Walking the Tightrope:  the role of school leadership in the new climate of 
New Zealand education


Herbison Lecture
NZARE/AARE Conference
Deakin University
November 23, 1992


Noeline Alcorn
University of Auckland


Massive changes to the administration of New Zealand education were 
officially implemented on October 1, 1989.  Ostensibly these reforms were 
to increase both efficiency and equity by abolishing layers of local 
bureaucracy and making each school self-managing, governed by an elected 
Board of parents.  The Department of Education was replaced by a policy 
oriented Ministry and its inspectorial functions shifted to an independent 
Review Office charged to measure performance against the terms of school 
charters, or contracts between Boards of Trustees and the Ministry.  The 
reforms were driven by contradictory impulses:  left wing critiques of 
education based on theories of social reproduction, cultural capital and 
hegemony, underpinned by Marxist and critical theories;  right wing 
critiques sharpened by a perceived fiscal crisis and led in New Zealand by 
the Treasury, based on theories of individual choice  and a belief that the 
New Zealand educational system suffered from "provider capture".  
Ironically, both called for greater equity and community responsiveness 
though their interpretation of these terms and their methods for achieving 
them were very different.  In addition to these theoretical positions, both 
heavily influenced by overseas research and analysis, there was a 
longstanding and deeply entrenched New Zealand view that schooling is not 
only a right of all citizens but a means of achieving greater equality.  A 
series of reports and enquiries throughout the 1970's and 80's had called 
for greater community and parental involvement and consultation in 
educational decision making.


Background and Context to the Reforms

Since 1939 New Zealand education has officially given allegiance to a  much 
quoted statement written for the Ministerial Annual Report by the man who 
went on to direct the system for the next 20 years, Dr C.E. Beeby.  It 
reflected both his own background in the progressive theories of J.J. 
Findlay as moderated in New Zealand by Professor James Shelley and the 
strong socialist concerns of his Minister Peter Fraser.  It was a reaction 
against the elitist view of education especially at secondary level which 
had prevailed until the election of the First Labour Government at the end 
of 1935.   It reflects a holistic thinking about individual schooling needs 
and is part of the post Depression establishment of the Welfare State in 
New Zealand. The statement reads in part:

The Government's objective, broadly expressed, is that every person, 
whatever his level of academic ability, whether he be rich or poor, whether 
he live in town or country, has a right as a citizen to a free education of 
the kind for which he is best fitted and to the fullest extent of his 
powers. (AJHR, E1, 1939)

From this distance it is easy to note the problematic nature of this 
statement but it reflected a genuine belief on the part of the reformers in 
the personal and social benefits of education and a desire to provide for 
equality of access to the basic stages at least.  At secondary level it 
signalled a commitment to providing a more diverse curriculum to cater for 
a wide range of individual needs.  As Beeby himself has noted (1986) the 
statement provided a sustaining myth for teachers and policy makers for 

over 25 years.  It also raised expectations that increased free access 
would continue, through decades in which more students enrolled in 
secondary and then tertiary studies, their numbers swelled even further by 
the post war baby boom which increased resourcing difficulties.

The statement was followed by major curricular changes during the 1940's, 
reforms that were professionally and centrally driven.  Beeby's Department 
set up complex systems for consulting teachers on issues of curriculum 
reform and teaching methods and appointed advisers to help more 
conservative members of the profession adopt new attitudes.  The abolition 
of the proficiency examination at the end of primary schooling in 1936 also 
allowed for greater professional autonomy.  At the same time they tried to 
foster  teacher professionalism by decreasing the reliance on the annual 
inspectorial grading.  Professional leadership also came from the New 
Zealand Educational Institute, in particular through its monthly journal 
National Education., though its pages also revealed that many teachers 
still took a pragmatic and technicist approach, wishing for nothing better 
than clear guidelines for teaching rather than the exercise of professional 
judgement.

As a number of commentators (Shuker, 1987, Jones et al, 1990, Openshaw and 
McKenzie eds, 1987) have pointed out, the system developed in the Fraser-
Beeby era was increasingly under attack by the 1970's.  It faced challenges 
from several directions, in particular, the Maori community and the 
feminist lobby, both of which claimed it had served to marginalise and 
disadvantage significant groups of students.  A massive community 
consultation process, the Education Development Conference, helped to raise 
community expectations about greater consultation and negotiation over the 
goals and purposes of schooling.  Discontent was exacerbated by the 
economic setbacks caused by events like the oil shocks of the mid 70's, the 
gradual disappearance of traditional markets as Britain turned to Europe, 
and rising unemployment.  By the mid eighties critics from right and left 
were claiming that the goals of educational equality on which the system 
claimed to be based had not been met.  Inevitably central government was 
blamed by pressure groups.  In 1987, the Labour Government which had 
already revolutionised economic development through deregulation set up a 
Task Force, the Picot Committee, to review the administration of education.  
Its recommendations were largely accepted by the Government, published as  
Tomorrow's Schools, and implemented on October 1, 1989.  

