Success with my Neo-Liberal assignment!

I was really worried that I had not written a successful report for my second assignment! However, having just had it returned with an A it seems I had nothing to worry about!  I was particularly careful with the formatting of the assignment and this seems to have paid off.  I'd like to thank everyone who answered my many questions in the lead up to the writing of the essay, as you all developed my understanding of neo-lieralism and helped grow my understanding of the impacts of politics on the education sector! All my discussions were most appreciated! Thank you all very much!! If (by some miracle) you'd like to read my assignment, I've attached it for your interest!! Tena koutou katoa!!!

Neo-liberalism and Educational Leadership: How does neo-liberal policy shape the work of today's educational leaders? Essay

Administrator

Word count: 3378

Introduction:         

Since 1984, the New Zealand school sector has been subjected to large scale restructuring of its' educational policies which has required committed and responsive leadership at all levels. School leaders have been asked to put into operation a system of self-management, followed by the application of compulsory curriculum documents, while ensuring their organisations remain fully accountable for teaching and learning. Meanwhile each successive government in recent times has persisted in developing educational policy which Thrupp (2008) states would be more appealing to the higher voting group of middle classes and is policy which maintains the popularity of the government. He also maintained that it is "clear that education policies of recent decades have benefited the middle classes rather than the poor" (pg 54).

The contention that Neo-liberal policy shapes the work of today's educational leaders will be discussed in order to demonstrate my assertion within the context of a Deputy Principal of a decile four, 300 pupil, inner city primary school. This assertion maintains that there is a definite impact on the decisions made by educational leaders in New Zealand and that neo-liberal policy does indeed shape the work of today's educational leaders. In New Zealand, Codd (2005a) claims, Treasury has been the 'most powerful bureaucratic influence on the government'. They insist that to improve teacher quality, huge cuts to funding must occur. Treasury continue 'pursuing an agenda' based on 'transaction cost economics' (p.194) which has in turn led to major restructuring with changes to policy sphere technologies that will continue to have long lasting effects on educational leaders into the future.

In order to clearly examine the argument that educational leaders are impacted by neo-liberal policy, it is essential to firstly define neo-liberalism and secondly to define policy.

In section three, the specific neo-liberal policy spheres of marketing, managerialism and performativity will be looked at in relation to how this impacts on my practice as an educational leader. The first sphere to be extrapolated on will explore the effects of marketing on schools as educators increasingly focus their time on promoting schools rather than on the essentials of teaching and learning. The second outlines how an increased managerial responsibility imposed on educational leaders has a huge bearing on how policy is carried out within the sector. And the last, sees a focus on how the measurement of performance has a neo-liberal focus and is likely to impact society's view of education for some time to come will be explored.

Definitions

Gale and Densmore (as cited in Parr & Bellis, 2006) conceptualise neo-liberalism as a belief in liberal political ideals that 'link the virtues of the free market to individual freedom' (p.9). They deem that Neo-liberals promote an exclusion of the state from the market because they see markets as a more economical and more efficient means of distributing goods and services within society, including the provision of education.

Marshall (2000) stated that neo-liberalism is one key element that shows a commitment to a free market which makes up the 'New Right' ideology. Likewise, Codd (2005) claims that "neo-liberalism emphasises individual rights... within a social environment of enterprise and competition" (p.196). While Olssen (2002) asserts that in neo-liberalism, the state seeks to generate school leavers who are innovative, enterprising individuals able to exert pressure as competitive entrepreneurs in a 'new-market' economy.

Policy usually refers to an authoritative statement of intent about what should and should not be the case within a given context over which it has influence. Codd (Codd, 2005b) qualifies this by explaining that policy refers to sets of political decisions that use power to preserve or alter the nature of educational institutions. Indeed, Benade (2011) claims that policy 'implies an uneven relationship in which the policy maker sets the agenda" (p.29). This is certainly true in my understanding of educational policy.

Given this, my understanding of neo-liberal policy is defined as the current political climate in which politicians impose hegemonic change by altering educational practices, in order to produce viable economic units; people who become entrepreneurial consumers as well as market drivers of enterprise, globalisation and competition (New Zealand. Ministry of Education & New Zealand. Learning Media, 2007).

