MrBainbridge

In 1989, the Lange Labour Government introduced the revolutionary concept known as “Tomorrow’s Schools” – a world leading experiment in self management and self governance for New Zealand schools. Centralised control was gone; local Education Boards and the Department of Education were abolished. A slimmed down Ministry of Education was established and each of the country’s 2700 schools were governed by a locally elected Board of Trustees with wide ranging responsibilities for site based management and governance including staffing, maintenance and full control and discretion of the school’s bulk grant. Section 75 of the Education Act 1989 states:

“except to the extent that any enactment or the general law of New Zealand provides otherwise, a school’s board has complete discretion to control the management of the school as it thinks fit.”

Schools ran with this brave new concept from the beginning and never looked back. The shackles of centralised control had been broken and schools were free to take control of their own destinies. They appointed their own staff, maintained their own buildings and built new rooms, new amenities and undertook new initiatives. We entered a world in which education was both progressive and entrepreneurial. The self management concept was further extended in the 1990′s with the introduction of bulk funding where schools who wished could also self manage teacher salaries and determine how and what to spend this money on. A government white paper explored the possibility of making teacher’s resource centres and Advisory Services contestable ie: the money would be redirected to schools who would then buy in services from the best provider. Another change of government and intense pressure from teacher unions saw the concept of bulk funding and contestable advisory services dropped.

It’s ironic that the Labour government that introduced the then radical concept of self management and self governance a decade or so later has also been responsible for its demise. Events in the last three years have seen a resurgence of centralised control, a gross increase in compliance and compliance checking and an erosion in local control and autonomy. The empire strikes back! The strangled death of Tomorrow’s Schools by present government policy is de-motivating to principals and Boards of Trustees and flies in the face of current developments in Britain, Australia and parts of the United States – again ironic in that Australia in particular looked to our system as a model of excellence.

What are the changes? As previously mentioned, local control over teachers salaries (bulk funding) was removed and contestability of teachers centres and advisory services never saw the light of day. The previous independent Special Education Service has now become part of the Ministry of Education and renamed Group Special Education (the “Directorate” was considered for its new name). Where as schools could previously act as their own fundholders, this ability has now been considerably curtailed.

Compliance has greatly increased with most returns to the Ministry now have to be co-signed by the Chairman of the Board and in the case of one form relating to foreign fee paying students, having to be witnessed by a Justice of the Peace. Many primary schools had got into the lucrative foreign students market but the Minister changed the regulations so that foreign students under 10 years old were prevented from coming to New Zealand schools unless accompanied by their parents. This has deprived schools of significant amounts of extra funding which was used to employ extra staff, build extra facilities and buy extra resources. In addition to three yearly reviews by the Education Review Office, and annual financial audits, schools are also subject to review for roll audit and E.S.O.L. funding audit.

All schools are required to complete both 10 year and 5 year property plans. As a result of new requirements in regard to School Planning and Reporting, all schools had to review and basically re-write school charters, provide annual plans and annual goals and then report on variances to the Annual Plan goals to the Ministry. Regardless, of both Ministry and Ministerial protestations to the contrary, this requirement imposed considerable work and consultation for schools and is regarded at best as just another extension of bureaucratic accountability. Good schools have always strategically planned and set achievement targets to improve achievement. The consensus among principals is that the new plans do nothing to increase the achievement of children, just satisfy the current political whim.

More and more, New Zealand schools are having their self management eroded, replaced by a centralised, bureaucratic, “one size fits all” model. The degree of self management allowed is now determined by the level of competence of the lowest common denominator.

To restore true self management and governance and give schools the freedom and challenge to pursue excellence, new reforms are necessary. A restoration of bulk funding / direct resourcing is essential. As many support services as possible should be made contestable with their budgets distributed to schools who would then buy the service from the best possible provider. All Ministry reporting requirements should be reviewed by user groups and either simplified or removed. Different forms of school governance organisation could be considered with opportunity for successful schools to operate over several campuses (ie: take over unsuccessful schools). Compulsory school zones should be abolished and market forces allowed to determine successful / failing schools. Reporting requirements to the Ministry could also become more meaningful with schools requirement to report to the Ministry (and the community) how they had spent specifically tagged money and on achievement standards. Although contentious to the teacher unions, national standardised testing would give good benchmark levels for achievement improvement.