The political and economic context within which the Task Force worked and 
its recommendations implemented is important and significant.  During the 
first term of the Labour Government, elected in 1984, there had been 
massive changes in official policies over the role of government, the 
beginning of a major shift in New Zealand from a welfare to a minimalist 
State, a glorification of individualism and enterprise as against 
collectivity, and a dramatic downsizing and restructuring of the Public 
Service.  Several government departments were privatised or converted to 
State owned enterprises, driven primarily by a profit not a social need or 
service imperative.  Schools which in the 70's had been urged to be caring 
and supportive were now urged to pursue achievement and efficiency as a 
means to increased equity as well as higher achievement. 

There has been much comment on the wider aspects of the 1980 reforms (Codd 
et al, 1988, Access, 1988, Snook, 1989, Barrington, 1990, Lauder et al, 
1988, Boston et al, 1988).  In this paper I shall outline continuing 
concerns with the problematic nature of the administrative changes as they 
affect schools and their principals, in particular the emphasis on 
managerial efficiency and control as against professionalism.  I shall go 
on to look briefly at alternative models of educational management and 
leadership, and to suggest possibilities for enhancing truly educational 
leadership within self-governing schools in their relations with government 
and local communities.

What is happening in New Zealand schools?


It is obvious that the role of principals is crucial in the move to school 
based management.  Principals are the nexus between schools and parents., 
between staff and board, between school and outside agencies.  Their role 
gives them shared responsibility for setting policy and determining school 
goals, but full responsibility for the successful implementation of these 
goals.  They are urged to work collegially with staff while at the same 
time taking responsibility for appraisal as well as motivation and 
professional development.  They are required to develop new skills in 
finance and property management while retaining their professional 
responsibility for curriculum and pedagogy within the school.  Some of the 
tensions of the position are inherent in management and leadership roles 
but are exacerbated by the nature of schools as organisations and the 
current climate of control and accountability.  They are at the centre of 
competing demands for accountability, and have to balance their commitment 
to an ethic of caring against official demands for managerial efficiency.  
National confusion about educational aims, criticism of current practices, 
and rapid social and economic change have also added to the problems 
principals face.

Changes caused by the implementation of Tomorrow's Schools vastly increased 
the personal workload of most principals.  Charter writing and the 
accompanying community consultation, increased paperwork, the requirement  
to provide written policy statements covering a range of issues within a 
short space of time, coping with responsibilities in hiring staff, 
servicing Boards of Trustees and financial management were all stressful 
and time-consuming.  Once the changes were in place the workload could have 
been expected to stabilise.  Evidence shows it has not. (Wylie, 1992).  A 
recent informal survey in Auckland revealed working weeks between 50 and 80 
hours.  Principals complain that bureaucracy has not gone away - its 
demands have merely shifted into schools.  Overworked principals are 
unlikely to provide stimulating leadership, initiate new projects or 
developments or be humane and responsive in dealing with those who make 
demands or approach them for help.  They are more likely to suffer from 
stress and burnout symptoms. 

What are principals doing in the long hours they spend working?  Obviously 
this varies from school to school but property management and a variety of 
accountability issues loom large on most lists.  For many there has been a 
shift away from what they see as professionally productive activity to work 
they feel could probably more effectively be done by others or to work 
defending and explaining the teaching programme and the reasons for 
adopting specific policies.  Stress and frustration are exacerbated by 
uncertainty about national policies, changes and requirements.  

School based management leaves principals with responsibility for finance, 
works and maintenance, under delegation from their Boards of Trustees.  
Many are exhilarated by their new freedom to allocate resources and 
determine property priorities in the light of local needs.  But the 
practical realities may be tedious and time-consuming. A number query the 
logic of requiring each school to develop or hire expertise in dealing with 
property functions, feeling it would be better to have such knowledge 
available at regional level.   Deciding whether to replace the guttering or 
reseal the carpark seems remote from educational decision making and 
professional expertise.  This is particularly a problem for smaller schools 
with fewer resources.   Another irksome task is the effort to comply with 
government audit office requirements for financial accounting.  Over the 
past fifteen months schools there have been three changes to the official 
guidelines and schools are unclear about the expectations on them for the 
first three months of next year.  As a result many principals opt for a 
somewhat cynical compliance, reporting what they consider to be trivial but 
measurable and therefore acceptable, so they and their Board will escape 
criticism.  They also resent auditors' quibbling over single items of 
expenditure for professional purposes.   Conversely they are puzzled that 
that there is no official requirement to report on significant educational 
initiatives which cannot be quantified.