.Neo-liberal policy sphere technologies:

This section will explore the three neo-liberal policy sphere technologies of markets, managerialism and performativity. It must be said at the outset that there is a myriad of policies that could be extrapolated on; nevertheless for the purposes of this report, only one example will be explored in each section. Furthermore, each example of a neo-liberal policy discussed has certain links to other policy spheres as well; however this report will attempt to maintain a singular focus on each sphere as independent from the others.

1. Markets:

The policy sphere of 'markets' refers to the marketisation of education. Codd (2005a) refers to this as education being "promoted by policies based on user pays and commercial enterprise" (p.197). With the advent of the neo-liberal policy of Tomorrow's Schools reforms of 1989, a competitive system of educational markets has taken hold. The reforms brought about competition and greater choice, supposedly giving parents the freedom to decide what is in their children's best interests within the context of market competition (Morrison, 2012). The Ministry of Education (the Ministry) emphasises "the right of every student to expect a similar standard of education regardless of school location and size" (New Zealand. Ministry of Education., 2010, p. vii) However, it would seem that the opposite is truer; government policy has in essence, served to reinforce competitive structures across the education sector, putting profit ahead of people. Hughes and Lauder (1999) have found this to be so. They report that "education markets do not provide equality of access to all families" (p.84). This observation is further analysed by Lubienski (2011) who identified that competitive incentives can encourage school leaders to make decisions that are detrimental to 'wider equity considerations' (p. 17).

These reforms have seen a rise in 'economical incentives' for schools. In New Zealand one example of a neo-liberal economic incentive comes in the form of decile ratings. Deciles are otherwise known as Socio-Economic Decile Bands, from one to ten, into which similar schools in New Zealand are placed. Schools are grouped in that way to correspond with the socio-economic background of the students at that school; the decile ratings match the economic and social factors of the community in the immediate vicinity. A decile is a statistical term that divides our student population into ten equally sized groups, ten deciles with roughly 10% of schools grouped into each decile band. Schools graded as decile one have the highest proportion of students from low socio-economic backgrounds while schools given a decile ten rating have the highest proportion of students from high socio-economic backgrounds. (Morrison, 2012)

Schools are grouped into deciles for funding reasons. Decile ratings enable the Ministry of Education to allocate funding taking into consideration what they believe are wider equity considerations. The lower a school's decile rating the more funding it will be given. The greater amount of funding given to lower decile schools theoretically allows them to cover the higher learning needs of students who attend their school. However, this "works in ways in which the metaphors of free market, merit, and effort hide the differential reality" (Apple, 2004, p. 34). The reality is that schools in lower socio-economic areas are in general under-funded, due to inequalities in communities' abilities to self-generate funds. In my experience, community expectations often outweigh the school's ability to deliver over and above their operational grants, hence the need for 'locally raised funds'.

Marketisation of education directly shapes the work of school leaders. Principals are required to utilize their operations grants, along with locally raised funds, in consultation with staff and the Board of Trustees, to provide educational opportunities for all students enrolled in their school. In order to do this, school leaders must be conversant with, and up to date on all fund allocations that impact the school's budget. Each year, the Ministry will divulge Education initiatives announced by the Government in Budget. Principals must be aware of these Treasury directions in order to make decisions that positively influence the educational programmes being provided.

Furthermore, decile ratings impact the work of school leaders as they are often required to market their schools in order to attract quality teaching staff, as well as to encourage parents to enrol their children, particularly to the lower decile band schools. Funding based on roll numbers is a clear example of school leaders being forced to market and promote their schools at the expense of others in order to maintain roll size or to grow rolls and ultimately increase funding.

The schools in these lower socio-economic areas are often considered in general to offer less, or provide lower standards of education, when in fact performance differences are "most pronounced within schools rather than across schools" (Nusche & Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2012, p. 20)

Working against negative public perceptions forces principals to market their schools in many different ways. Often the use of private enterprise can be significantly profitable; increasing schools' spending opportunities, particularly for lower decile schools. In my current context, our Parent Teacher Association (PTA) has negotiated a long term contract with a local supermarket to encourage shoppers to spend weekly food budgets in their store while rewarding them for their loyalty by paying our school 5% of every dollar shoppers linked to our school spend. This has had an enormous impact on the fundraising ability of our PTA. They are now earning passive income for the benefit of all students through this scheme. This has enabled our school leaders to make considered decisions in consultation with the Board and the PTA about how to spend this money. Through the vision of the principal's leadership, this spending is now strategically impacting our ability to include interactive technologies, netbooks and other e-learning tools into our learning programmes.

