, a moment of what had already formed. (It has come as something of an insight to realise that Dr Strangelove and Paths of Glory were both by Stanley Kubrick.)

In 1990, in the first issue of Network Magazine I wrote:

The failings of New Zealand society were somehow made the failings of New Zealand schools. In other words, the failure by adults to succeed in what they wanted to do in the wider sphere was blamed on schools, which eventually meant New Zealand children had to bear the consequences of adult failure. For example, the failure to continue with compulsory superannuation, the main election plank used by Robert Muldoon to gain power, and fear-mongered by the conservative media, had nothing to do with schools, everything to do with right-wing mythology and the quest for power. Schools, however, are bearing and will bear the scapegoating social and economic consequences of this monumental failure of adult imagination and judgement.

Please principals, can’t you see, except where it has worsened, nothing has changed. This New Right argument, imported from overseas, is laying waste to what could have been an outstanding education system – the education of a generation of children diminished and the professional lives of teachers ravaged.

And I wrote:

Power should be shared throughout the education system, and various checks and balances be in place to stop it becoming too concentrated. It is only in this way that children will gain some protection from the vagaries of educational and political ideas, and the human drive to control and dominate. The powerlessness of the young, the fact of them being young, makes school-children tempting targets for those who want to turn schools into battlegrounds for competing visions of what society ought to be.

Please principals, just as ‘schools governing themselves’ was the false siren call for Tomorrow’s Schools, so is the call for ‘co-operation’ (of the imposed sort being advocated) for today’s schools. What is needed is for our education system to be organised as set out in the preceding paragraph.

And I wrote:

The reins will be loose as schools are encouraged to buy into Tomorrow’s Schools but they will soon be tightened to horrific effect.

Please principals, if you are not really a strangelover, let’s not be suckered again.

Is strangeloving most principals? Of course not.

Is it a significant number? No.

An influential number – yes – and I’m sorry to say, providing a model for principals coming through the ranks. Strangeloving principals can be very good principals, indeed, their ability to run a good school, can often be a key part of their justificatory argument for their strangeloving and betrayal. Their mantra can be: I can’t do anything about the politics of education [and in a way they actually can’t, as explained above], I’ll just do what I’m told and do the best I can within that. The reality, though, is that the narrowing and tightening of boundaries they are willing to settle for, on other principals has a dispiritingly burdensome effect and on children a tragic diminution of education richness.

I have listened to the moral reasoning of these principals over the decades and have, I believe, a clear view of the main strangeloving recourses employed as they go about their decision making. The main recourse has overwhelmingly been to see the benign in whatever governments have come up with on the way to seeing the good even the beautiful. That is strangeloving.

These principals, on the basis of their circumvented sense of free will, look unremittingly on the bright side of government decisions and learn to love them. That is strangeloving.

These principals see government education decisions on the basis of their surface intentions; accepting the good faith of governments through thick and thin. What governments see is what they see, what governments say is what they say. That is strangeloving.

See no evil, see only good. That is strangeloving.

If there is no moral problem recognised there is no moral problem to be solved. That is strangeloving, indeed, the essence of it.

To have strangeloved through six years of National government education policy represents something exceptional, a degree of naivety so profound, a free will so circumvented, as to suggest transcendental disjunction.

For these principals, as education has become more hierarchical and the curriculum a caricature, they have come to feel comfortable with being part of that particular chain of hierarchical control and that kind of curriculum – a curriculum carved up into small pieces for control, and school education being able to be tied up neatly in an organisational bow.

As for the education review office, the bearers of the sharp end of government control – no problem, give them what they want, even more so – then these principals, in all sincerity, can say they have no problems with the review office.

I think it is generally agreed by dispassionate observers that clusters under the new system will become the new unit of the primary education system and a strengthened bureaucratic extension of the ministry and education review office. There will be softly-softly early on to help the strangelovers come to terms with the policy on the way to loving it and then to expressing their profound support for it, but the structure to emerge from that will be a government-aligned principal (from secondary schools if possible) who will take control of key areas, including, of course, the freedom of school principals and boards of trustees to make public statements. This will be of particular significance as each cluster faces its turn to be Christchurched and worse.

The expert and lead teacher system will become a crucial source of bureaucratic patronage and the main line for career advancement. Much will be made of schools helping other schools, and there will be some of that, but the main effect will be to narrow education for control and standardisation.

In the more immediate, clusters will be used against public schools in the manner of charter schools. They will be used for show purposes, to become the focus of heavy bureaucratic and government propaganda; to demonise standout schools; to become the  darling of the media and the Act Party; and to slather teacher organisations as obstructionist, even set up NZEI for some kind of deregistering. Effort will be made by some, for instance, STA, to create division between principals and boards of trustees, and the clusters will appear as little oases of privilege (they won’t be in reality, though, because much of the ‘privilege’ will be misdirected).

