EDUCA1 ON - World Banksiteresources.worldbank.org/EDUCATION/.../Implementing_ed_reform… · the education reform and management series implementinc; education reforms in new zealand:

THE EDUCATION REFORMAND MANAGEMENT SERIES

IMPLEMENTINC; EDUCATION REFORMSIN NEW ZEALAND: 1987-97

A Case Study

Lyall Perris

February 1998

EDUCA1 ONT H E W O R L D B A N K

Implementing Education Reformsin New Zealand: 1987-97

a case study

Lyall Perrisformer Acting Secretary for Education, New Zealand

February 1998

CONTENTS

i. Forewardii. Acknowledgmentsiii. Executive Summary

Sections: Pages:

1.0 To the Reader: An Introduction 1

2.0 Purpose of the Case Study 1

3.0 The New Zealand Education System: 1987 1

4.0 The Context of Change 4

5.0 Pressures for Education Reform 5

6.0 Designing The Reforms 8

7.0 Implementing the Reforms - Preconditions 11

8.0 Implementing the Reforms - Planning the Process 12

9.0 Implementing the Reforms - Making it Happen in 1988-89 13

10.0 Implementing the Reforms - Making it Happen 1989-91 16

11.0 Reviews and Evaluations 17

12.0 Implementing the Reforms - Dealing with Problems 18

13.0 Continuing Change 1991-97 20

14.0 Unresolved Issues 22

15.0 Lessons from the New Zealand Experience 1987-97 24

16.0 Conclusion 27

Annex One 28

Bibliography and References 29

About the Author 31

Implementing Education Reforms in New Zealand: 1987-97 i

FOREWARD

1987-97 has been a remarkable decade in New Zealand's history. New Zealand was confronted with no eco-nomic growth; high unemployment yet a lack of skilled people; huge overseas debt; and few international tradingpartners. Faced with this, New Zealand undertook root and branch reform within a redefined minimalist role forgovernment, and therefore the entire public service.

Education was central to the strategy and seen as the bridge that linked the government's twin goals of economicgrowth and social cohesion. A flexible, responsive education system which produced the people with the skills,attitudes and learning New Zealand needed was seen as necessary (though not sufficient!) for success.

The plan was to produce a publicly funded self-managing education system where authority and delivery wasde-centralized to the local level; with appropriate, well-defined accountability systems; with targeting for thosewith specific needs, and offering choice to all the people of where and how to get education throughout their lives.

This was radical, different and very ambitious.

However all the pre-requisites for a successful change were more or less in place: a real sense of crisis and a needfor change; political commitment; a legislative and financial framework; a literate population; adequate funding; capac-ity atthe local level interms ofteachers and parents; and aplan. This comingtogetherofevents had been aptly entitled"When all the Lights Turned Green" by the historians Graham and Susan Butterworth for their forthcoming book, thefirst complete account of the education reforms.

All that is still notenough. Implementation of reform requiresamajoreffort- initiallytomakethechange, andthenover time to make the changes work. That requires good people at each phase and every level.

In 1989 1 was appointed secretary for Education to the new Ministry of Education, responsible for implementingthe reforms. I appointed Lyall Perris to my Strategic Management Group, a decision I was never to regret. PreviouslyLyall had held key positions, been at the center of legislative activity, and had wide range of experience in education.After I left for the World Bank, he was Acting Secretary for eighteen months. He is therefore in unique position toprovide this fascinating case study of these important and continuing reforms.

During implementation what you think will happen is not always what does happen. And there are unplanned, evenserendipity effects which are important to capitalize on. For example the decentralized system created in NewZealand is probably the largest, most exciting adult education program the country has ever produced. At any one time20,000 people (mainly parents) are learning how to set policies to manage property, personnel, finances and curriculum,i.e. create real learning environments in early childhood centers, schools and tertiary institutions.

While the reforms were underway, there was little or no time to write or reflect. Now as the threads are drawn outand woven together the patterns appear...

Maris O'RourkeDirector, EducationHuman Development NetworkThe World Bank

;; The Education Reform and Management Series, Vol. 1, No.2

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am grateful for the help freely given to me by many people, in the preparation of this case study. Thank youto those in New Zealand who allowed themselves to be interviewed, and who shared their recollections with me;and special thanks to Drs Susan and Graeme Butterworth, historians, for the hours we spent in discussion, and foraccess to your collection. At the World Bank, I acknowledge present and former staff for their thoughtfulcomments on drafts and their help in bringing the task to conclusion: Sue Berryman, Philip Keefer, Frans Lenglet,Maris O'Rourke, Femando Reimers, Wendy Rimer, Patrick Supanc, Jeffrey Waite; with special thanks to YasuhikoMatsuda for his leadership, encouragement and guidance.

Implementing Education Reforms in New Zealand: 1987-97 iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYDuring the ten year period of 1987-1997, New Zealand undertook a major restructuring of its public education

system with the primary objective of decentralizing authority and authority to the school level. In this retrospectiveaccount, former acting Secretary for Education Lyall Perris shares his views on how such fundamental changes weresuccessfully implemented across political leadership change and amidst potential opposition. To that end, the discus-sion is largely chronological beginning with the 1987 Education Review

The central focus of the document is on the change process itself, not on the impact that structural change hassubsequently had on learning outcomes. Outcome analysis is only recently emerging in the academic literature andmerits closer attention elsewhere. Also, the majority of discussion concerns reform of the primary school system(K-8), although some attention is given to the politization of reforms surrounding the tertiary preschool levels.