We need to return to site based autonomy of management and governance where local needs can be prioritised and actioned by local decision making and by encouraging competition, higher standards of achievement can be achieved. However, for those schools without the necessary skills or personnel, a Ministry supported model should also be available. Under the present political regime, “Tomorrow’s Schools” have become “Yesterday’s School’s” and we again need to look forwards, not keep stumbling backwards.

There is only one thing stronger than all the armies in the world and that is an idea whose time has come. – Victor Hugo

(quoted on the homepage of the Sensible Sentencing Trust website)

In 2004 it is likely that the New Zealand Government may change the law to ban the use of physical force on children, by parents. This will generate much debate about parental rights and state inference versus the need to protect children from parental abuse. At present Section 59 of the Crimes Act allows parents the legal right to use ‘reasonable force’ to discipline their children. We need to carefully and honestly consider the facts that have brought about this forthcoming debate; New Zealand leads the world in child abuse statistics.

Periodically, as a nation we are shocked by media saturation of another child murder. But the Corel Ellens and Lillybings are quite quickly forgotten as is our disgust as a nation and our pledges to do better. Our young and defenceless are being murdered at an alarming rate, not by strangers, but by parents and step parents. A Unicef study (2002) shows New Zealand children are more likely to be killed as a result of abuse than those in any other country in the western world, (Sunday Star Times, 5th January 2004). We are one of only four countries where child death rates from abuse have got worse since the 1970′s.

The shameful facts that we need to be honest about are that:
- Serious physical abuse of children in New Zealand is on the rise.
- Crimes of violence in general are on the rise.
- Children are dramatically more likely to be physically or sexually abused by someone they know or trust, rather than by a stranger.
- Children are dramatically more likely to be murdered by someone they know or trust, rather than by a stranger.

Quite simply, the murder and abuse of our children can no longer go on. It is a national shame and the remedy must take precedence over political correctness, parental rights, religious or ethnic sensitivity.

We can no longer go on hitting our children. This is an idea whose time has come!

The answer doesn’t just rely on a change in legislation. The answer lies in a change of attitude in us all. We need to adopt a culture of zero tolerance to violence. We need to stop hitting our own children. We need to stop looking away when family members hit their children. We need to do something when we see neighbours hitting their children. We simply can not continue to be tolerant of violence and not wanting to be involved when we witness it. As parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles and neighbours we need to look at ourselves and change our own attitudes. We need to model non-violent behaviour to our children.

In 2004, our parent education theme at Matipo School is going to be ‘No Hitting’. We all know what it is like when we’re under stress but we need to put hitting out of our punishment menu. Count to ten, time out, go to your room, removal of privileges or freedom, extra chores are all normal alternatives. There are community based programmes such as ‘Tough Love’ and P5 Positive Parenting courses available. The James Family, Salvation Army and Waitakere Family Services are available for assistance.

The Canadian researcher Dr Michael Bernard has written extensively on parenting and has identified seven parenting practices:
- Developing positive parent – child relationships by sharing time, interests and setting consistent boundaries and consequences and having fun together.
- Communicate high realistic expectations for achievement and behaviour.
- Creating opportunities for children to be given responsibilities and to be involved in decision making.
- Providing places and activities that accommodate the interests of children.
- Use appropriate motivational methods to encourage children.
- Demonstrate interest and involvement in their lives, their interests, their friends and school.
- Demonstrate and teach them positive attitudes and values.

Basically, we need to love and care for our children. We also have to care about the children of others. We all need to take personal responsibility for the level of violence in our community and the level of violence towards our children. The protection of our children is everyone’s responsibility and the first step to the removal of our national shame is for each of us to change our own attitude towards the physical punishment of children.