Peter Hughes – Orwell’s O’Brien – will be portray himself as the good guy – really one of us – someone principals can trust, do a deal with. But Hughes for all his practised charm is just another deeply educationally ignorant bureaucrat appointed to pull the wool over teachers’ eyes.  He is entirely unacquainted with New Zealand’s holistic and child-centred education, the idea of education for the whole child, the idea of education for creativity and imagination, and the idea of competing ideas arising from variety in education.

Well – is your principal a strangelover? Oh, and by the way, did he or she give you a say in the decision?

The main point of this posting is that amongst the 20 clusters referred to, there will be principals who may have some residual fight left in them, some greater loyalty to the wider group, some greater sense of a more independent free will – they may have gone along with the local group led by a strangeloving principal or small group of strangeloving ones – this posting is a plea to them to reconsider. It will, I know, take especial courage to alter course, but I leave that heartfelt plea out there.

As for the future of IES, the future for primary school education – the election result puts me in the position of having to say I don’t know – what I do know, though, is that we should hunker down, stick together, support and trust our teacher organisations, and take one thing at a time; we cannot now blast the government off course, but we can conduct a low level but steadfast and dignified battle of attrition. I also know that some flawed individuals, admittedly impelled ones, heading off on a self-deceiving adventure is not the way to go. In the prevailing circumstances, struggling against something close to an education evil might not bring garlanded victory but to struggle against evil can be uplifting, and in history has an honourable place, indeed, is the very stuff of history and the part I find most inspiring.

Put another way: Don’t let the buggers wear you down.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Education Policy, Principals and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to IES betrayal: pity them, pity us, and pity the generations of children to come

  1. kmccready says:

    Well said. Again! Thanks.

  2. kellyned says:

    An awesome analysis of the situations and motivations of some. There is also hope that Boards will see the folly of joining a system that will take top principals and staff from their schools. Certainly a Board I am connected with would oppose the NZSTA stance and sees no sense in joining a cluster.
    My father uses a phrase which is probably rough ‘Latin’ “Nil bastardo carborundum” which I imagine you can a translation for.
    I am determined to stand up and have challenged others to do the same. I can’t countenance doing otherwise.
    Kia kaha.
    Nil bastardo carborundum

  3. marion says:

    The essential problem is, that by their very nature principals have a tendency to believe in hierarchies and authority. You don’t get to be a principal by thinking too critically, but by meeting all the right criteria. From that mindset it’s just a short step to strangeloving. Much easier to justify the appalling decisions of those above while you implement them, than to stand up, speak out and fight.
    Great post. Dispiriting, but you’re spot on.

    • Paul says:

      Marion, you may be surprised but many Principals, including me, are just as opposed to what is going on as you teachers are. Indeed, I know of many who do their best eveyday to protect their staff from the rubbish that comes across their desk so as to allow them to do their job the way we would all want our teachers to. Often Principals have the thankless task of trying to please everyone. There are plenty though who are fighting the good fight and will continue to do so actually on behalf of the children in their schools, their community, and for the teachers and other staff that they work with. It is important that Principals and teachers work positively together to do what is best for the children rather than labelling each other as this and that.

  4. Leon says:

    It’s not just that the principals believe in authoritarianism, its that the discourse of neoliberalism positions anyone in the public-sector that is resistant to market-based reform as self-centred, unaccountable bureaucrats. To quote Pierre Bourdieu: “For these new governors by divine right, not only reason and modernity but also the movement of change are on the side of the governors – ministers, employers or ‘experts’; unreason and archaism, inertia and conservatism are on the side of the people, the trade unions and critical intellectuals.”

  5. Yvonne Duncan says:

    I agree that teachers, principals and their unions should unite against the neoliberal ideas being used by government to attack our state education system.
    What is the plan of resistance when the Education Amendment Bill No 2 is passed?
    This Bill abolishes the current Teachers’ Council and replaces it with a new council to which the Minister of Education will make all 9 appointments removing right of the profession to make any. Teachers will still be supporting this new council financially by paying their registration fees.
    I believe it is insulting to teachers to have no control over their own profession.

  6. Kelvin says:

    Unfortunately Yvonne, re the cluster system, principals are falling away at a rate of knots and teachers are being left in their wake.

    • Paul says:

      I’m not sure that this is true Kelvin. I have a copy of an NZEI pie chart which show the very great majority of Auckland Primary Principals either remain against IES or ‘don’t know’. The BOTslook to be about the same. Whilst in Northland BOT’s opposition remains even greater than in Auckland. Unless someone is being dishonest it does not not appear to be a major shift towards IES.

  7. Kelvin says:

    Unfortunately, the many don’t knows do know. But my moves are to get in early and stop any potential rot. There have been a number of clusters tentatively forming, somewhat below the radar,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s