The first third of the document (Sec. 4-6) concentrates on the economic and political context for change, withspecial attention to the internal pressures within the government to make education reform a priority on the policyagenda against the backdrop of broader, sweeping changes in the public sector. Initial momentum for the reform wascreated by building inter-ministerial cooperation (i.e. The Taskforce to Review Education Administration), by employ-ing personal commitment bythe Prime Ministerto enlistpublic supportand invest his political capital in success, and byproviding a clear, "pre-negotiated" roadmap for reform implementation (i.e. the Picot Report).

The second third of the document (Sec. 7-13) focuses on the implementation process. Necessary precondi-tions,planning procedures, and the importance of committed "public entrepreneurs" are discussed. Of particular interest isPerris' discussion of how the education reform agenda remained largely intact despite a change in government. Muchofthis resilience is owed to the consensus building and communications strategies employed at an earlier stage coupledwith adroit conflict resolution and compromise as opposition mobilized in later stages. Moreover, almost all structuralchanges were legislatively and operationally put in place at a rapid pacebefore the election cycle - raising the cost andreducing the likelihood of reversal.

The document concludes with a brief recap of unresolved issues such as teacher labor relations, funding levels,pitfalls of local control and learning outcomes. It goes on to elaborate the following implementation "lessons" from theNew Zealand experience:

* Change is catalyzed by a general reform climate, broad public support, and requisite infrastructure.* Consistent, strong, committed political leadership is essential.* Legislating change demonstrates serious intent and reduces the temptation of reversal by fiat.* Political leaders must have confidence in the commitment and ability of their public officials.* Allies in the planning and financial arenas of government are critical along with other opinion leaders.* Use the communications media.* Change quickly -more quicklythan is comfortable.* Appoint a specialist change manager with authority to act.* Take action to gain the cooperation of existing staff who must implement the transition.* Deliberately engage or isolate pressure groups - never ignore them.* Be prepared to inject extra funding to "sweeten the pill" for reform losers* Allow for mistakes and create incentives for transparency and learning.* Remember exit, transition and entry arrangements.

Above all, Perris concludes, remember that change is possible.

Implementing Education Reforms in New Zealand: 1987-97 1

1.0 To the Reader: An Introduction 2.0 Purpose of the Case StudyThis case study is more like memoirs than history. A major reform of education administration and

I have called on my own memory of the times, private financing, from preschool to university levels, took placeconversations with other participants and discussions in New Zealand during the period 1987-1993. The edu-with historians, as well as documentary references, to cation reform was part of wider upheavals in govern-put forward my own judgments and interpretations . ment administration which began in 1984. The mainIn some instances I am not free to quote the views of thrust of the education reform was to shift governingothers, and you, the reader, will have to judge for your- and managerial responsibilities for education institu-self how much weight to place on some of my state- tions away from central controls, towards communityments. Errors and omissions are, of course, my re- control- but with accountability towards the center.sponsibility. The paper does not express the views of Reform planning was largely completed by 1990 andthe government of New Zealand, or of the New implemented by 1993.Zealand Ministry of Education. The purpose of this case study is to try to answer

My own role during the period 1987-96 varied. At three questions:first (1987-June 1990) 1 was a mid-level Department * How is it that so much of the education reformsof Education official (at 'Director' level) with a back- which were proposed (the policy) was actually putground in curriculum and assessment, who was increas- into practice (the implementation), when the com-ingly working on new legislation and associated policy. mon experience is that so much education reformI chaired the Legislation Working Group, which handled policy fails to be implemented?most of the design of the legislation changes for the a What, if anything, can be identified as special toearly childhood, schools and tertiary changes. My per- the New Zealand experience?sonal focus during that time was on clarifying policy * What might be learned by other countries con-for legislation, although I had some dealings with other fronting the need for education reform?Working Groups and with the Implementation Unit, The focus of the paper is on change processes,many of whose members were known personally to but these processes are not independent of the con-me. tent of reform or the environment in which it takes

From July 1990-mid 1992 1 managed the funding of place. The paper includes some discussion of the per-all education institutions from preschool to university, and ceived problems which led to the reforms, the reformwas on the edge of Dr. Maris O'Rourke's senior man- content, and the political context of the time. But theagement team. From mid-1992 I joined the Ministry's focus is on the implementation of change and in un-Strategic Management Group as a Group Manager derstanding implementation from studying a case(equivalent to Deputy Secretary), primarily responsible where what was attempted was largely achieved.for policy development. After O'Rourke left in October There are differing views inside and outside New1995 totakeupapostwiththeWorldBank,Iheadedthe Zealand about the ideologies or beliefs which under-Ministry as Acting Secretary for Education until my re- pinned the education reforms. The paper refers to thesetirement in mid-1996. I was not, therefore, in the 'central ideologies but does not set out to analyze orjudge them.group' of the Ministry until the heart ofthe changes were Although the reforms covered the whole of thein place, although I had close working and personal rela- New Zealand education system (preschool, school,tions with many of the key players well before that time. higher and university), the paper concentrates on the