NO HITTING!

In February 2003 the Swiss yacht Alinghi skippered by Russell Coutts and financed by Swiss pharmaceutical billionaire Ernesto Bertarelli convincingly beat the New Zealand defender of the America’s Cup 5 – 0 to win the Auld Mug and take it to Europe for the first time in 152 years. Team New Zealand had won the cup in San Diego in 1995 and was thought to have had no trouble defending it for a second time with superior technology, design and local knowledge. The Swiss victory was all the more remarkable in being a first time challenger, starting from scratch with a multi national crew representing fifteen nationalities. What was the Alinghi secret of success and what are the lessons for school management?

The similarities and parallels are patently obvious. Alinghi started the campaign with a very clear vision; they knew what their core purpose was and they didn’t get diverted from it. Their vision was to win the Louis Vuitton Cup (winner of the challenger series) and then move on to the finals against Team New Zealand for the America’s Cup.

They had strong leadership. The afterguard of the boat consisted of Russell Coutts (twice winner of the America’s Cup and Olympic gold medallist), Jochen Schumann (four times Olympic Games medallist) and Ernesto Bertarelli, the navigator and syndicate backer to the tune of NZ $120 million. With the strong vision to win the cup, Bertarelli assembled the best leadership he could both on the water and on the shore.

He also assembled the best team he could with sailors, designers, and shore crew from 15 different countries. Through the vision and leadership and with good support, plant and structures he was able to meld this group of individuals into a formidable winning team, harnessing everybody’s individual strengths into the common good.

Through a strong programme of self review and self reflection every aspect of team organization and boat testing was checked and analysed with close attention to detail. If the small things were right, the big things would be right.

The quality of the planning and the preparation over the three year period was of highest order. Nothing was assumed or left to chance. The Alinghi Syndicate showed a real commitment to excellence and set high standards and expectations. Through the extensive testing and self review programme they embarked on a programme of continuous improvement to the yacht design and sail programme.

Although a well funded campaign, it wasn’t lavish but the standards of the Italian Prada Syndicate or Larry Ellison’s Oracle campaign. The Alinghi campaign was extremely efficient and reeked of professionalism about every aspect of their challenge. At all times they presented with honesty about what they were doing and with positivity about their boat, their progress and their chances.

Alinghi won 22 races out of 25 races in the challenger series and 5 – 0 in the final, completing all races without mishap or gear breakage (Team New Zealand failed to finish two races out of five due to gear breakage).

Without labouring the point too much, what Alinghi demonstrated was all the attributes that we may collectively describe as good management practices, all of which are directly applicable to schools and school management. Both the anectdotal and research evidence of successful schools is that they have strong leadership, a clearly articulated vision and a commitment to excellence, to continuous improvement and to high standards and expectations. Successful schools will have strong staff, good support and structures in place, and a strong self review programme and encouragement of self reflection as part of a systematic planning and preparation emphasis.

Successful schools will be characterized by a strong sense of professionalism, honesty, excitement and positivity. The leadership will be dynamic, risk taking and charismatic. Good staff, support systems and physical plant and resources will be actively sought out and fought for. The continuous improvement cycle will see new sail development tried, keel sizes swapped, alterations made to the bow shape and sometimes staff changes made in critical areas.

The Alinghi success stirred uncharacteristic bitterness and resentment in New Zealand but the talkback mentality was overcome by a consensus that Team New Zealand was beaten by a better boat, with better crew, better preparation and better resourcing. The challenge now for Team New Zealand is to acknowledge the successful aspects of the Alinghi campaign and set out to emulate them, to self reflect on the strengths and failings of the last campaign and to set new goals for the future.

Similarly, schools shouldn’t be bitter or resentful of successful schools but set out to identify what makes them successful, and adopt the Alinghi model of school management. While we won’t all win our America’s Cup, we can all strive to at least be in the contest and compete with our own model of school excellence, with strong crew, good systems and positive outcomes.