The Picot Task Force envisaged additional administrative support services 
within schools. Informal observation suggests that schools are making what 
use they can of technology and hiring additional assistance to help cope 
with the increased loading self-management has brought.   But small schools 
and those in poorer areas find this difficult since their budgets have less 
flexibility.   Principals often feel that their task is to protect their 
staff from bureaucratic interference to free them for their professional 
and teaching role and hesitate to delegate.  Often the capacity of Boards 
of Trustees to provide practical assistance is limited.  Their members work 
full time in demanding jobs and those with accounting and managment skills 
may be the least likely to assist.  Though some trustees are spending more 
than six hours a week on school business, surveys show that his level of 
involvement is unlikely to be sustained without resentment. (Wylie, 1992)

Communication has also assumed a new significance.  Whether principals 
enjoy supportive, mixed or uneasy relationships with Board members they 
face a major role in keeping them informed and in clarifying issues.  There 
are often differences of opinion ranging from open conflict to mild 
disagreement over the appropriate ways of rating pupil and teacher 
achievement, for instance.  Overt accountability has also forced schools to 
be more open to the community and to parents.  Principals estimate that 
parent interviews now consume a high proportion of their time.  For many 
this has been a useful and healthy exercise, providing substantial 
information about social and community issues.  But explaining the reasons 
for their decisions in ways that make sense to lay members of the community 
demands high level skills in communication.  The new public relations roles 
are made more difficult by claims reported in the media that education is 
in crisis, that schools are failing.  Some New Zealand principals feel 
embattled.  While some of the criticisms of education mirror those that 
teachers themselves have made regularly their unthinking and simplistic 
reiteration and the attacks on teachers that accompany them are 
demoralising, especially as responsibility has been so firmly sheeted home 
to individual schools. 

At the same time principals are facing demands for more more demonstrable 
accountability, for measurable evidence of children's learning performance.  
Testing and assessment are issues which excite controversy, create 
misunderstandings, and frequently generate more heat than light.  
Assessment of pupils' learning is an essential professional task.  It is 
also one of the most difficult since precise measures are lacking and the 
variables in any learning situation are so diverse.  Schools have always 
reported to parents on their children's' learning, some more effectively 
than others.  Now that the responsibility for assessment, like so many 
other tasks, is squarely placed on the principal there is scope for 
conflict with Boards and parents and a danger that rigid schemes will be 
set in place which in fact inhibit learning and narrow the curriculum to 
the imparting of measurable skills and knowledge.  

The pressure on individual principals to demonstrate that they have raised 
the level of achievement of their pupils is also considerable.  Such 
demands, too, appear deceptively simple and straightforward.  Yet not only 
are learning patterns unpredictable but all too often the demand is to 
improve performance in relation to other schools,  to engage in open 
competition.   Leaving aside the question of the desirability of such an 
ethic, such demands ignore the fact that  achieving superior results in 
purely academic terms has  been shown to be highly dependent on the intake 
of students.  (Wilms, 1985, Snook, 1991. Lauder and Hughes, 1991)   Thus 
the way to improve educational outcomes overall would be to ensure greater 
social mix.   But if the achievement of schools is rated in a competitive 
way principals and Boards may be encouraged to compete also for particular 
types of student whose abilities will indeed enhance performance levels, 
but at the expense of achievement in other schools.   This may seem to 
apply more to secondary schools than to primary at present but  it is 
becoming an increasingly important issue for the entire system.  

All principals now have the responsibility for selecting their own staff.  

While secondary principals have always done so, it is a welcome change for 
their primary colleagues.  They also have a new, overt and inescapable 
responsibility for staff appraisal, the assessment of teacher performance.  
Many would be happier to concentrate only on staff development.  There is  
evidence that large numbers of Boards are supportive and that teachers are 
encouraged to take advantage of budgeted funds to attend courses, visit 
other schools or acquire new skills.  (Alcorn, 1990, Wylie 1991).   The new 
freedom in this area has led to a number of innovative and creative 
approaches.  There have been widespread attempts to encourage individuals 
and teams to engage in self-evaluation.   Staffing decisions imposed by 
falling rolls may, however, mean that the present cautious and gradual 
approach will prove inadequate and the establishment of formal appraisal 
systems be faced quickly.   Here principals face further dilemmas.  The 
current atmosphere of uncertainty is not the most desirable climate for the 
introduction of programmes which need stability and trust as well as time 
and resources.  At a time when many teachers feel that they are being 
punished for the shortcomings of the system, there are inappropriate models 
being promoted by non-educationalists.  As Fullan and Hargreaves (1990) 
observe, appraisal schemes that implicate all staff in order to detect a 
small percentage of incompetents are a waste of time.  Yet principals 
cannot ignore claims of professional incompetence or arrogance.    There is 
also a tension between developing a professional scheme, driven by 
educational as well as managerial needs, with staff  involvment in planning 
and implementation  while at the same time ensuring that reviews are not 
inward looking and self-congratulatory.

Even where principals are excited by their new freedom, ongoing change 
imposed by government determinations still takes its toll.  Kanter (1990) 
emphasises that change by its very nature tends to create overload.  Her 
study of successful entrepreneurial organisations showed that their staff 
felt they were in control of innovation;  stress resulted when they felt 
uncertain, anxious or relatively powerless.  In New Zealand schools 
uncertainty continues to create anxiety.  Changes may be first heard of 
when leaked to the media  or  revealed without preparation at a public 
event.  Anxiety has been particularly high over the implications of the 
proposed bulk funding of teachers' salaries, opposed by a majority of 
teachers and boards but enthusiastically endorsed by the Minister.  Many 
principals fear further cuts and less rather than more flexibility.  They 
also fear for the fate of less well-off schools.  The recent cancellation 
of the pool reliever scheme which operated in a number of difficult to 
staff areas in low socio-economic districts has served to deepen these 
suspicions.  They know, too, that most Board of Trustee members have 
neither the time, inclination or expertise to make personnel or salary 
decisions, and that they resent the fact that their performance in carrying 
out such unwanted tasks would be officially audited.

