Disturbing CoL developments

CoLs have been introduced using  a copycat of the process used for Tomorrow’s Schools: the idealistic conceptual cover to appeal to typically kind-hearted, classroom teachers – for Tomorrow’s Schools, freedom – for  Cols, collaboration;  a tumultuous drumbeat of propaganda; organisational change being presented as a final solution to complex problems (including Maori education and the economically disadvantaged); the use of fear of consequences for principals who don’t go along; the promise of power rewards for those who do; the assumption by the government that that teacher organisations would be there for the taking (counting on their passivity, naivety, inability to play the long-game, and a lack of imagination (where is it all heading?).

A Labour Coalition might be a disrupter, but going on the Clark years, that might not be sufficient.

As well as the bureaucratic control of CoLs which will exponentially increase, the key aspect to watch is the control of knowledge. Teacher knowledge will be belittled and proscribed; narrow academic knowledge, bureaucratic knowledge, and privatised knowledge will idealised and imposed (with private education companies acting as an extension of government). As well, to cover the failure of the education system there will be a continuing reliance on high stakes assessment inflation and fantastical propaganda. In this way both the government and schools will be protected, only the children will suffer consequences.

Let us for the moment put CoLs aside and ask what is it that most teachers and principals would ask for to help them in their classrooms and schools?

  • Smaller classes
  • Abolition of national standards
  • More freedom to teach and lead a school
  • Less bureaucracy
  • A system based on a genuine valuing of variety
  • More funding for Maori and Pasifika children (please note: increases in funding will only produce value if complemented by changes in classroom practices)
  • More funding for educationally-disadvantaged children.
  • More funding for children with special needs
  • More funding for schools
  • A balanced advisory group to provide guidance on the use of computers in schools
  • Changes to the school review process
  • Access to informed and independent advisers in all the curriculum areas
  • Staffing for more specialised teachers including the teaching of Maori
  • Choice in the matter of school architecture from a variety of styles
  • Teacher-developed knowledge taking its place with bureaucratic and academic knowledge
  • Genuine partnership and collaboration in policy initiation and development.

I can imagine teachers and principals responding to the idea of meeting together on a regular and organised basis to exchange ideas, but that could be easily attained through some minimal government funding and principal and teacher organisations working together at a local level to set up a structure to administer.

CoLs in my view will achieve none of the matters listed above, indeed, will determinedly undermine them. For the opportunity for groups of teachers to get together at the local level, a huge cost is going to be borne by all schools, teachers, and children.

Teacher organisations by supporting the introduction of CoLs have lost the moral authority to criticise government policy: all the developments that have occurred were known to them at the time, but they knew better, or it served them to know better. The new minister will deflect by continually referring to what CoLs and computers can achieve. Teacher organisations, principals, and teachers by plumping for CoLs have abandoned, for instance, any chance of a meaningful increase of funding for Maori and Pasifika children. Computers, in particular, will be proposed as the panacea for those groups. The cynicism is appalling.

I calculate that the money being spent on CoLs, when they are fully functioning, would be worth about $85 thousand per year for an average size primary school. Consider the most recent changes: 106 CoLs have had Expert Partners appointed to them; as well CoLs will have access to CoL Senior Advisers. These people by the way aren’t expert, partners, or advisers – the lack of expertise will be obvious right away, but not being partners or advisers may take a little longer. They will, instead, be your controllers, agents of the centre who, as part of that, will report back on you to the centre.

You have let a neoliberal wooden horse into your space.

Soon social workers will be attached to CoLs with the intention of establishing Learning Support Teams to assess each learner’s need and to agree on the kind of support needed. A Learning Support Pilot has been established which, of course, isn’t a pilot but an exercise in propaganda with the Pilot assured of success. Schools already know what learners need and how to carry it out, but they need the funding to do it, they don’t need a committee for that. The Pilot Team will also ‘provide parents and whanau with some immediate steps to take, and develop a local learning support plan with them.’ Given the lack of funding and the bureaucracy involved, the idea will work brilliantly as a Pilot to become a burden in the long run.

You can see where all this is heading?

Rather than reduce bureaucracy another layer will be added.

I have received information from within the ministry that the intention is to direct funded help to the so-called targeted delinquency-bound children, and redirect other children, especially those with learning needs, as against behaviour characteristics, back to the schools with the so-called learning support plan.