With the introduction of the Ministry of Education’s SE2000 initiatives, the role of the RTLB has changed dramatically. ‘Clusters’ of schools were allocated itinerant RTLB’s on a ratio of 1:750. Clusters had a degree of autonomy in the management, allocation and service delivery models of the RTLB’s.

The basis of the new service delivery from RTLB’s was that they would change from providing a traditional 1:1 “remedial” type approach in a withdrawn situation involving special needs pupils (the deficit model) to working with teachers to identify and change the classroom dynamics to better meet the requirements of special needs pupils.

RTLB’s have moved away from working with children, to working with teachers.

The philosophical basis of the new approach is inclusion – working with the teacher to take ownership and responsibility to meet the needs of all the children, within the room. The assessment basis is one of ecological and holistic assessment – looking at all the factors that are impacting on the child’s present situation. Additionally, another assessment factor is that of reflective practice on the part of the teacher – what works, what doesn’t, why?

The methodological basis involves working with the teacher and class. The RTLB will model and train the teacher and class in a number of inclusive practices – peer tutoring, co-operative learning, reciprocal teaching and collaborative consultation. These represent best practice methodology in classroom management and practice.

The philosophy, assessment and methodology in which RTLB’s have been trained and the model in which they are expected to work, should lead to systemic changes in class and school cultures in the way that the needs of all its pupils are met.

SUMMARY OF R.T.L.B. MODEL
Philosophical Basis
Inclusion
Assessment Basis
Ecological Assessment
Reflective Practice
Methodology Practices
Peer Tutoring
Co-operative Learning
Reciprocal Teaching
Collaborative Consultation
Working with Teachers
Working with School Management
Leading to
Systemic changes in the way the school meets the needs of all its pupils
by changes in the way it does things, the planning and teaching etc.
It is apparent that not all RTLB’s are working in this model and that many schools are unaware or resistant to this new model and still cling to the old deficit withdrawal model a.k.a the ‘magic wand’ technique or the ‘out of sight, out of mind’ approach. Such obsolete methods allow schools and teachers to abdicate responsibility for their special needs pupils to the RTLB. The new method is about ownership and changing the class and school culture. It is about whole class and whole school professional and philosophical development. Why is the old model being perpetuated? Because some RTLB’s, despite their recent training, are clinging to their comfort zones and security blankets and because very clearly the SE2000 message to schools has not been effective enough – schools and principals don’t know what the new inclusive model is about. This situation reflects poorly on RTLB training, the MoE SE2000 information packages and schools and principals.

We have adopted the new inclusive model as a best practice example. The rest of this article will explain how and why it works. The concept was introduced to our school by a new RTLB. She discussed the service delivery model with the principal and then conducted two school wide inservice sessions. The first was a staff meeting outlining the role, the second was a practical workshop on a modeled lesson, “Nobody Owns the Sky’. using the staff members as a class.
The first essentials of the why it worked was the personality and the relationships developed by the RTLB.
There has to be energy, vitality and commitment from the RTLB to “sell” the concept and to explain what it involves and what are its advantages.

The second essential is that the concept needs to be driven by the principal. The principal needs to exercise leadership, to be the leading learner and make a strong commitment to the concept and to whole school development and training.
The principal must drive the concept on a school wide basis.

Following our first staff meeting an invitation was made to staff to be involved in the reciprocal teaching / co-operative learning model. One teacher literally jumped across a staffroom coffee table to be the first volunteer. A strong teaching partnership between the RTLB and classroom teacher became established. Dance and language became the vehicle for the teaching of co-operative learning / reciprocal teaching.

Our professional partnership in the classroom allowed me to model and coach the reciprocal teaching, co-operative learning model based on a novel called ‘Hatchet’ by Gary Paulsen. We danced to Destiny’s Child ‘I’m a Survivor’ because this story reflected the themes of survival. We taught the students to ask their own questions through prediction, clarification, inference, recall and summarizing. As teachers and students we all reflected on our own learning and teaching goals. We built relationships and we celebrated and affirmed the changes in our thinking and social skill levels in our teamwork. We managed to begin developing a level of inclusion and co-operation.
RTLB

The skills critical to this success was the knowledge base of the RTLB, the relationship established, the modeling and the positive observational feedback to the teacher. For the teacher, enthusiasm, open mindedness, risk taking and reflective practice were critical factors.

