When the elephant gets on the trampoline, everybody else has to jump at the same rhythm. This is how a group of six New Zealand primary principals (head teachers) described the relationship between the Ministry of Education and schools, at a presentation at This Learning Life.

New Zealand schools are in a particularly interesting position – they are employed by, and accountable to their local communities, represented by a local Board of Trustees made up of parents, and other community members co-opted by the parents. While the state has a responsibility for the education system as a whole, it has no moral or legal authority to coerce schools and with no national quantitative testing framework*, whole swathes of schools cannot easily be labelled ‘failures’.

This decentralised and locally autonomous system, this group argued, fosters the creation of an archipelago of innovation and local pedagogical leadership. But the question is, in such a system, how can the state act responsibly to support struggling schools and ensure that all learners receive a good education?

This group of principals have their own answer. The Springboard Trust, an industry-supported, not-for-profit organisation, has been supporting six principals of large, multicultural primary schools in South Auckland to develop sustainable, high-quality leadership practices. Springboard Trust provided a forum and facilitation for these principals to share and critically examine their own practice, and to develop innovative strategies within their local contexts. After a year of such facilitation, this group is now self-sustaining, defining their own goals, with high levels of ownership and participation.

Hearing this group talk about their journey, the level of trust and respect between them was striking. Yet they were keen to point out that they had their differences, and certainly didn’t share a particular philosophy or pedagogical viewpoint. Their shared local context, facing similar challenges, provides enough common ground for them to learn from and with one another. Their process of group challenge and support has enabled them to move from simply reflecting the needs of their local communities, to leading and informing the expectations of their communities.

There is always a tension between the state’s responsibility to be accountable to the public for a state-provided education system, and for schools to have the freedom to innovate and to respond to their community’s and learners’ unique needs and aspirations. In this context, where schools are accountable directly to their local public, this approach may be one way for the state to support grass roots leadership and innovation.

The challenge now is what could the UK education system learn from such a decentralised approach?

* schools are inspected, but reports are qualitative

Thanks to Phil Palfrey, Lauree Thew, Laurayne Tafa, Linda Kelly, Paul Wright and Janice Vermeulen, six primary principals from South Auckland, NZ, from whose presentation and paper this post has been written.

Trackback

This entry was posted on Tuesday, June 24th, 2008 at 10:46 am and is filed under education policy, government, schools. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.