That won’t surprise you, neither will the information that the education review office is working with the ministry about their expectations of schools in CoLs, with a large amount of material being passed back and forth.  This process is to be formalised within the bureaucracies.

A further move is to squeeze out a lot of the accredited advisers in favour of private education companies, for instance, CORE, COGNITION, and Evaluation Associates. The education review office, the ministry, and the private education companies are all working together to take control of CoLs and restrict the knowledge available to schools. In respect to this collusion, you will have noted, or will note, that when one of those companies comes to your school, the matter might be innovative learning (excuse my laughter) or inquiry learning (oh dear) but the speaker seems to be coming at it from a strange angle, but then you twig, you are in for a couple of hours on collaboration and the wonderful things CoLs are going to deliver.

I don’t know whether these developments and others have been done following consultation with the teacher organisations or whether they have had any second thoughts. Reading between the lines, Whetu Cormack, president NZPF, is opposed to CoLs, but to do anything significant in response would divide the organisation. Whetu is doing well overall but the die has been cast, the government, bureaucrats, academics, and private companies scored 6 (apparently also NZEI which supported CoLs); but children (especially vulnerable ones), teachers who want the freedom to teach holistically, and principals who put children ahead of the blandishments of power scored 1.

We have had a quarter of a century of centralised bureaucratic control and education review office domination and we are not OK. But here we have another organisational change, another layer of bureaucracy, and the prospect of another quarter of a century of the same but worse. Of course there are some benefits in CoLs, but how significant compared with alternative funding uses; even more important is where will CoLs be in a few years? The support given by NZEI to CoLs, complete with an unbalanced membership vote, was decisive – NZEI could only have been thinking of their membership not the welfare of children when they supported CoLs (the idea via England multinational education corporations, John Hattie, and Treasury). My heart goes out to Maori, Pasifika, and economically-disadvantaged children. Oh yes – there will be heaps of talk but only to constitute mounds of rubbish. Collaboration is being used as a bureaucratic control tactic because it can only work in the interests of children if it is also a system characteristic:  what is good for the local goose, it must be insisted, can only be good if characteristic of the central gander.

Can anyone, any organisation, do something, anything?

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

17 Responses to Disturbing CoL developments

  1. Kelvin says:

    From a ministry employee:

    Thank goodness for you.

    From where I’m sitting in the ministry, CoLs are a joke.

    Thanks for using my information so powerfully. The ministry is starting to apply significant pressure to any pockets of resistance. The recent impositions are getting the final structure in place. I laugh at the Bay of Plenty Pilot group taking it all so seriously, it’s a ruse. It’s happening no matter what.

    Super principals are being paid ludicrous amounts to do … all.

    And you are so right, principals and teachers are buying favours by reporting on teachers and principals in the group.

    Our only (yes there are a number of us) pleasure in the matter is how annoyed the seniors are when they read you revealing their hand.

    • Vern Stevens says:

      Haha I love it.

    • Frances Goulton says:

      Thank you for your honesty. No matter where you sit in education CoLs as the execution of the great collaboration is so far from collaboration, we will without knowing change the meaning of the word forever.

  2. kellyned says:

    You are so right Kelvin.
    I have connections with two CoLs. Principals within each (my school could be a member of either but we are not) express feelings of frustration about waste of time; no meaningful outcomes; layers of extra bureaucracy; less than ideal leadership appointments; protracted timeframes for accessing PLD; additional ‘experts being employed; dominating MoE guidelines (lack of democracy); endless meetings. And so the list goes on. These frustrations and doubts are never expressed openly but usually over a cuppa off to the side as they all know I am outside of the CoLs.
    All of this is being tolerated in the ‘hope’ of improved outcomes for kids. Outcomes by what measure? Nat Standards junk data? NCEA manipulations?
    The whole thing is unsustainable madness. NZ teachers have a reputation for making bad systems work but I have serious doubts about even kiwi teachers making this one work.

  3. Sue McIntosh says:

    And this, sadly, is why I took the opportunity to leave NZ primary education.

  4. Clint Green says:

    What astounds me is how once again so many within the profession are buying into the Cols. un believable waste of taxpayer funds.

  5. Bruce Hammonds says:

    Couldn’t agree more Kelvin. These , so called communities learning have no right to be called communities – communities are based on shared values and mutual respect. They are collaborations to gain finance and professional development. Those who join are collaborators and they will be pressured to take only ministry approved professional development – more mind control by paid contractors – and be judged by their achievement of ministry approved targets. The ministry is run by neo liberal technocrats who are instructed to impose a surveillance culture based on the collection of data – nothing to do with broader educational aims.