The rhetoric for Tomorrow's Schools  promised that the new system would 
deliver greater equity through targeted funding and through strengthened 
local input in curriculum.  This was widely challenged by teachers' 
organisations and academics who believed that the differences already 
obvious between more and less advantaged districts would become greater.  
Their predictions are now being realised, in spite of a steadily increasing 
Vote Education.  Rather than narrowing, the gap between more and less 
advantaged schools is widening.  It is the less advantaged who feel that 
their government grant is inadequate. (Wylie 1991).  They are less likely 
to own expensive resources for classroom use such as science equipment, 
computers, audio-visual equipment and musical instruments.  They are less 
likely to own a computer to help with administration.  They are more likely 
to have deferred maintenance.  They are less likely to have members of the 
Board with financial expertise and more likely to need to purchase help 
with this work.  This means they have less  money to spend on teaching and 
resources.  They are also less likely to be able to raise money through 
fees and less likely to make money from local fundraising.  Though many 
schools are grappling courageously with equity issues most of these are far 
wider than can be addressed at local level.  Nevertheless much of the 
responsibility has been shifted there.


Principals may face ethical/equity issues in responding to parental 
demands.  Some members of the communities schools serve may be competitive, 
racist or sexist and may expect their covert values to be expressed in the 
curriculum and climate of the school.  Even where the pressures are less 
extreme and principals feel their schools have been winners under the new 
system, they face equity dilemmas.  Do they respond to parent pressure to 
provide the type of education which will help their children gain entry to 
private schools?  How do they provide expensive extras which will put 
pressures on families with limited resources?  Do they attract so many 
children to their exciting new programmes that the school down the road is 
forced to close?  Do they opt for retaining children who might otherwise 
have moved on?  How do they determine priorities among the differing needs 
of children in their care?  What kind of response do they make to charter 
statements about the Treaty of Waitangi, to biculturalism and the 
partnership between Maori and Pakeha?  What kind of staff do they hire?  
Maintaining long term professional goals may not be easy in the face of 
community pressure and economic restraints.         

The members of the Picot Task Force had as an ideal a vision of community 
schools, serving local needs.  They  believed that local parents should be 
the ones to decide what special character the school would develop.  They 
assumed a diverse group of parents whose values might be incompatible could 
work towards agreeement.   But the concept of school community in New 
Zealand is changing.   In cities, at least, proximity may become less 
important than perceived ethos or character.  Parents shop around for a 
school they feel will be suitable for their children, which meets their own 
criteria.  Often these parents are intelligent, well-informed, and 
affluent.  Some principals spend a considerable amount of time interviewing 
prospective parents, explaining the opportunities and values their school 
offers.  There is much that is positive in this activity.  Schools are 
forced to ask themselves what things they do especially well and find ways 
of communicating these strengths to the community.  They may well decide 
that they need to sharpen their performance in certain areas and allocate 
budget finance accordingly.

Principals concerned about wider social equity may have to resist pressure 
from Boards demanding a highly competitive atmosphere within the school or 
the establishment of restrictive zoning policies.  Already in larger cities 
there are areas where professional co-operation between schools is evident 
and others where the competitive ethic sees each institution competing for 
market share.  Especially in areas where the community is imbued with a 
success ethic based on the failure of others, or population trends are 
causing rolls to drop, there is a temptation to push one's own attractions 
to the detriment of other nearby schools.  Some schools Boards have 
disenfranchised nearby children from areas which might be seen to detract 
from the image of the school.  Too often primary or intermediate schools 
give parents advice about secondary education based on inadequate and 
second-hand information.  The need to attract students may tempt principals 
and Boards to adopt a single set of values reflecting the norms of what is 
still assumed by many in the media to be the one best model:  tight 
discipline, uniforms, an emphasis on high academic performance within a 
traditional monocultural curriculum.   Ironically, it could also result in 
adoption of low parental and student expectations.

Concentrating on the needs of a particular school community can be a 
healthy exercise.  It can also lead to parochialism and narrowness of 
vision, a lack of awareness of what is happening in the system as a whole.  
This could well increase if observed trends towards internal appointments 
at senior level and more static staffing in general continue.  Schools need 
the challenge of fresh perspectives.  Otherwise congruence and consensus 
may become uncritical and stultifying.  Principals can also find that their 
Boards are anxious for them to concentrate their energies on running their 
particular school and will be less than sympathetic to activities which 
take them out of it:  organising the music festival, the sports 
competition, the speech contest, acting as a professional mediator or 

counsellor, or a consultant to nearby schools.   The challenge to 
principals is the need to maintain professionalism and to preserve a vision 
wider than that of the local community.   Although New Zealand has examples 
of significant educational movements that have remained outside the 
official education system, especially in the field of early childhood or 
pre-school education, most important advances in either curriculum or 
teaching method have been initiated by education professionals.  Public 
opinion has tended to lag behind though parents familiar with schools were 
readier to accept changes than members of the public who were not.  