I hope that this paper, along with other papers telling school system.'education change' stories from other countries, will helpdecision-makers to reflect upon their own situations, and 3.0 The New Zealand Educationto devise strategies to advance the well-being of their System: 1987

Lyall Pens The New Zealand education system in 1987 was

formerly Acting Secretary for Education, New Zealand. (and still is in 1997) a system which mixed l

2 The Education Reform and Management Series, Vol. I, No.2

district governance and management, with central regu- Committee which managed a very small budget pro-lation and funding. Fundingfor education comes mostly vided by the Board, for things such as consumablesfrom central government. There are no local or re- and cleaning. Some Education Boards were allowinggional taxes for education. school committees to make decisions over minor (up

Fig 2.1 shows the education system in 1987 in dia- to $100) repairs.grammatic form. The diagram shows that control (and All really important decisions (and many trivialfunding) flowed from the Minister through the Depart- ones) were made by the Education Board staff, overment of Education to a range of intermediate bodies. matters such as staff appointments, purchase of capi-These intermediate bodies had a variety of powers and tal items, repairs, and so on. Education Boards wereresponsibilities, but in all cases major decisions were responsible for school building construction and main-made by the Department of Education Head Office. tenance for their schools. The primary school inspec-

tors were based in the Education Board office and3.1 Private education acted as professional advisers to the Board and its other

New Zealand has an unusually-small private edu- staff. Some small secondary schools also came undercation sector. Approximately twenty-five years ago the control of the Education Board. Primary schoolsimost private schools took up the option of becoming did not interact directly with the Department of Edu-'integrated' into the state system. This means that the cation, but only with their Education Board.private owners continue to own their school, but re-ceive full state funding for salaries etc., as long as the 3.4 Secondaryschool facilities and staffing meet state standards, and Children transfer to secondary school after aboutthe school teaches the state-determined curriculum eightyears of primary education, and must remain until(with approved additions relevant to the school's phi- their sixteenth birthday. A growing proportion of stu-losophy). Fewer than 5% of students now attend pri- dents were staying to complete five years of second-vate schools which are not 'integrated'. ary education. Most of the 350 secondary schools had

their own Board of Governors. These Governors con-3.2 Preschool trolled their own school, and related directly to the De-

Preschool services (for children aged 0-5) were partment of Education, through one of four regionalprovided by a variety of not-for-profit organizations, offices of the Department (which also looked afterwhich received differing levels of government support. secondary school property). Each school employed itsOfficially-recognized kindergartens received almost full own staff, and made its own employment decisions,state funding because the government paid kindergar- but as with primary schools, teachers' salaries wereten teacher salaries and looked after their buildings. paid directly to each teacher from the Department.Other types of service received less support. Each Board of Governors received a tightly-controlled

budget from the Department for the sorts of things3.3 Primary which the Education Boards and School Committees

Most children start primary school on their fifth between them handled for primary schools. Second-birthday. Primary schools were governed by one of ary school inspectors monitored education standardsten Education Boards, each having responsibility for in secondary schools, just as primary school inspec-about 200 schools in a district or region. About 10% of tors did for primary schools.primary schools are very small, with fewer than 50students. The Education Board was the employer for 3.5 Tertiaryall the teachers in its schools, and made all the em- Teachers' colleges and polytechnics had their ownployment decisions for those schools (although the governingCouncilsbutwerelargely controlledthroughmoney for the teachers' salaries went directly to each the Department. The Department determined in con-teacher from the Department of Education). Each pri- siderable detail what went on in each of these institu-mary school had its own locally-elected School tions, down to the level of approving any new course

Figure 2.1: Education Administration in New Zealand

Key: 2 Includes integrated schools(integrated intermediates are attached

formal lines of control and administration to integrated secondary schools, but Ministerare run - educabonally and of Education

i)nformal line of administration (board administratively - as separateprovide services under contract to the institutions: integrated form 1-7

5)C6 official provider (the department) schools are fully absorbed into their

secondary school 'parent' and are

c.) Notes: included here in form 1-7 schools).

E) tOutside the structure: I Department of- Kohanga Reo Includes Correspondence School Education- Private primary schools Head Office- Private secondary shcools- Universities

ox /Department of Education Regional Offices

Regional Education Boards ofCouncils

Associations Governors

Committees Committees

I Cornmmittees CornmmitteesManagement Management

Some TertiaryPre-School: ~~~~~~~~~Form 1-7Po)ecns

Kindergartens Primary Intermediate Area Schools2 Secondary Special CommunityPlaycenters Schools2 Schools2 Schools er J Schools2 Schools | Colleges &Childcares | l l l Form 1-7 T chers

