Principal-power proposal criticised

Press, 20 November 1987, Page 3

Principal-power proposal criticised

The power proposed for secondary school principals, which would give them the authority to hire and dismiss staff, and set pay rates, has been criticised in an open letter to the Minister of Education, Mr Lange. The letter, from 18 members of the University of Canterbury’s education department, said its members were “alarmed” at the proposals advanced by the State Services coordinating committee, during negotiations on the teachers’ salary claim.

No systematic research had been done in New Zealand to suggest that such a change to give power to school principals would be beneficial, said the letter.

“Indeed, what evidence there is suggests that such a change may be inefficient, disruptive, and contrary to accepted educational aims.”

Auckland research showed that schools which

were the most successful were those that were most democratic in their deci-sion-making. “Research on primary school principals undertaken in this department suggests that hierarchial decision-making of the type we now have, and which would be set in concrete if the State Services Commission’s proposals were adopted, can lead to poor communications, poor problem solving capabilities, and the increasing isolation of teachers.”

The proposals would lead to disruptions within schools precisely because of creating an "us” against “them” mentality, said the letter. In Britain, some schools had been paralysed by the adoption of the managerial model, said the letter. In some London schools there had been no cooperative curriculum development between "management” and staff for

more than three years, and reports had not been issued for more than four years. “Where once British teachers gave their time freely to extra-curricular activities, they now work within the tight specifications of contracts. The net result has been that the expected increase in efficiency through the introduction of managerialism has led to legalistic wrangling and considerable bitterness.” In effect, the commission’s proposals give principals the financial power of patronage, and endorsed a hierarchial structure, the letter said. It emphasised that department members were not opposed to change, however, it said the commission should withdraw its proposals and allow discussions to continue with the Picot Committee (which is conducting a review of education administration).