By Mark Young
Abstract
Politicization of the education process is nothing new to the Australian educational landscape. Considering the extent to which and ways to which politics has impacted the Australian system when compared with its overseas counterparts is more difficult to discern. This paper explores the findings of the author’s professional leadership experiences in three overseas systems, England, Finland and Ontario, Canada and accordingly proposes two recommendations to inform education policy in NSW in an increasingly politicized landscape.
Introduction
I have observed several colleagues move from the classroom, the principal’s office and the district office to retirement. Sadly, there have been a handful of retirement functions I’ve attended that have included farewell speeches laced with cynicism toward the system, decrying how education has changed for the worse, and a longing for “the good old days”. Many years ago, I determined not to walk that path. I have had a highly fulfilling career and as I have moved into retirement, the desire to make a final positive contribution has led me to take a piece of writing that I’ve had sitting on the computer for some time, ‘dust it off’ and put it into the marketplace in the hope that it might provoke discussion about an issue that has weighed heavily upon me for a number of years, especially since I moved into leadership roles within the NSW Department of Education. As a tragic sports’ fan, I can’t help but call upon a sporting analogy to help highlight my concern that, Education is too Important to be a Political Football.
It’s December 2011 and David Gonski’s report into the Federal Government’s funding of education has been released. At that time, under the Rudd and then Gillard Federal Labor Governments, the Gonski Report was implemented. This policy change had a profound impact on the funding available for public schools in NSW. After the Labor Party lost the 2013 Federal election to the Liberal/National Party, commitment to the implementation of the Gonski Report by the new government changed. This policy shift had an impact on the funding available to public schools, especially those in NSW. I am purposely choosing not to indicate whether either decision in relation to the Gonski Report was “right” or “wrong” for I am not seeking to make a party-political comment. I raise this purely as an example of how education can become a political football.
Politicization of Education
During my time as a Principal and Director with the NSW Department of Education I actively seized the opportunity provided by the LEAP (Leading Educators Around the Planet) International Peer-Shadowing program to be matched with an educational leader from United Kingdom, Finland and Ontario (Canada). On each occasion I billeted and hosted my international colleague for two weeks (across July-August); and then returned to that overseas setting to be reciprocally billeted and hosted for two weeks in September-October. Unfortunately, this program no longer operates.
Reflecting on my experiences across these three education systems and comparing/contrasting my observations there with my time in Public Education in NSW, has confirmed my conviction as to how strongly education is influenced by its political masters. To the extent that this is so raises the question as to whether the impact of politicians and their political decisions serve as an enabler or an inhibiter to the education system under their jurisdiction.
In England, I was fortunate to meet educators who were committed to being the best they can be to ensure that there is 12 months’ learning for 12 months of teaching. From my observations (and from numerous professional discussions with teachers, principals and system leaders) it would appear that the implementation of the Ofsted* policies imposed by their politicians are largely inhibiting the work of the teachers. The system is very strongly focused on verification where ‘trust’ seems to be displaced by ‘fear’ and uncertainty about the future on the part of teachers and school executive.
I clearly remember walking along a corridor of the school in which I was working and meeting an executive sitting and talking with a teacher. As I passed by, one of them asked me, “Mark, are we a bad school?” The looks on their faces told me that the discussion they were having was not an easy one. I stopped, looked at them both. “No.” I said, “This is a great school. Why would you ask such a question?” Their reply stopped me in my tracks.
“We know we’ve got Ofsted coming very soon and we’re fearful of what the report is going to say.”
In Finland, I again met dedicated educators committed to being the best they can to ensure that there is 12 months’ learning for 12 months of teaching. I found the surrounding structures of the education system imposed by their politicians (again, through observation, discussions and interviews) are enabling the work of the teachers. The system would appear to be strongly focused on ‘trust’, (with less emphasis on verification). This appeared to enable teachers and executive to undertake their work with a degree of certainty.
It was during one of my school visits that I spoke with a school leader about the work that was being done in his school. Proudly he told me of the highly effective work the staff were doing to improve the learning of the students. When I asked him what strategies he was using to verify the work his staff were doing, he looked at me, almost disbelieving that I would ask such a question. “I don’t need to do anything to verify the work my staff do. I trust them to do what I ask them to do.” I did try to come at this from another angle, but I could see that the reply would be just the same.
In Canada, I found very professional educators who again are committed to being the best they can be to ensure that there is 12 months’ learning for 12 months of teaching. The politically imposed support structures of their education system showed signs of both inhibiting and enabling the work of their teachers. At the local level I observed school Boards structured to support schools, to build the capacity of their teachers and improve the learning of their students. While I have little doubt that the effectiveness, expertise, capacity and, subsequently, quality input of these Boards are variable, the Boards appeared to provide a very positive and enabling contribution to the local schools.
I did, however, note (as was affirmed through interviews and discussions with principals and system leaders) an additional political layer (i.e. elected Board Trustees** who were usually not educators). This appeared to have the potential to inappropriately interfere with (thereby inhibiting) the work of the Boards and the local schools.