Centres ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~School1S2 Clee

4 The Education Reform and Management Series, Vol. 1, No.2

and the staffing which went with it. Universities were unless the New Zealand economy was reshaped, theindependent of the Department. Their funding came country's future was bleak . 'Transformation of theto them in five-yearly block grants, which they orga- economy and the State sector did not just happen; itnized through their own statutory body, the University was masterminded by political leaders who staked theirGrants Committee. careers on dismantling the cocoon economy.' (Schick

1996 pl3)

4.0 The Context of Change Although the Labor government sprang from a cen-

The education changes of 1987-91 did not take ter-left party, it is now evident that several key mem-

place in a vacuum or in isolation from other changes bers, most notably Douglas as Minister of Finance, as-which were taking place in society. sumed power with a preexisting private agenda to dis-

mantle government interventions. The financial crisis

4.1 Economic conditions gave the reformners an unarguable rationale for change.

During the late 1970s and early 1980s New In addition, Treasury had used the intervening years toZealland experienced deteriorating conditions of trade, train and educate a cadre of senior officials, who pro-

and a worsening balance of payments position. In re- vided the intellectual and practical backing for Minis-

sponse, the National government under Robert ters bent on reform.Muldoon, its Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Major sectors of the economy were deregulated,triedl to protect the country through an increasingly and most subsidies were removed, as a first stage in

complex system of regulations and controls, culminat- economic reform. From 1986 the trading activities of

ing in a freeze on wages and prices. The Treasury government entities were targeted, with dramatic gains

disapproved of this approach, and developed its own in productivity (and equally dramatic rises in layoffs).

alternatives (influenced by the 'Chicago school' of There was very clear evidence that government ser-

economics), which it kept 'on the shelf', pending a vice organizations had been inefficient (often at Min-request by some future government for different ideas. isterial direction to meet political ends).

'The currency and balance-of payments problems By mid-1987, a few months before the 1987 elec-

worsened in mid-1984. Muldoon called a snap election, attention had turned to the core public sector, whichtion, and lost heavily. A Labor government took office, was in the throes of being dismantled and reconsti-with David Lange as Prime Minister and Roger Dou- tuted under new legislation. Most of the old detailedglas as Minister of Finance. Within days the new lead- rules which bound public service practice were to be

ers were forced to devalue the currency. abandoned, and instead the new Chief Executives wereMost economic advisers believed the former poli- to have much greater managerial freedom to deter-

cies of regulation and control were a dead-end street. mine for themselves exactly how they went about de-

Given the abject failure of the outgoing government, livering the products or services ( the 'outputs') whichthe idea of a government-controlled economy no longer Ministers gave them money to produce.

carried intellectual credibility. The government rapidly 4.3 Intellectual Underpinningadopted a free-market monetarist approach (com-pletely opposite to its pre-election policies) and set out Senior Treasury officials were strongly influencedto reduce government intervention in the economy by principal-agent theory, which they had met duringand to dismantle much of the controls and regulations overseas study. According to this theory, economic re-which had built up. lationships (including public service relationships) are

affected by the self-interest of the participating par-

4.2 Economic andpublic-sector reform ties. 'Agents' are likely to take self-serving actions,During 1984-87 the government proceeded on the contrary to the interests of their 'principals', unless

most far-reaching monetary and public-sector reforms bound by explicit performance contracts. Principalsin fifty years. An inner core of senior Ministers, and need to keep their agents at arms-length, especiallytheir most senior public servants, were convinced that where policy advice is concerned, or they risk advice


being contaminated by self-interest. Officials from The a change to the Department of Education alone wasTreasury and the State Services Commission took this not enough. There needed to be a wider review oftheory and applied it to the Public Service. They ar- education administration as part of the whole packagegued that the public sector was as prone as any firm to of public sector reform. There was a general feelingopportunism, driven by self-interest of state-sector em- in government circles that the management of educa-ployees against the interests of Ministers, and result- tion needed a major shake-up. Lange himself did noting in state sector inefficiencies. hide his dissatisfaction over the snail-like pace of de-

During the period 1984-90 two widely-differing cision-making in education, the influence ofthe teachersets of ideas rose and fell alongside one another in unions, and the extent to which incompetent peopleNew Zealand: principal-agent theory and socialism. (teachers and elected governors) seemed to be pro-The growing acceptance of the former was helped by tected from any action to get rid of them.the decline in credibility of the latter. As events in The Review was also a convenient counter toEastern Europe unfolded it became increasingly diffi- public criticism about education which had the poten-cult for any argument in support of direct state inter- tial to be damaging to the government as a late- 1987vention or the provision of public services to get a election issue. The Parliamentary Opposition spokes-hearing. person on education had been very effective in chal-

The ground was clear for an acceptance of prin- lenging and criticizing the government on the well-triedcipal-agent theory on which to found public-sector re- battleground of 'educational standards'. Many parentsform. The two most significant flow-ons from this and community leaders were concerned about 'stan-theory were seen in the drive to separate policy ad- dards', and held unspecified fears about the quality ofvice from delivery of services and the development of the education system as a whole - surprising fears inexplicit contracts of service performance ( on the ar- view of the positive remarks which overseas expertsgument that advice and service are otherwise likely to frequently made about the low cost and high quality ofbe contaminated by self-interest of the deliverer ). the New Zealand education system (OECD 1982).