The current suspicion of teacher unions by politicians and certain 
influential groups is worrying for those who value national professional 
links.  Teacher unions in New Zealand have always been active both in 
industrial negotiations and in the advocacy of educational reform.  Now 
their commitment to the latter is being questioned - by bodies who 
seemingly cannot conceive of interest that is not self interest.  The 
official Ministry position is that  teacher unions can have no official 
status with them  since their members are employees of Boards of Trustees.  
At the same time the implications of the Employment Contracts Act of 1991 
are forcing teacher organisations to adopt a more combative mode.  Many 
principals, themselves members of the union, are caught in the middle.  A 
further complication arises from the recent recognition of the newer 
principals' organisations by government.  The secondary body has been 
granted finance to release its president from school duties at the same 
time as the primary teachers' union has lost this long-standing privilege.  
The Ministry's viewpoint is that consulting this group, representing 
management, is appropriate.  Ironically these principals' associations, 
whose members are both employees and members of Boards of Trustees, are 
already seeking representation at industrial negotiations.



Principals and teachers have worked to implement the changes in educational 
administration out of sense of loyalty.  Their concern was not more 
efficient systemic administration but more resources in the classroom and 
more effective teaching.  Their key question has been:  Are the changes 
going to improve outcomes for students?  Increasingly their verdict is that 
the changes have made little difference inside the classroom.  New 
developments there are not the result of new freedoms but have grown from 
earlier practice.  Many principals and their staffs are cynical  that  the 
reforms were sold with promises that teaching and learning would improve 
through greater availability of resources and responsiveness to parental 
wishes.  They believe the community was misled into thinking that children 
were being shortchanged.  Many now regard their paramount task is to shield 
and buffer their pupils, to maintain continuity  and stability in spite of 
the upheavals in administration.  (Mitchell et al, 1991)

Management v Professional Leadership

I have outlined some of the difficulties and dilemmas school principals in 
New Zealand have faced since the implementation of school based management.  
Some of these are intrinsic to managerial leadership roles and call for the 
exercise of informed professional judgement.  Other dilemmas, however, are 
rooted in the disjuncture between the managerial efficiency model being 
officially propounded and the professional service model to which many 
educators subscribe.  Whereas educational leadership theories have moved 
towards a goal of schools as communities of reflective practitioners, 
working collaboratively and in partnership with parents where appropriate, 
official policies increasingly appear to regard teachers as human resources 
to be managed and controlled.  Boards are elected to exercise this control 
and principals appointed to implement their policies.  The logic of this 
position is that self-managing schools  could exclude teachers from 
participating in policy formation.  This is not yet reality in New Zealand, 
but many official statements seem to imply its desireability.

School based management has forced many New Zealand school principals to 
focus almost exclusively on the management aspect of their roles and on the 
implementation of changing policies determined by central organisations, 
such as the Ministry and the New Zealand Qualifications Authority (NZQA).  
The new salary structures which differentiate their positions from those of 
the staff make it difficult for them to consider themselves any longer as 
merely the head teacher, a colleague working on the same task.  But as 
school autonomy and responsibility grows it is leadership rather than 
management that needs to be stressed.   Principals are increasingly held 
responsible for articulating a vision for the school, for being innovative 
and proactive in seeking improvement in teaching and learning.  There is an 
urgent need to conceptualise the role in a way that is both realistic and 
meaningful.

The Picot Task Force saw the role of the principal as instructional 
leadership and posited collegiality as a key element of management style.  
This was in line with the consultative way they  expected schools to 
interact with their communities.  Since then, the official rhetoric has 
changed considerably, reflecting an external climate in which key values 
are commercialism, labour market flexibility, dismantling of a welfare 
state alleged to cause dependency, and a distrust of professionals which 
has both populist and official backing.  The Lough Committee, set up in 
1990 to evaluate progress on the reforms, expressed its regret that many 
principals saw themselves as instructional leaders rather than managers.  
The role of the Education Review Office (ERO) has evolved from assessment 
of progress towards global charter goals such as equity, through 
educational reviews, to the current assurance audits designed to check that 
Boards of Trustees are fulfilling their obligations to supply the National 
Curriculum and complying with other regulations such as hours of 
attendance.  Staff in the Ministry, ERO, the Qualifications Authority and 
other government agencies are expected to view themselves not as public 

servants - for the will of local communities is no longer given much 
cognisance - but as agents of the collective will of government.  The 
emphasis is increasingly on control, checking, measuring, and limiting, 
rather than on fostering professional independence.  One of the most 
disturbing features about school based management as it seems to be 
envisaged from the central bureaucracy is that it sees teachers as problems 
to be managed or as resource units to be acquired as cheaply as possible 
rather than as colleagues whose professional knowledge and skills are 
central to the learning process which is the purpose of schools.  Such 
attitudes may ensure a minimum standard is maintained:  they are unlikely 
to produce the excellence which is so often quoted as the goal of 
administrative reforms.  As Sergiovanni (1992) points out emphasising 
competent management and skilled human relationships has more to do with 
keeping schools from failing than with encouraging them to excel.

