Self-managed schools not whole answer

Competition between schools makes them less innovative, less diverse, writes CATHY WYLIE.

Ten years ago, the Picot report laid the groundwork for radical change to New Zealand education. Self-managing schools came, and are here to stay.

Yet the areas which self-managing schools were to improve are still vexing parents, educators and policy-makers. How can we ensure that schools have something to offer every child? What do we need to do for education to make a real difference for children coming from low-income homes, in which the parents have little experience of education themselves?

New issues have also emerged. How can we make sure there is, in fact, a desirable school available to every child? Clearly, more than just making schools self-managing is needed. But what?

Government policy pulls in several directions. On the one hand, there is growing support for schools. The Minister of Education has recently emphasised the desirability of pooling resources between schools in rural areas and schools in low-income areas.

The Ministry of Education is funding people and schemes to provide a fillip for schools in some areas, and to get clusters of schools working. There is a welcome understanding that one size does not fit all.

On the other hand, when it comes to funding and industrial relations policy, we see a determination to keep driving down the self-management road, whether people in schools like it or not. Most of them don't want to drive further down that road -- trustees and educators alike.

Nor does research here and overseas provide a convincing case that increased self-management, or autonomous schools operating on per-student funding, will yield the improvements sought by the Government.

What happens is that gaps grow between schools in low-income areas and others; popular schools become increasingly selective of students, cutting back on parental or student choice; and competition between schools actually fosters a more conservative approach to education rather than innovation or diversity. Overall standards stay static or drop.

A rare exception to this is the controlled choice system in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The reason it has been suc-cessful in making self-management work and provide a diversity of schools -- for one city only -- is a willingness to increase education spending substantially, including the provision of transport for children wanting access to schools across town.

There is a random allocation of children to schools once parents have expressed their preferences, and ready support for less popular schools to help them to make changes which would increase their attractiveness to parents.

It is time to think outside the present policy box, which relies too much on structure and management and pays too little attention to content. There is a cumulative cost to the heavy administrative load on schools and the disillusionment felt by so many educators with policy that keeps driving down the self-management road. Schools want their practical experiences taken into account and want to be included in policy development.

The cost is threefold. We have fewer teachers interested in becoming principals -- at the very time when the self-management road relies substantially on school leadership. We have educators distracted from the core work of teaching and learning, and less Government money to spend on developing teaching and learning.

There is danger of growing resistance to Government-initiated programmes, whatever their worth and, in turn, there is increased likelihood that the Government will seek to impose its will on teachers, creating a damaging spiral of mistrust.

How could we all get better value for our taxes? First, we could improve the infrastructure for schools. We could provide more curriculum resources, more resources for ongoing professional development within schools and sources of readily available advice.

We could provide more support for innovation and make sure that, when it works, other educators know about it in forms which they can use themselves. We could try to provide a better integration of curriculum, professional development and advice and include educators in developing strategies for the system as a whole.

Secondly, we could put teachers back into the centre of the picture. Overseas research is pointing more and more to the importance of well-trained teachers, who are also well-supported. They have time for adequate preparation and planning and can give children immediate feedback on their work, which is more valuable in improving learning than are external tests. Class sizes play a part here, as do the kinds of assessments teachers can use.

Thirdly, we need to take real account of the role of home support for children's learning. At one level we know how important this is; at another we put it in the too-hard basket.

Some schools have found ways to bring parents who left school without any qualifications back in, for their own learning. This has positive spin-offs for their children's learning. These initiatives need external resourcing.
Schools and teachers can -- and should -- make a difference.
But if we are really serious about making sure every child has real opportunities to learn -- so New Zealand can draw on the educated talents of everyone, not just those from advantaged homes -- then we also need to address the growing inequality in our society.