Arguably the most important underlying reform To some extent there was an expectation that aidea was to introduce into the public sector a conven- review of education was inevitable. Certainly, the ex-tional management approach: that government will get tent of change going on elsewhere set a climate ofimproved outcomes by telling managers what it wants public opinion where it was not surprising to find edu-achieved, setting accountability measures and perfor- cation under scrutiny. The review was strongly pro-mance incentives, and then giving managers freedom moted by the Treasury and the State Services Com-of action to achieve those objectives without political mission and their Ministers, as a means of advancinginterference. (Schick 1996 p19) state-sector reforms into the administration of educa-

tion at the local level, and of simply getting change in5.0 Pressures for Education Reform education onto the government's action agenda. Russell

Marshall ( Minister of Education 1984-87) supportedthe review initially, although the outcome was not what

5.]The 1987in ofthepushtosetupaneducation Reveewhe expected, and he appears to have been outmaneu-ie rgis n o the push to set uip ana edufcationre- vered when the membership and terms of reference

Govewment's 1984 election manifestor partly from per of the review were decided upon (Marshall 1990).

ceived problems about education, but these was not 5.2 Terms ofReferencethe main reasons the review occurred when it did. Anyone who studied the terms of reference of the

By early 1987, the government's drive for struc- review (Annex One) could see that the governmenttural change throughout the economy and the public had already reached far-reaching conclusions about

service was in full swing. The State Services Con- the future organization of state education, to shift powermission and Treasury (with their Ministers) convinced and responsibilities away from the central bureaucra-Cabinet (and particularly Prime Minister Lange) that cies. Furthermore, in requiring the Review to report to


atrio of Ministers (Education, Finance, State Services), itself. The Treasury's member of the Review secre-it was clear that the Minister of Education was not to tariat was, at the same time, one of the main authorsbe in control. Other powerful Ministers and their De- of Treasury's education briefing volume for the 1987partments (State Services and Treasury) had set the election.main directions and were intent this time to see changedelivered. 5.4 Education administration

The terms of reference were strongly critical of Much of the support for education change in 1987the then Department of Education. They were explicit had its origin in the way a national education systemin declaring an intention to increase power at the local was first set up 110 years earlier. The 1877 Educationeducation institution level, and by inference, to decrease Act took powers which had been held by the Prov-the powers of the Education Boards and the Depart- inces and split them between a central Department ofment. Much of the argument about decentralization Education and ten locally-elected Education Boards.had already been won inside government circles be- Tension was inevitable and began almost immediately,fore the Review ever started. It is noteworthy that the as central governments found they needed to strengthenterms of reference did not mention teachers, students, their Department's authority and the Education Boardsor student learning. resisted, supported by advocates of the old provincial

system.5.3 Treasury Views on Education There had been several major reviews of educa-

At the time the review was announced very little tion administration (1912, 1930,1962, 1973-74) whichwas known in public about the views of Treasury or had proposed changes in the relationship between thetlhe State Services Commission on education. Later in Department and the Education Boards. No govern-1987 the extent of The Treasury's detailed thinking on ment had acted. Given a three-year parliamentary term,education reform was revealed with the publication and the adversarial nature of party politics, it had al-of its own 200-page brief on education issues to the ways been possible for those opposing major changeincoming government (Treasury 1987). That briefing to make change an election issue, or otherwise to dragvolume had taken several months to research and pre- out the debate until other issues became more impor-pare and is the most comprehensive exposition of a tant or there had been a change of government.free-market approach to education which had ever beendeveloped to that time in New Zealand. Its develop- 5.5 The Department of Education and Educationment and publication came as a complete surprise to Boardsthe then Department of Education and to Marshall, its The Department of Education, as the operationalMinister, who had no idea that Treasury officials had arm of government, had never had many friends inbeen working so extensively on education policy. the community. There was little liking for central gov-

Some academics have pushed the 'conspiracy' line ernment, and "the bureaucracy" was a soft target tovery strongly, arguing that The Treasury in particular criticize. Much of its life was spent saying "no" tohad been planning intervention in education for a long people who wanted more money spent on something,time. Treasury analysts had certainly been asking ques- and who did not realize that the Department could al-tions about the 'value for money' which the people of locate only the money which it was given by the gov-New Zealand got for their investment in public educa- ernment, and then only in the ways that the govern-tion. The Lange government intended to review social ment approved. Along with other Departments it suf-policy expenditure if it was returned to power after fered through the growth over the years of volumes ofthe 1987 election. Treasury had begun work on an rules for everything. Decisions seemed to take an in-extensive policy document on education well before terminable time (frequently because they had to bethe announcement of the review of education admin- referred to the Minister).istration. The announcement of the review gave Trea- The locally-elected Education Boards and theirsury an added opportunity to influence the review staff had made their own enemies. Stories of their


inefficiency and stifling rules were legion, and these ties of the Department of Education were to be pushedwere felt particularly by the 2300 primary schools, their out towards the individual institution.teachers and communities. A better-educated parentcommunity was becoming less and less tolerant of being It has been argued that the education reforms werecontrolled by Education Board clerks over matters big not essentially education reforms at all, but were pub-and small, ranging from the appointment of teachers lic sector management reforms which gained supportto the repair of a broken window. through tapping into community unhappiness about the