    The sad thing is educational achievement is trending downwards since Tomorrows Schools – as you predicted it would.

    • Emma says:

      Then there is the issues with using only registered facilitators to oversee the CoLs – it’s its so hard to become registered
      A number of specialist subject experts from subject associations have tried and been rejected. One criteria is to be working for a PDL company yet contractors, lecturers and facilitators around the country in Universities are almost phased out esp in areas such as the Arts and this is half the problem – not enough specialist training in the initial training

  6. John Carrodus says:

    Like Sue above, one of the reasons I tossed in the rag. Special interest interference in school operations is now an art form in NZ. The waste of time and teacher attention stolen from students is appalling. Most principals I know, still meet and talk to, feel COLs are a dreadful mistake. All this amazing training and upskilling, and our fake data overall still tells us our kids circling the toilet. With all this outside hands on schools stuff, it is surprising that BOTs are not required to spend 30% of their time to train and upskill. Unlike teachers, they are obviously trusted and know what they are doing! Perhaps they will be next?

  7. George says:

    Auckland George writes:

    CoLs are already a pointless burden. Competing schools playing Happy Families. Who will stop the rot … all the time wasting?

    NZ Herald has run a verbose education series over the week. Huge numbers walking out on teaching acknowledged but it is not just the housing Simon Collins and not just the pay! No it’s the hopeless bureaucratic time-wasting.

  8. A Waikato intermediate principal says:

    A Waikato intermediate principal writes:

    We have been in a CoL for over a year and have yet to see any benefits for the learners. It seems like it is a whole lot of money just being poured into a big black hole.

    The MoE will not hear anything against CoLs they have all been brainwashed into towing the party line I think.

  9. Senior Auckland principal says:

    Hi Kelvin

    Meant to email you after your excellent posting ‘The government dismantling of public education and reflections on resistance’. Sadly I thought it was an a very accurate summation. I copied it to all my staff. Your final sentence said it all !! I feel very depressed about where we are at in NZ education.

    Our future is being prescribed by bureaucrats ( no doubt some of them well meaning) with little or no experience in schools. and who are just puppets in a political game.

    Not sure whether you saw Alan Duff’s article in the NZ herald last week. I thought it was excellent, especially the bit about policy making and his ‘solution’ to so called consultants.

    Your posting on CoLS this morning equally accurate and depressing. No surprises…I still feel betrayed by NZEI …II is never too late to admit a mistake but I doubt that they will.

    Not sure what we can do but somehow we have to get the voices of rank and file teachers and principals heard.

    I have just emailed NZPF thanking Whetu for pursuing some of the points he has made but also saying we need a ‘bigger movement’ to achieve anything that will make a difference;

    Hope you are well……we can only keep fighting for what we believe is right.

    Warm regards

  10. Plus Onel says:

    And again NZEI fell into a confused space. At first it was ‘don’t join, wait and see, resistance would lead to change in policy’ then it became ‘lets get in and change it’ now it is ‘some stories of CoL success’ but we still aren’t happy’. For goodness sake someone in NZEI s their Col implementation advisor!

    At a recent meeting of principals in Whangarei a usually staunch principal announced she joined (and has become the leader) of a Col because she felt let down durig the National Standards debacle. I understood how she felt as too many who fought the good fight then got left standing alone as NZEI failed to organise. but it sounded too much like ‘I lost the last war so now I’m joing the enemy’ to me.

    I’m tired of NZEI’s platitudes around the members being the union – we pay the union to advise and organise if they can’t or wont do it why do we need them ?

  11. What I see as the eventual outcome of CoLs is all American. Schools will lose their individuality and identity as CoLs morph into School Boards with Ministry appointed Board Members. As Principals will find it too difficult to lead such organisations as well as their school a Superintendent will be appointed from the business world to take over the reigns. Funding including Teachers Salaries will no longer go to individual schools but will be pooled together for the Board through the Superintendent to distribute. Of course they will take their exorbitant salaries out first. This will eventually lead to schools losing their experienced teachers because they are paid too much. Smaller schools will be closed down to save money on property and staffing costs etc, etc etc.
    Does this sound over the top? Well let’s just wait and see. CoLs are a money saving exercise that will open the door for the business world to enter further into the field of education.

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.