1. Managerialism:

The policy sphere of 'Managerialism' refers to the way in which schools are managed. It is a belief that schools can and should be managed in much the same way as the private sector, with a development of improved reporting, monitoring and accountability mechanisms. Hence the introduction of 'charters', 'annual plans' and 'strategic plans' introduced to the education sector straight from the business realms.

According to Nusche et al, (2012) "New Zealand has ( I would now argue had) one of the most decentralized school systems in the world" (p.13). As such, principals, Boards and other school leaders have had their managerial roles impacted irrevocably. Part of this self-management required schools to include charters. In the beginning a large amount of charter content was provided by the Ministry. Latterly, principals, through the Board, were given greater scope to decide their own content. More recently, a return to Ministry directed content has emerged. Ultimately, the charter is the defining document in each school's planning and review cycle which has had, and will continue to have a significant impact on the managerial tasks undertaken by school leaders (Ministry of Education, 2012).

Despite the charter being a crucial part of the framework within which the principal has 'complete discretion to manage' (Ministry of Education, 2012), the preparation and maintenance of the charter is central to the governance role and strategic leadership of the Board of Trustees. The significance of this is that the charter is the Board's number one policy statement. It sets the direction for the school and identifies the priorities for the principal to be leading from. The intention is that it is a "living" document and the principal plays a fundamental part in making that happen.

The managerial role of the school's management team, led by the Principal, defined as the "professional leader", includes three main functions: executive (implementing the Board's policy), instructional (leading the school staff) and reporting (providing information on the school's achievement). The first and last functions will be explored further while delving into the impact of neo-liberal policy implications.

The charter is one way a Board's strategic direction is implemented by the principal. This document must contain a statement about the aim of developing policies and practices that reflect New Zealand's cultural diversity and the unique position of the Māori culture, a statement indicating a way of ensuring that all reasonable steps are taken to provide instruction in tikanga Māori (Māori culture) and te reo Māori (Māori language) for full-time students whose parents request it. Furthermore, it must include; a long-term strategic planning section that establishes your Board's aims and purposes along with the objectives, directions and priorities for intended student outcomes, the school's performance and use of resources for the next 3 to 5 years. Additionally, the Board's aims objectives and priorities in relation to the New Zealand Curriculum Standards are required. Finally, The Charter must also include the current year's variance report concerning raising student achievement relating to the National Standards.

The annual plan and elements of strategic plans are included within the body of the charter as a means of implementing the Board's desired direction. The Annual plan sets targets for key activities and achievement of aims and objectives every year. It will also include the Board's aims, directions, objectives, priorities and targets for meeting government policy objectives for all schools as well as specifying policy objectives applicable to individual schools. In addition, the day to day management of the school's and the Board's capability, resources, assets, and liabilities, including human resources, finances, property and other ownership matters need addressing in the annual and strategic planning.

Finally, a key managerial role of school leaders is to detail student achievement through the annual variance report. The principal provides professional guidance and support to the Board's understanding of student achievement data, leading dialogue, planning and supporting decision making in order to address learning needs. Detailed analysis will include a review of school strengths and identified areas for improvement, the basis for identifying areas for improvement and planned actions for lifting achievement. This information is then compiled into the variance report that is submitted to the Ministry, outlining student achievement outcomes which could be said to be indicative of the quality of the school.

Managerialism has been shown to place a heavy focus on principals as Managing Directors, or CEO's of schools. Robinson, Hohepa, Lloyd, & New Zealand Ministry of Education, (2009) discovered that in our self-managing school system, New Zealand principals "on average spend more time on administration than most of their overseas counterparts" (p.32) and they go on to reveal findings that these high workloads also equate to higher stress levels. The enormous emphasis placed on a business model of charters, strategic and annual plans with variance reporting could be viewed as the reason for workload intensification.