In 1987, local irritations and concerns coincided current system. Certainly the major players had a va-with a government which was intent on change. "As riety of objectives, only some of which were clear toLange toured the country consulting with parents and the public:educational groups he encountered a barrage of criti-cism informed by a single theme. What people wanted, * Treasury wanted to achieve financial savings. Someit seemed, was freedom from the distant constraints savings were attained, but all were redirected intoof the Education Board and the Department of Edu- schools.Other savings in university and polytech-cation" (Nash 1989). nic expenditure could have been achieved under

the old system just as much as under the new.5.6 Education administration on the decision

agenda ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~* Government wanted public sector reforms to perIgenda hstdopbiplyiteS,onig meate the education sector - deregulation, trans-In his study of public policy in the IJSA, John King- paec of deiinmkn an repniiiye

dom (1984) identified the importance of agenda-set- parency of decision-makng and responsibility, re-ting in government. No government can do everything moval of layers of management, reduced wastageall at once. There are always priority-setting exercisesgoing on, where the power-centers of any government * There was an ideological assumption, from Trea-are making decisions about which matters need de- sury and others (but accepted by government) thatcisions. policy advice functions needed to be separated from

the delivery of services."The agenda ... is the list of subjects or * Leaders in the education institutions, including teach

problems to which government offcials, and =Laesi h dcto ntttos nldn ecproblemoutside of government closely as- ers, wanted greater authority and autonomy. Theypeople d e officialose as- believed that centralist constraints prevented themsociated with those officials, are paying from making decisions which were in the best insome serious attention at any given time....The governmental agenda (is) the list of terests of students.subjects that are getting attention, and the * Parents wanted more say in the education of theirdecision agenda (is) the list of subjects children.within the governmental agenda that is up The interests of the major actors converged, all

for active decision. " (Kingdom pp. -4) likely to see gains from a reduction in the size and

Unless something is on the agenda it is not being powers of the education bureaucracies. This commonconsidered. Participants and processes all play their interest provided a unifying thread which encouragedpart in determining what gets attention (on the agenda) participants to work through differences to arrive atand what gets action (decision agenda). The process acceptable compromises.of public sector reform meant that education adminis- On 21 July 1987, one month before the Augusttration (along with all other government administra 1987 election, Prime Minister Lange announced thetion ) was on the agenda The shape of the terms of Task force to Review Education Administration". Thereference for the review indicated that Ministers had big surprise was its chairman, who was not an educa-already been persuaded that operational responsibili- tor, but a businessman, Brian Picot. Picot's name sig-

naled an intent to head in a different direction. It was


now obvious that education was on the government's the 1987 election, and Lange continued as Prime Min-decision agenda, and that education was to be looked ister. He made the surprising and far-reaching deci-at from a different point of view - management and sion to be Minister of Education as well. It is essentialefficiency. to understand the importance of this decision. In the

There was no strong push from the community or New Zealand system of government (unicameral,from the education bureaucracy for reform of educa- Westminster-style, Cabinet-led) the Prime Ministertion administration, but once the Picot Task force be- holds considerable informal power. By holding thegan it released a torrent of criticism of the existing Education portfolio himself Lange made it almost im-system. Lange, especially, understood and used that possible for other Ministers to 'move in on' education.criticism, as an unexpected but serendipitous It is not entirely clear why Lange held the Educationgroundswell of support for change. portfolio to himself. The most plausible explanation is

that it was a combination of dissatisfaction with the

6.0 Designing the Reforms performance of Marshall, and a genuine personal in-terest, with a concern to protect education resources

6.1 Members and officials from threatened inroads by the Minister of Finance.The members of the Taskforce were an unusual Until late in 1987 it was not clear where Lange

mix and balance , for a New Zealand education re- himself stood as the direction ofthe Taskforce's think-viwcmiteossigoftwo educators,ing began to become clearer - to establish all schools

view committee, consisting oftoeducators, two busi- gs sefgovmn,wt oitnndaybdeewenessmen (one of whom was chair), and a Maori. ascself-governingwithnointermediaryobodies betweenMuch of the strength of the Taskforce lay with its sec- schools and the Ministry of Education. As Prime Ma-retariat: one person each from the Department of ister as well as Minister of Education he had the au-Education, State Services Commission and The Trea- thority in practice to veto anything the Taskforce pro-

sury. These three middle-ranking officials were the posed.ones with access to departmental resources of infor-mation and analysis, and with access to the Heads of "The PM listened to the arguments and fortheir Departments and to Ministers. As noted in sec- a while kept his cards c'ose to his chest.tion 5, the Treasury official was also one of those who Then one day he said, 'We need more de-were concurrently writing the Treasury's election brief- mocracy, not less. Picot 's for democracy,ing volume on education policy. so am I Let's go. "'(McQueen 1991)

