School parents’ representation perhaps elusive

Press, 13 July 1988, Page 19

School parents’ representation perhaps elusive

More parent input and responsibility for the way New Zealand schools are run. That is foreseen in the Picot report on education administration. How might the new system work? JENNY LONG talks with some of the people who could be affected by Government decisions on the report, which has attracted nearly 20,000 public submissions.

Wanted: from each school in New Zealand, five energetic parents to serve as members of new boards of trustees.

If the Government adopts the Picot report, five parents in each school — along with the principal — will form the core of a school management team. For secondary schools, Picot recommendations will not mean many changes, but a major one would be the appointment of a school pupil to their boards, at present called the boards of governors.

It is in the primary schools that changes would be felt most.

The Minister of Education, David Lange, says the present system suggests that parents of primary school children are not capable, yet they suddenly become so once their children reach secondary school. Present primary school committees have very little real power. Many of their members would be likely candidates for boards of trustees. The committees are wrestling with the Picot

report to see if it would work for them.

Many enthusiastically support the move of decision-making closer to the classroom, but many do not share Mr Lange’s belief that parents will be keen to put themselves forward for selection.

Hornby’s Gilberthorpe School enjoys a large measure of support from its school community. Parents are often in the classrooms, and on the evening that the school council met to discuss the Picot report, many council members and others had been up since 5 a.m., setting a bonfire and cooking sausages for pupils to enjoy when they arrived' at school to celebrate the year’s shortest day. In spite of this support, some people were sceptical that a wide range of parents would have the confidence, energy and time to become members of a board of trustees.

Gilberthorpe School is in a largely working class neighbourhood, with about 40 per cent

Maori or Pacific Island pupils. Yet of its 18 school council members, 14 are pakeha. The council secretary, Shirley Beard, worries about that. “We’ve got to find ways to make Maori and Polynesian people want to come forward so they feel right about telling us what they want for their children.”

If that does not happen, she says, some committees might not put money where the need is greatest when they allocate funds.

If greater community control recommended by Picot is to be successful, school committees say, the most important need is for energetic trustees who are truly representative of the parents.

The report says trustees should be paid, and has allocated $lO million for this. Divided among some 3000 schools, that does not represent a large amount per person, even if it is allocated where the need is greatest. School committees are also

sceptical of the Picot report statement, of “a need for employers to recognise the value of their employees’ participation in education by allowing them time off to attend meetings.” Committees say also that administrative assistance for the principal is essential. Under Picot, the principal would be called on for more administrative tasks.

Without help, a principal is in danger of becoming a manager remote from parents and children. School committees say strongly this must not be allowed to happen.

Schools will still need some form of committee as well as a board of trustees, they add. Extensive parent involvement in other school activities, especially fund-raising, will still be required. Central to Picot recommendations is a charter for each school, drawn up by trustee boards in collaboration with principals,

staff and the community. Such charters will allow schools to reflect local interests within national guidelines. Picot describes the charter as the “lynchpin” of a new system. Alan Bond, principal of Northcote School and a member of the New Zealand Principals’ Federation executive, says school communities should have more input on decisions about what their children are taught. They should have a say in what is taught in the curriculum, but not in how it is taught, he says. “Primary teachers today have a minimum of five years training, and then on-going training during their careers, which is sometimes not recognised by the public.” While he does not discount the possibility of a board being taken over by minority groups, he says the charter must be audited and approved by the new Ministry of Education.

A new Review and Audit Agency would check the school’s performance against its charter every two years. The Minister of Education would also have the power to dismiss a board, power he does not have now. Mr Lange says that five members of a board of trustees would not be able to dictate what a school taught. As Alan Bond worked, his telephone rang constantly, with a variety of calls from parents. Any new administrative system would need to offer an alternative to the axed regional education boards. “At the moment, if our boiler breaks down, we simply phone the board, and it’s in their hands from then on,” said Mr Bond. “In 1990, we might have to spend a long time on the phone finding a firm that had the parts, and could attend to the problem in time to give us heating to open the school at 9 o’clock.”