A decision was made by the principal to extend the model school wide and three classes were timetabled to be involved in the programme. What we learnt from this now appears glaringly obvious. It was soon apparent that one teacher wasn’t ‘ready’ to be involved. Some basic classroom management structures were not in place eg: children used to taking turns, attentive listeners, on-task performance etc. The RTLB programme requires some pre-requisite learning and management features already being in place. There was also some obvious resistance and “excuseology” to the programme.

Where the teacher wants to be involved and is prepared to take ownership, to reflect, synthesis, assimilate and generalize the positive attributes of the methodology and philosophy, then the successful outcomes will be assured.
When the teacher doesn’t want to be involved, then the programme will never work.

What are the benefits of the RTLB inclusive model of service delivery? In our school we adopted the model as part of our professional development. Teachers were upskilled in the concepts of inclusive practice, ecological assessment, reflective practice, peer tutoring, co-operative learning, reciprocal teaching and collaborative consultation. They became more risk taking especially in the integration of dance and drama and art in their programme. They taught co-operatively with the RTLB. They taught in a more holistic way.

Pupils noticed a change in the way they treated each other. They took turns, they listened empathetically, they valued the opinions of others with no put downs and also learned to work co-operatively. Their reflections are enlightening, I include just one:

REFLECTION

Ever since Mrs S was here I’ve been understanding more things and realising, that I have to respect more people’s opinions.

I was too scared to stand up and say it but now my clarifying and teamwork has improved. The cohesion exercise helped me to learn more about my class mates.

I realised after reading ‘Hatchet’ that some people are blocked out of civilization, not just because of a plane crash, but because no one noticed them.

Mrs S got us to realise that we need to bring those students out of their shells, who are too scared to stand up and talk.

At the start of all of this, she mentioned Reciprocal teaching and I was like, O.K, what is that? Then I realised that it is actually a really cool thing that I think everyone should learn.

Group work is so much more fun than it used to be. I’ve been setting myself goals that I know I will pass, like the goals I set at the start of the year.

Do you know, I was never that positive. I was not saying that many nice things about people, but now I do to everyone. I say things like “you have cool pants” and “I like your hair.”

Now, in every book I read, I put a dot next to the word I don’t understand and then I look it up in the dictionary and find out the meaning. Then I read on knowing what the story means.

You should be so happy with yourself. You have made us think about others, not only ourselves, and respecting them and including other people.

‘Hatchet’ showed me that no matter what I have to survive, there are people in the world that have it a lot worse than me, and I want to show them that we do care about them in this part of the world. Now I can reflect because of this.

Rosie
Matipo Primary School
October 2001

Finally, how did special needs pupils benefit from this approach? The greatest value is in teachers assuming responsibility and accountability for their special needs pupils – a realization that they can be taught in the room without recourse to withdrawal situations or being flicked off to others. The inclusion training quickly led to strategic seating inclusion – not having the special needs pupils grouped together or sitting in the corner. The co-operative teaching taught children to involve and value everybody. The programme had led to changes in classroom teaching practice and changes to classroom tone, culture and management. It leads to systemic change in classrooms and schools.

In summary, I present reflections from a teacher and teacher aide.

Teacher: After the inservice sessions, it became evident to me that the way to move forward with challenging children was through inclusive practice. After working with RTLB it was like seeing the lights come on! I could see the children thriving in the co-operative model. It was amazing to see the quality of thinking. This has been the most powerful teaching experience I have encountered in my 20 years of teaching.

Teacher Aide: Since working with Mrs S, Mariah now has a big smile and is making more progress in class. She contributes more – a huge contribution verbally. Heaps more confidence. A better feeling of her own self worth. She is like a sponge. She now knows she can do it.