1. Performativity:

The policy sphere of 'performativity' is the cultural impact of managerialism (Ball, 2003 as cited in Morrison, 2012). Performativity refers to the performances of individual students or school organisations which represent the outcomes or quality of the individual or organisation.

The divisive introduction of the New Zealand Curriculum Standards (NZCS) is one such example of a performativity technology sphere. It is a system of assessment in literacy and numeracy that was announced in 2009, launched in 2010 and has become a legislated requirement of schools. This is one specific example of neo-liberalism to be explored in this section. This policy brought a return to the enduring debate about the extent to which student failure is the fault of schools and has significantly impacted performativity for educational leaders.

At the outset, schools were required to implement the NZCS with very little consultation enabled by the Ministry. Codd (Codd, 2005a) describes how the New Zealand government has undertaken "major restructuring of our education system in recent years, with very little scope for consultation or public discussion, in order to gain much more political control over the system" (p. 200). Lead teachers in each curriculum area were invited to workshops that were designed to impart the Ministry's expectations as well as how to implement them. These workshops were lead by key educational consultants in the areas of Literacy and Mathematics. However, these consultants were not given enough time to fully understand the transformational policy they were expected to convey to educational leaders themselves.

So, the connection between the real transformation and the shifting educational policy was seen to be a disjointed, negative experience from the outset. School leaders were at the mercy of ill-informed consultative processes, trying their best to inform their teaching staff who were charged with the responsibility of implementation of the NZCS at the 'chalk-face'. As Perry, Amadeo, Fletcher, & Walker (2010) established, "reaction to change is affected by the degree of consultation involved" (p. 4). It could be said that better consultation may have avoided the division being as great as it has proven to be.

Following this, schools were required to include a target against the NZCS in their annual charters for 2011. This encompassed many hours of work for school leaders, with many across the country refusing to comply. Most Boards were hugely reliant on the synthesised information disseminated to them by their Principal. They needed to be kept fully informed during this change over period which called for detailed investigation of all documentation, many more meetings, preparation of documents, and planning for future directions. All of this constituted increased time commitments in order to keep them current with the changes. Throughout these initial phases, our Board, under the guidance of the professional leaders of my school, mainly the principal, agreed to support us by taking a positive stance for a way forward.

Consequently, we set about 'tweaking' our self-review processes to meet newly set expectations. I say 'tweaked' because we had already been reporting to parents on student achievement against a series of professionally-determined benchmarks for many years. The work that we were now required to do was to review our previous benchmarking system and align this to the newly imposed NZCS. It must be said, that our benchmarks were only marginally different to these newly set standards and may also be the reason our Board was comfortable with a way forward. In my experience, the schools that showed the most resistance to implementing the NZCS may have been the ones who least understood the value of self review. It could be said that schools who had the least changes to make to their current practices were the ones quietly getting on with their core work.

Again in 2012, the Ministry of Education outlined their expectation that annual reports from schools would include, for the first time, school-level data against targets set for NZCS achievement. The impact this has had on the work of school leaders has seen more review of current school practice. In my current context, we welcome self-review as it is through careful self-reflection that improved practice occurs.

The daily practice of school leaders has been significantly shaped by the introduction of the NZCS in many ways. One positive aspect includes the way we are reporting to parents. We are now required to use plain language, which I am sure parents appreciate. Reports also include; suggestions for how families can help at home, and defined next steps for learning as well as positioning the learner as either below at or above a standard. In my school, this has led to a growth in teacher self-efficacy as they are developing a greater awareness of their ability to make professional decisions about a learner, triangulating that with assessment data, student voice along with classroom observations in order to make a definitive "Overall Teacher Judgment" (New Zealand. Ministry of Education. & New Zealand. Learning Media, 2009). This has created an urgency to shift particularly at risk learners in accelerated ways.

It is inevitable that despite educational leaders across the country having publicly contested the introduction of the NZCS, strong public approval for the political move to eliminate "the long tail of underachievement" has overridden the education professionals. Snook & O'Neill (2010) would argue that by focusing on achievement data in such a way as policy reforms are insisting, teacher morale will be lowered, students from lower socio-economic areas will be left "as badly off as before" (p. 16), as well as bring about poorer outcomes in other curriculum areas. This kind of focus they believe is "likely to have unanticipated consequences which may be inimical to learning" (p. 15). Conversely, this has not been borne out in my current context.