The seminal emergent questions:
In light of the above, what would I suggest to our politicians and educational leaders that would bring improvement to teaching and learning in our schools as well as strengthen professional confidence and certainty about the future?
Recommendation 1
I would strongly recommend that before implementation, all educational policies must be thoroughly researched and negotiated with all key educational stakeholders, and demonstrably enabling our schools, teachers and learners. From my recent international experiences enabling politicization should result in certainty (policy shifts that impact practice do not occur simply because another party wins an election or due to knee-jerk reactions to appease the electorate – there needs to be certainty around education policy), trust (educators are best placed to lead education and should be entrusted to do so) alongside verification (verification of the effectiveness of education policies must be undertaken); both for the profession and the wider community.
Recommendation 2
To create certainty, trust and verification (in a non-partisan political landscape)
Joint-party political educational advisors meet to negotiate a designated period (e.g. seven years) of cross-bench political “in principle” agreement and commitment to the implementation of policies which are based upon certainty, trust and verification (i.e. which pass the certainty, trust and verification test, i.e. they meet the definitions as stated in the continua below).
Establishment of an Advisory Group (including representatives of all professional stakeholders) to monitor all educational political policy and provide “fearless” advice (according to the certainty, trust and verification test, i.e. they meet the definitions as stated below).
Establishment after five years of an extensive two-year review (to be conducted by the Advisory Group) to evaluate and determine the way forward for education. The sixth year will see the Advisory Group review the effectiveness of current policy and practice, and early in the seventh year the Advisory Group will introduce the future direction for the next seven years.
Conclusion
Reflecting on my time as an educator along with my international experiences, I see strong signs that our education system in NSW can effectively hold certainty, trust and verification in balance to ensure that there will be 12 months of learning for 12 months of teaching: the ultimate aim for all professional educators and committed politicians. Education policy and practice are too important to remain at the whim of political ideology.
These experiences have confirmed my conviction that education (I would also include health) is too important to have policy determined by political agendas. What is right for education, is right for education, regardless of who is in Government.
*Ofsted
Ofsted - the Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills - inspects and reports on services that provide education for young people in England, including schools, colleges, nurseries and childminders.
**Board Trustees
The school board trustees are locally elected or appointed officials who govern a school district. They set direction, establish educational policies, approve budgets and oversee the superintendent (the operational and educational link between the elected school board trustees and individual schools).
I have devised a continuum for implementing best practice and avoiding less than best practice.
ENABLING – INHIBITING CONTINUUM
I am conscious that there could well be situations in which “enabling” and “inhibiting” are not mutually exclusive. In this instance, however, I am seeking to establish a distinction between the two.
Enabling occurs when:
Policy is clearly understood and is developed to last for the seven-year cycle. Systems are developed to equip and support schools in the delivery of teaching for learning. Documentation and ongoing professional learning are developed in ways that allow for context sensitive implementation.
Inhibiting practices occur when:
Policy changes are made as a knee-jerk reaction to populist fads. Non-educators take a lead role in making changes. Additional and unexpected demands and requirements are placed on teachers that deflect their focus from teaching and learning.
TRUST – VERIFICATION CONTINUUM
I envisage that “trust” and “verification” can sit alongside each other, complementing each other as partners in the teaching and learning process.
Effective Trust – Verification occurs when:
Educational leaders at each level of responsibility engage with those in the teaching workforce from a position of respect for their professionalism and trust that they are working to the best of their ability and are ready and willing to continue to grow as professional educators. When verification of learning happens, contextual information (individual and social), along with various data sources, are used together to inform progress and achievements of students, teachers and the school. Questions seeking to understand how ‘results’ were achieved are the main source of interaction. Coaching and mentoring are the preferred method used by leaders. This doesn’t mean ‘hard’ conversations won’t take place. The above happens so that learning for all occurs.
Ineffective Trust – Verification occurs when:
“Results” are the focus of conversations. Contextual information is ignored. Where improvement is determined to be needed, strategies are imposed as blame is levelled.
The purpose of this paper? To promote student learning and teacher capacity to effect this.
Acknowledge: Dr Warren Marks
Dr John Buchanan, Adjunct Associate Professor, University of Technology Sydney
Warren, along with Dr Sue Lazenby, founded LEAP, and were instrumental in shaping the experiences I had in England, Finland and Ontario Canada. I am grateful for Warren’s friendship and encouragement, for he took my very rough first draft and brought his professional and educational knowledge to assist me shape it from a basic discourse to a much more substantial opinion piece.
John is both an educational colleague and a friend. After reading the paper, John brought his educational and academic knowledge and expertise to bear. Through numerous conversations and discussions, John’s academic skills as a researcher, along with his ability to gently question and make suggestions helped me refine and strengthen what I wanted to say. This has resulted in the paper before you.
I am very aware that this final paper would not have been possible without the tender expertise and encouragement of both friends. Warren and John – thank you.