Controversial posting about Communities of Schools (Part 1)

(Part 2 will be an email dialogue between a principal and NZEI)

The real purpose of the Communities of Schools is to aggregate schools for ease of government control and propaganda.

Given there is still in place a non-accountable education review office; the exclusion of teachers from policy formation; the exclusion of teachers from the teachers council; national standards; a curriculum based on measurable objectives; a curriculum developed on a continuous basis in review and ministry offices; a curriculum based on there being one way of doing things; systemic bullying and fear-based control; professional development as an extension of the bureaucracies; academia controlled by contracts; and a vast and intrusive centralised propaganda machine – what else could be the purpose?

The government came to the discussions on Communities of Schools with their neoliberal changes to the education system non-negotiable; NZEI should have rejected that and insisted on genuine change before negotiation could begin. How can Communities of Schools work to the advantage of schools and children under the existing organisational strictures of exclusion, imposition, and fear? Fair dealing and trust must go together for fair dealing to be fair dealing. Without changes to the existing control, exclusion of teachers, and measurement policies – the Communities of Schools’ policy, if acted on, will only intensify and serve to embed the harmful characteristics of the present system. How can schools work together in fair dealing if the government refuses to do so in the wider system?

The present education system is antithetical to any chance of children’s learning and welfare being a priority; yes at the centre of attention, but not the priority. The priority is control, control by various groups of adults, through bewildering layers of bureaucracy. Boards of trustees interlinked with an increasingly hostile-to-teachers School Trustees Association; Communities of Schools to be the next layer, close up and personal and intertwined with all the other levels; the contracted universities and professional development contractors working as an extension of the ministry; and then there is a hyped up education review office; a ministry working at local and central level spreading its tentacles to control all the bureaucratic layers; and the newly developed EDUCANZ set to tighten even further controls over principals, and what the curriculum is and how it should be organised.

The teacher organisations have just stood by, helpless, bewildered, platitudinous, and lacking philosophical depth; as result, they have allowed themselves to be drawn in to become part of those bureaucratic layers; therefore part of the problem. They have not developed the subtlety to grasp the potency of the symbolic stance; for instance, just standing apart from the government and saying ‘no’ – we can’t stop you, but we are not going to be part of it, and we will be telling the public and our members why. Such a policy takes moral strength, and it can be lonely, as the customary hobnobbing won’t be on offer – teacher organisation leaders would have to generate their own power from their members and the public rather than doing favours for the government for increased access and crumbs in return. There is also some risk to vocational prospects; this government can make life difficult for those who speak out. It is playing the longer game but it is the principled one that keeps alive the possibility of a sane and honest education system to replace the present one of madness and pervasive propaganda.

 

The Communities of Schools is going to be a snitch paradise. I have documentary evidence that figures in Communities of Schools are already reporting details to the ministry about principals who don’t want their school to be in a Community of Schools but the board does, and so on. Communities of Schools might elect their leaders but it is the snitches who will have the power.

Readers will have noted how Hekia Parata in an earlier posting was shown to have lied in the House, declaring that out-of-school influences on learning are 18% when the report she supposedly gleaned that 18% from, concluded it was 78%. (One reader commented that it might not have been a case of lying at all but of needing to go to Specsavers.) The lie was not accidental, it was crucial, crucial to the establishment of government’s Communities of Schools’ policy of putting primary schools under unrelenting high stakes pressure to ‘encourage’ them, by hook or by crook, to get to 85%. The education review office is buzzing at the prospect with plans well advanced to descend like a plague of locusts on schools. When most schools ‘reach’ that figure, as most will (you know what I mean); it will be exploited as a triumph for government policy and boon for propaganda. The message communicated will be that for school improvement, all that is needed is the government setting targets and demanding schools achieve them. The obverse message will be that schools do not need increased funding or efforts to improve the socio-economic circumstances of children. To reinforce that message, first there was Parata with a bad faith article in the Herald, in effect talking up the 18% concept; followed a week later by Barbara Ala’alatoa, chairperson for the teacher-demeaning EDUCANZ, with her own bad faith article, going on in mini-Hattie style about ‘decile not being destiny’. (I would like to introduce an education version of Godwin’s Law – Smythe’s Law – in which any playing of the Hattie card means discussion comes to an end and the argument lost.) The two Herald articles in quick succession were pretty clearly a stunt organised by one of the minister’s 26 strong media relations pack. There is something terribly wrong with education today: we ask little children (and all ages) to come unto schools but their welfare isn’t a priority; oh yes in words, but not in actions, especially policy action.