The role of the particular officials in the Reviewshould not be underestimated. Capable officials in New The Report of the Taskforce (Picot 1988) was re-Zealand, who have access to Ministers, develop a repu- leased in May 1988, a few months after the Iange gov-tation for credible and sound advice which is indepen- enment had been retuned witha sizable majority. Theredent of their rank in any hierarchy. The two officials was to be no slackening of the pace of change. The Di-from the State Services Commission and The Trea- rector-General of Education, Bill Renwick, could havesury, especially, worked closely together in giving their been an obstacle but instead announced his retirement,own advice to key Ministers (not just their own), inde- and a new head for the Department of Education was topendently of the formal work of the Taskforce. This be appointed.helped to shape the views of Ministers as the Reviewproceeded, and in turn fed back to shape the Review 63 What the Report saidthrough discussions between Ministers and Taskforce The Report did not skirt around confronting difficul-imembers - an influence route of which Taskforce ties. There was implicit severe criticism of Educationmembers were unaware.

'Editors note: The Maori are the indigenous ethnic minority in6.2 The Taskforce and the government New Zealand. Policy initiatives in New Zealand frequently

Fhe Labor government was returned to power at mandate Maori representation to counteract historic economicdiscrimination and underepresentation in the political process.


Boards and the Department of Education. The policy control of a board of trustees, elected by andforthright language of the Report was such that either from within the parents of students attending the school.the Boards and Department had to go, or the Report The day-to-day control of the institution and the imple-had to be rejected outright - the Taskforce, of course, mentation of the policy would be the responsibility ofknew before the Report was released that they had the principal. A 'charter', to be developed in consulta-the government's support for what they proposed. tion with the institution's community, would define the

The Taskforce identified five areas of serious trustees' responsibilities and objectives. Quite deliber-weakness: ately, the report left teacher employment arrangements* overcentralization of decision-making, with du- and conditions untouched. The Education Boards were

plication of decisions, slowness, vulnerability to to be abolished, and a freshly-designed and organizedpressure groups, and excessive ministerial involve Ministry of Education would replace the Departmentment, leading to a culture of dependence; e.g. a of Education. All this was to be in place and to takerequest from a teacher for paid leave of absence effect on 1 October 1989, a bare eighteen months outmight have to be referred to Head Office of the from the Report's release date.Departmentfor a decision. It should be noted that there is nothing inherent

* complexity, with fragmented and uncoordinated about New Zealand public service managers whichdecisions and duplication of services e.g. designs makes them incapable of exercising initiative. To thefor a school building might be prepared by an Edu- contrary, one of the outcomes of freeing up state enti-cation Board architect, but be reviewed by more ties was the flowering of new initiatives from theirarchitects at Regional Office and Head Office of managers. It is possible that Education Boards and thethe Department. Department could also have changed in this way, given

* lack of information and choice, including lack the directions, incentives and freedoms to do so. Theyof information about students' standards of perfor- were not given the opportunity.mance.

* lack of effective management practices, with 6.4 Public reactionblurred responsibilities, lack of priorities, lack of The government provided eight weeks for any sub-accountability, and few incentives for effective man missions to be made on the Report, and was floodedagement. with responses. In August 1988 it released its white

* feelings ofpowerlessness, and consumer dissatis- paper, 'Tomorrow 's Schools ', announcing its decisionsfaction and disaffection, particularly amongst (Lange 1988). All the main recommendations of theparents. Report were accepted, including the 1 October 1989

deadline for the changes to the Department and BoardThe Report could have recommended reforma- structures. The release was supported by an exten-

tion of the Department and Education Boards but it sive advertising campaign. Community comment wasdid not. Instead it went far further and proposed elimi- overwhelmingly supportive. "It has proved impossiblenating both. It recommended a fundamental restruc- to create significant opposition to the proposed reformsturing of education administration, the basic unit to be and it is quite probable that the majority of people arethe individual learning institution. ('This is where there in favor of the changes as they understand them."will be the strongest direct interest in the educational (Nash 1989) Any hope of a political center for opposi-outcomes and the best information about local circum- tion to the proposals had been dashed months beforestances.' Picot 1988 p.xi) There were to be no inter- when the Opposition spokesperson on education, Dr.mediary regional or district education authorities be- Lockwood Smith, declared his support for the Picottween the individual learning institution and the gov- recommendations.emnment.

Each institution - whether early childhood center, 6.5 New Director-General of Educationschool, ortertiary institution - was to be underthe overall Dr. Russ Ballard, Director-General of the Forestry


Department, a management expert with no experience when it was released in September 1988, particularlyof education administration, was recruited as a change from the universities. Two universities took theagent with the understanding that he would be respon- Government to court and forced further consultation.sible for putting into practice whatever decisions the A consultation document 'Learning for Life ' was re-government made about the Taskforce Report. leased in February 1989, followed by a white paperBallard's appointment as the last Director-General of 'Learning for Life II' in mid- 1989. A subcommitteeEducation was announced on the day 'Tomorrow's of Cabinet, led by Phil Goff, Associate Minister ofSchools' was released. Education, met for hours every week during this pe-

riod receiving reports from working groups and from6.6 Other education reforms: preschool and officials, and checking off the myriad of decisionstertiary needed. Changes to take effect from I January 1991

The govermment's 1987 election manifesto included included the following: the establishment of a nationalcommitments to review the preschool and tertiary sec- Qualifications Authority, polytechnics and colleges oftors of education, as well as schools. Lange and other education to become independently governed by coun-key Ministers were deeply committed to a managerialist cils in the same way as universities, the introduction ofview, that administration is best served through deregu- a formula-driven funding system to give governmentlated decision-making as close as possible to the ac- funding according to the numbers of students enrolledtion. This aspect of any change (devolving of author- and their courses of study, the requirement that stu-ity) was likely to be highly popular. These two further dents would make some contribution to tuition costsreviews, which form part ofthe total education reform by paying a standard fee, and the decision to set up apackage, were initiated in 1988. government-backed student loan scheme.