There are alternative models of leadership which are more promising for 
schools which wish to concentrate on becoming true learning communities, 
responsive not only to national bureaucracy but also to the local community 
and to the wider profession.  Some of these theories stress the moral 
dimension of educational leadership and seek to establish valid bases for 
judgement. (Evers and Lakomski 1991, Hodgkinson 1983, 1986)  Others 
recognise the contestable nature of assumptions and values (Greenfield 
1979, 1980, 1991) and seek to find ways in which democratic processes can 
be followed as well as power or coercion.  Bates (1992) stresses the 
importance of commitment to a vision of the future which places "civic 
virtue and social need at the heart of the eductional enterprise". (p.24)  
Some seek to conceptualise the complexity of the role (Bolman and Deal, 
1992).  Others, (Barth, 1990, Fullan and Hargreaves 1991, Sergiovanni 1987, 
1991), look for ways in which school leaders can empower staff, students 
and community members to take appropriate leadership roles, and establish a 
leadership density in the organisation.  In the current climate this is 
difficult  since it could well lead to conflict with official expectations 
for school organisation, curriculum delivery and assessment.  Many models 
also stress the imperative for critical reflection and/or action research.  
They contest the assumption that the way to improve schools is to control 
or punish teachers, believing that teachers and principals are motivated as 
much, if not more, by altruism, commitment to ideals and a desire to do 
good as by self-interest. (Barth, 1990, Sergiovanni, 1992, Fullan and 
Hargreaves, 1992).

Educational leadership is neither a fixed ability nor a skill which can be 
simply acquired, assessed, and then practised.  Nor is it a set of 
characteristics which can be discovered by researchers, studied in 
isolation and prescribed.  However in the period since October 1, 1989 in 
New Zealand there has been a proliferation of management training and 
inservice programmes at varying levels, the formation of new national 
principals' organisations, and the establishment of a variety of support 
groups for school leadership.  The response to such initiatives suggests 
principals and others feel a need for education and support.  Yet though 
there are fine counter examples much of this activity and concern has 
focused on entrepreneurial business management techniques, fails to read 
the culture of schools which is necessary for student development, and 
serves to deny the professionalism of most teachers.  

 What, then, do school principals need to learn and what sources of support 
do they need to develop to survive and function effectively as 
educationists in the new climate?

The easy and immediate answers seem to be taken from the business 
management model I have already suggested is inadequate:  skills in time 
and stress management that will help them to survive.  But even these 
skills are not the simplistic issues many texts and programmes suggest, 
though there are undoubtedly useful techniques to be learned.  How 
principals and other leaders spend their time depends on their sense of 
what is important, what aspects of their work they have to perform 
personally, cultural perceptions about the nature of time, distinctions 

between work and leisure.  To use time wisely they will need to 
conceptualise their roles and establish priorities.

It is also true that many principals need to develop further skills in 
communication, in human relations, group interaction, and the handling of 
conflict.  Their initial training and their experience as teachers gives 
them a wide repertoire of skills for dealing with students of different 
ages, less for interaction with adults who are also skilled professionals 
or with diverse groups of parents.  They know a great deal about child and 
adolescent development:  understanding themselves and those they work with 
is equally important.  Their communication skills have been geared to work 
with students not in the advocacy and negotiation necessary in school 
leadership.

The concept of instructional leadership focused attention on the prime role 
of the school in promoting student learning.  This calls for principals 
with a broad knowledge of educational and social concerns and the ability 
and desire to attract reflective and well qualified staff.  Many schools 
are responding to this challenge by examining their practices criticially 
and designing new programmes and practices.  To do this they need to draw 
on past experience, research on learning processes, community expectations, 
and a knowledge of social change.  But the principal's role demands more 
than a knowledge of education and management.  Instructional leadership 
must be defined broadly if it is not to impose a narrow focus on delivery 
and measurement of a received curriculum.

Those who become principals in the new era must also become politicised, 
aware of the ways in which both government policies and their own behaviour 
can determine the extent to which our state education system contributes to 
social justice on the one hand, or on the other the extent to which it 
reinforces or increases social division.  As they contemplate the 
difference between what is happening in New Zealand now and the rhetoric 
that the new system would promote greater equity, many principals have 
already developed a new sense of awareness about the operation of our 
system.  Snook (1991) challenged teachers and principals to look critically 
at various forms of external assessment being proposed and ask questions 
about their educational effects, noting that in teacher education 
programmes so far assessment, when treated at all, has generally been 
treated as a technology rather than as a political activity.  Yet lobbyists 
demand assessment so they can criticise and compare schools and blame them 
for the unemployment of individuals. 