There is already enough inflation in national standards figures in primary without having them descend to the horror level to be found in NCEA Level 2. If a secondary principal in your area is pontificating in support of a Community of Schools, remember that it can be guaranteed that he or she knows exactly what I mean. We don’t want to go there Secondary School Principal even though you look as though butter wouldn’t melt in your mouth. In fact, we want to get out of the high stakes destructiveness altogether to an honest and transparent way of proceeding.

The implementation of the Communities of Schools is not being done in good faith, has no prospect of being, and the policy should be returned to NZEI members for discussion.

The principal’s initial email was to Graham Jones; then Stephanie Mills came into the picture: a senior NZEI staff member – experienced, high-minded, and intelligent – who can be observed doing a good job in a near indefensible situation. The principal proceeds to cogently demonstrate the NZEI policy on Communities of Schools as muddleheaded and seriously wrong.

From a principal to NZEI about CoS 

To: Graham Jones <graham@nzei.org.nz>

Good afternoon, Graham

I see that the PPTA Collective Agreement has been signed including any variations agreed during the term of the last collective. That would mean to me the structure of CoS with the way roles are allocated. As far as that goes there is still a mismatch between what was agreed by the PPTA and that agreed by the NZEI in the CoL model. It’s still the elephant in the room, or am I completely misreading it? Still two models?

To be continued in Part 2

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

5 Responses to Controversial posting about Communities of Schools (Part 1)

  1. Kelvin says:

    A Christchurch principal wrote: Keep up the great work Kelvin, there’s many of us who quietly agree, and you’re often the only person we hear trying to be the voice of reason for principals and students.

    Thanks so much.

  2. Sharon says:

    Thank you for putting into words what our hearts are feeling. I am attending an NZEI meeting on Thursday. Will your part2 be public by then? Thank you for being the same voice in this craziness!

    Sharon
    Teacher

    • Kelvin says:

      Thank-you Sharon – for email reasons I have far more principal readers; when I produced Network Magazine in the ’90s I was able to get to teachers big time, for me it was fabulous to be able to do so. Yes – Part 2 will be out – NZEI doesn’t come across as terrible, I like the staffers, it’s the executive that is letting us down. It’s a kind of like banging your head against the wall. The principal was brave to do what he did, and the way he is standing out. But he and other brave souls need protection. All the best Sharon.

  3. John Carrodus says:

    The confusing truth about IES.
    NZEI represent primary teachers.(good) IES was mooted by the government to hog tie teachers, schools, boards of trustees and especially principals.(bad) NZEI said to it’s members….”Let’s talk about this.” (sort of good) But NZEI also said to the government….”Let’s talk about this.” (bad and dumb) STA said ..”What a good idea, everyone should talk about it.” And…”Parents will LOVE it!” (bad and crafty) MOE folk said…”We have lot’s of people writing papers and PhDs on this REALLY NEAT IDEA. We think it’s the bees knees.”(both bad & misguided) Schools said…”But we’ve been doing this already for years and years!”(good & also very true) Paramilitary Education Consultants said….”This is the future for NZ Education.Inc….and will be fantastic for business!” (mad) The government said…”It will be good for kids achievement.”without showing how or why(bad, very bad) In the meantime, (predictably)- IES became COS.(identity confusion is really good when you’re losing an argument) Other influential groups and individuals expressed reservation and sometimes little opinion at all.(sad) In the meantime, NZEI took it to their members, who by now could see the way this was all going to end ..and gave up the will to live or vote. (tragic and also sadly inevitable) So now we have schools and their boards saddled with yet another monkey on their back. (bad, especially for kids) Schools will inherit a new world of flying teachers, rent a principal and a raft of employment, insurance, liability, health and safety, and governance issues from here to eternity.(shocking waste) We had a fully electric! as close to 100% pure efficient primary system which was uncontaminated by political interferences, now replaced by an old coal fired steam engine that will consume 85% of itself in internal friction to pull half the load. (Now called COL..community of litigation perhaps? )This ain’t no bullet train folks.
    Welcome to the Limited Express.
    (A cup of warm tea and a cold pie will be served before a final downhill slide into Wellington.
    Try not to choke!)

  4. Kelvin says:

    You are something of a genius with your style of writing. So much wisdom encapsulated in your Alice in Wonderland prose. Terrific and thank-you.

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