Conclusion

This seemingly contradictory discourse of markets, managerialism, accountability, standards and performativity have indeed become an enmeshed part of the current political environment in which Apple (2004) explains that neo-liberals "claim that the invisible hand of the markets will inexorably lead to better schools" (p.18). He goes on to explain that this must also be 'marketed'. New Right politicians work hard to popularize themselves and their policy in order to sway the public belief. They want everyone to believe that what they propose is "natural and neutral and governed by effort and merit. And those opposed to them are by definition, also opposed to effort and merit" (Apple, 2004, p.18).

Nevertheless, the future of educational reforms should maintain a focus on the relationship between educational politics and educational research. Perhaps the influences on government – electoral pressure, international comparisons, cost, ideology, or even the sheer pressure of significant national and international events could serve to promote the increasing importance of mistaking rhetoric for reality. Certainly, I agree with Hislop (2012) that students, teachers and communities across New Zealand deserve much more thoughtful reforms, ones that take into account an honest view of research by professionals of their field and that actually enable educators to improve teaching and learning for all students.

References:

Apple, M. W. (2004). Creating difference: Neo-liberalism, neo-conservatism and the politics of educational reform. Educational Policy, 18(1), 12–44. doi:10.1177/0895904803260022
Benade, L. (2011). A vision for the teaching profession: Using critical policy analysis to see more clearly. Journal of Educational Leadership, Policy and Practice, 26(1), 28–41.
Codd, J. (2005a). Teachers as "managed professionals" in the global education industry: The New Zealand experience. Educational Review, 57(2), 193–206. doi:10.1080/0013191042000308369
Codd, J. (2005b). Politics and policy making in education. In P. Adams, K. Vossler, & C. Scrivens (Eds.), Teachers' work in Aotearoa New Zealand (pp. 28–38). Southbank, Australia: Thomson Dunmore Press.
Hislop, D. (2012). Editorial: Is performance pay on the horizon? Education Today, (2), 1.
Hughes, D., & Lauder, H. (1999). Trading in futures : Why markets in education don't work. Buckingham [England]; Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Lubienski, C. (2011). The Decile delusion - Innovation, equity and incentives: School leadership and promotional efforts. Leadership & Professional Development, 2(3), 16–18.
Morrison, M. (2012, May 8). Market choice and competition. Course handout presented at the PROF502-12A (HAM), University of Waikato.
New Zealand. Ministry of Education, & New Zealand. Learning Media. (2007). The New Zealand curriculum. Wellington, N.Z.: Published for the Ministry of Education by Learning Media.
New Zealand. Ministry of Education. (2010). OECD Review on Evaluation and Assessment Frameworks for Improving School Outcomes: New Zealand Country Background Report. Retrieved from www.oecd.org/dataoecd/6/16/47797042.pdf.
New Zealand. Ministry of Education., & New Zealand. Learning Media. (2009). The New Zealand curriculum mathematics standards for years 1-8. Wellington, N.Z.: Published for the Ministry of Education by Learning Media.
Nusche, D., & Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2012). OECD reviews of evaluation and assessment in education. New Zealand 2011. Paris: OECD.
Parr, G., & Bellis, N. (2006). "To Be Strictly Educated"?: Learning and teaching in an age of neo-liberal agendas. English in Australia, 41(1), 7–17.
Perry, A., Amadeo, C., Fletcher, M., & Walker, E. (2010). Instinct or reason: How education policy is made. (Perspective Report). United Kingdon: CFBT Education Trust. Retrieved from http://www.educationaotearoa.org.nz/storage/ea-magazine-files/2012/autumn/How%20education%20policy%20is%20made%20-%20CfBT.pdf
Robinson, V. M., Hohepa, M. K., Lloyd, C., & New Zealand. Ministry of Education. (2009). School leadership and student outcomes : identifying what works and why : best evidence synthesis iteration [BES]. Wellington, N.Z.: Ministry of Education.
Snook, I., & O'Neill, J. (2010). Social class and educational achievement: Beyond ideology. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 45(2), 3–18.
Thrupp, M. (2008). Education's "inconvenient truth": Part two – The middle classes have too many friends in education. New Zealand Journal of Teachers' Work, 5(1), 54–62.