Politicisation also demands the building of alliances and professional 
links.  This is a crucial task at a time when the official emphasis is on 
divisiveness, competition, and concentrating on the local scene.  The 
preservation of existing professional bonds and the development of new ones 
are essential to retain a sense of allegiance to education and to the 
profession as well as to local schools and institutions, a sense of being 
part of a national and international teaching service.  Remaining critical 
and maintaining a perspective wider than that of an individual district is 
an easier task for those who have peer support.

The other and crucial alliance for principals is with parents.  Recent New 
Zealand research (Wylie, 1992) shows that most are not unhappy with what is 
happening in to their children at school.  There is little perceived 
parental concern over curriculum or discipline, though many Maori parents 
query monocultural bias.  Informal evidence shows that most parents and 
Boards want to  be able to share with and support teaching staff not to 
control schools.  But parents too need to be politicised.  In recent years 
they have been told constantly by the New Zealand media that schools are 
performing badly, that there is cause for grave concern, that the changes 
in administration will give them a greater say in the schooling of their 
children and that this will improve performance.  The Chicago experience 
shows that the links are less simple than that. (Hess, 1992)  Parents need 
to be informed and consulted about what is happening in schools, they need 
to be convinced that staff are concerned about their children and 

knowledgeable about their achievements.  They need to be assured that the 
processes and practices followed in schools are both rigorous and 
nurturing, that the skills their children are taught are relevant for the 
world for which they are being prepared.  Sallis (1988) claims that only a 
coalition of parents and educationalists will be able to influence 
governments to provide the necessary resources to schooling and to support 
the professionalism of teachers.  The alliance is a natural one:  teachers 
and parents share an immediate concern with the learning and development of 
pupils.

In our society universities have a dual task:  they act as respositories of 
past knowledge and as creators of new knowledge, recognising that those 
living in the present must be aware of both the future and the past.  
Schools have to maintain a similar balance.  In New Zealand Maori people 
challenge Pakeha  to acknowledge their inextricable links to ancestral ties 
and obligations.  Often our pattern has been to discard the past in the 
name of progress as in the recent reforms to our educational system, while 
at the same time clinging to value patterns of countries on the other side 
of the globe.   On the other hand we are only slowly  beginning to adopt 
flexible educational structures in response to the implications of 
technology, changing world patterns, and the demands of lifelong learning, 
abandoning lockstep structures imposed by traditional learning levels.  
With so much responsibility for learning organisation now resting at school 
level, principals need to retain an awareness of where we are coming from 
as well as articulating the directions they hope to move towards.

We cannot turn back the clock to earlier organisational patterns and there 
appears to be consensus that few schools would wish to do so (Wylie, 1991).  
Nor can we slow the pace of social and technological change,  though many 
schools and their principals may hope for a return to stability after the 
upheavals of the past few years.  Educational leadership thus demands 
enhanced skills in future scanning, information retrieval and analysis as 
well as a capacity for critical reflection.  School principals need to be 
willing to let go of the familiar, to set out on a journey without knowing 
precisely what the destination is.  The mission of Star Trek's  USS 
Enterprise "to go boldly where no one has gone before," may be a metaphor 
as important for management as for researchers.

The role of school principals in New Zealand in 1992 is complex, time 
consuming and demanding.  It is also challenging and important.  It is 
demanding because of its diversity and because the work is never completed.  
It is complex because the environment is constantly changing.  It is 
difficult because because there is little agreement about values and 
purpose in society as a whole.  Schools receive contradictory messages.  
Education is attacked and yet claimed to be of vital national importance.  
Schooling has become more overtly political than before and schools more 
overtly accountable.  Yet they have little control over the level of 
resourcing they receive to do the job.  

In this new era school leaders have to find ways of maintaining a sense of 
equilibrium as they confront the multiple roles of educational leadership 
and management.  They need to hold firm to their sense of purpose and to an 
educational philosophy that refuses to adopt simplistic certainties.  Goal 
setting is a healthy exercise:  so is the acknowledgment that outcomes 
cannot be exactly controlled or measured.  The task of school leadership is 
no place for those who believe that they must always be right.  It was 
comforting to hear the Chief Executive of one of New Zealand's largest 
companies express the same view of business leadership recently.  
Leadership demands the ability to remain comfortable with ambiguity and 
uncertainty, the attitude of minds John Keats labelled negative capability.  
It demands the insistence that diversity and difference are to be welcomed, 
not eliminated in the name of uniform standards.  Principals must learn to 
work with those who do not share their values while remaining true to 
themselves.  They must refuse to be controlled and they must accept 
accountability and responsibility for their principles and practices.  They 
must look forward without losing sight of the past in which their ideas 

were shaped.  True education is about wisdom as well as knowledge and 
skills.  It is a quality much needed by those who lead and manage schools 
and those, including researchers, who help to prepare them for the task.




References

Access 7 (1988)  Special Issue.  Picot and Beyond.  Education Department, 
University of Auckland. 

Alcorn, Noeline (1990)  One Year On:  The New Role of the Principal in New 
Zealand Schools.  NZ Journal of Educational Administration 5, 7-14

Barrington, John (1990) Why Picot? A Critique and Commentary.  NZJEA 5, 15-
17

Barth, Roland (1991)  Improving Schools from Within: Teachers, parents and 
pupils can make the difference.  San Francisco:  Jossey-Bass.

Bates, Richard (1992)  The Emerging Culture of Educational Administration 
and What We Can Do About it.  Paper presented to the National Conference of 
the Australian Council for Educational Administration, Darwin, July.  

Beeby, C. E. (1986)  Introduction to Renwick, W.L.  Moving Targets:  Six 
Essays on Educational Policy.  Wellington: NZCER.

Bolman, Lee and Terence Deal (1992) Leading and Managing:  Effects of 
Culture, context and gender.  Educational Administration Quarterly, 28:3, 
314-329. 

Codd, John, Liz Gordon, & Richard Harker (1988)  Educational Administration 
and the Role of the State:  Devolution and Control Post Picot.  On Wylie, 
C. Proceedings of the First Research in Educational Policy Conference.  
Wellington: NZCER.

Evers, Colin (1987)  Philosophical Research in Educational Administration. 
In McPherson, R (ed) Ways and Meanings in Educational Research in 
Educational Administration.  Armidale:  University of New England Press.

Fullan, M & A. Hargreaves. (1992) What's Worth Fighting for in Your 
School?.. Buckingham: Open University Press in conjunction with the Ontario 
Public School Teachers' Federation. 

Greenfield, T.B. (1975) Theory About organisation:  A New Perspective and 
its Implications for Schools.  in M Hughes (ed)  Administering Education:  
International Challenge.  London:  Athlone Press, 71-99.

Greenfield, T. B (1980)  The Man Who Comes Trough a Door in the Wall:  
discovering truth, discovering self, discovering organisations.  
Educational Administration Quarterly, 16:3, 26-59.

Greenfield, T.B. (1991)  Reforming and Revaluing Educational 
Administration.  Whence and Where cometh the Phoenix, Paper presented at 
AREA Conference.

Hess, G. Alfred (1992)  School Restructuring, Chicago Style.  A Midway 
Report.  Chicago:  Chicago Panel on Public School Policy and Finance

Hodgkinson, C. (1983)  The Philosophy of Leadership.  Oxford:  Basil 
Blackwell

Jones, Alison, et al (1990)  Myths and Realities:  Schooling in New 
Zealand.  Palmerston North:  The Dunmore Press.

Kanter, Rosabeth M (1989)  When Giants Learn to Dance.  New York:  Simon 
and Schuster

Lange, David (1988)  Tomorrow's Schools:  The Reform of Educational 
Administration in New Zealand.  Wellington: The Government Printer


Lauder, Hugh and David Hughes (1991)  Human Capital Theory and the Wastage 
of Talent in New Zealand.  NZJES, 23:1, 5-20.

Lough Committee (1990)  Today's Schools:  A Review of the Education Reform 
Implementation Process  mimeo).  Wellington:  The Government Printer.

Mitchell, David, Richard Jefferies, Paul Keown and Robin McConnell (1991) 
Monitoring Today's Schools:  A Scorecard After 18 Months.  NZJEA 6, 48-61.

Openshaw, Roger and David McKenzie (1987) Reinventing the Educational Past:  
Essays in the History of New Zealand Education.  Wellington:  NZCER.

Sallis, Joan (1988)  Schools, Parents and Governors:  A New Approach to 
Accountability.  London:  Routledge

Segiovanni, Thomas (1987)  The Principalship:  A reflective Practice 
Perspective.  Boston:  Alleyn and Bacon

Sergiovanni, Thomas (1992)  Moral Leadership:  Getting to the Heart of 
School Improvement.  San Francisco:  Jossey-Bass.

Shuker, Roy (1987)  The One Best System?  Palmerston North:  The Dunmore 
Press

Snook, Ivan (1989) Educational Reform in New Zealand:  What is going on?.  
Access, 8:2, 9-18.

Snook, Ivan (1991)  Schools at Work:  Making Decisions about Learning.  
Keynote Address to the International Conference of the New Zealand 
Principals' Federation.  Palmerston North.  July.

Taskforce to Review Educational Administration (1988)  The Picot Report.  
Administering for Excellence:  Effective Administration in Education.  
Wellington:  The Taskforce.

Wilms, Douglas (1988).  The Balance Thesis:  conceptual effects of ability 
in pupils' O-grade examination results.  Oxford Review of Education 11, 33-
41

Wylie, Cathy (1991)  The Impact of Tomorrow's Schools in Primary Schools 
and Intermediates.  1990 Survey Report.  Wellington: NZCER

Wylie, Cathy (1992) School Autonomy in a National Education System :  Three 
Years of Tonorrow's Schools.  NZJEA 7,   
vyWalking the Tightrope:  


NZARE/AARE Conference
 November 23, 1992