Government women MPs were influential in set- To sum up, the reforms in all three education sec-ting up a review of preschool education. A crucial piece tors (early childhood, schools, tertiary) had three thingsof good fortune in the work of this group was the ap- in common. A managerialist approach devolved deci-pointment of Dr. Anne Meade as chair of the review. sion-making power away from central or regional bod-Dr. Meade (now Director of the NZ Council for Edu- ies to the level of individual education institutions.cational Research) was a respected early childhood Resourcing for each institution became very stronglyeducator, but was also about to take up a post as an dependent on student enrollment ('student asadvisor in the Prime Minister's Office. She had unique voucher'). The new Ministry of Education and otherlinks to government MPs and to the work of the other bodies were established with written contractual andreviews as they proceeded. By the time the Meade accountability relationships between themselves andReport 'Education to be More' (Meade 1988) was education institutions, which had the effect of formal-complete, it took the directions of the Picot Taskforce izing, distancing and depersonalizing those relations.into account and already had the informal support ofthe Prime Minister. As with the Picot Report, this was 6. 7 Government supportfollowed rapidly by a white paper 'Before Five', re- Ministerial support was strong and unwavering dur-leased in January 1989 (Lange 1989). The key deci- ing the design of the reforms from 1987 through tosions were in line with 'Tomorrow's Schools'. The mid-1989. The Ministers of Finance and State Ser-main decision was that the great variety of early child- vices were supportive from the start, but once Langehood education services (including privately-owned ser- as Prime Minister came in behind the Picot Report,vices run for profit) should all be treated and funded the change momentum was high. Ministers spent manysimnilarly, over a period oftime. hours studying papers and debating options. As far as

The tertiary review was chaired by a manage- the schools and early childhood reforms were con-ment academic, Professor Gary Hawke. His report cerned, Ministers were buoyed up politically by very(Hawke 1988), prepared without consultation with the strong public support for the direction of change, es-tertiary institutions, generated much negative reaction pecially the devolution of authority from the center to

Implementing Education Reforms in New Zealand: 1987-97 1 1

the local level. By the time some of the opposition to Parents had no effective organized voice, butthe tertiary changes was becoming apparent, the wherever public meetings were held parents spoke outgovernment was in internal political trouble (Lange in favor of the direction of change. The teacher unionsstepped down as Prime Minister in August 1989) but had the potential to disrupt the reforms and were criti-was so committed to the changes it was unable to con- cal of the reforms proposed, but their criticism wassider pulling back. muted, because teachers' pay and conditions were to

Key officials provided the supportto Ministers and be left unchanged. Teachers (other than principals)the analytic engine to look at options and costings. The were to be left alone while the reforms took placeState Services Commission and The Treasury provided around them. The unions did try to argue that parentsa consistency of advice and approach through the pe- were not qualified to govern schools, but this had theriod. Often the same officials were working on more effect of turning parents against them. In an environ-than one reform. Although the Department of Educa- ment where large numbers of public and private sec-tion was in some disarray, and actually being dismantled torjobs were disappearing through restructuring of theduring some of this period, the fine-structure of the economy, the report was seen to place teachers in areforms could not have been developed without input privileged position, and the unions gained little publicfrom education officials and education personnel. support for their stance.

In the early childhood changes, Meade chaired the6.8 Taskforce Members review group and the group which developed the white

The role of non-officials in the early design of the paper for the government. She provided consistent lead-reforms is less clear. Picot and the other members of ership and connections with government thinking. Thehis Taskforce were the focus of public attention, as government suffered a temporary setback in design-they toured the country, but they had somewhat less ing the tertiary reform, because it was forced to issueinfluence on the final shape of the reforms than the two reports (Hawke and Learning for Life) before itpublic realizes. Some ofthe importantthinkinghad been could get to the white paper stage. But this did notdone before the Taskforce was established. It was the change its fundamental direction during the designofficials who put up the main options which the phase 1988-89. By the time 'Learningfor Life ' wasTaskforce members could choose from. What the issued for consultation the government had alreadyTaskforce did very successfully was to check out how largely made up its mind.acceptable various elements of reform would be tothe public and to interest groups. Some of the favorite 7.0 Implementing the Reforms -ideas of the Taskforce members (Education Policy PreconditionsCouncil) were opposed by the officials and were never In any radical change to a goverment system,

proceeded with. Some others (Parent Advocacy Coun- there are a number of matters to be considered, whichcil, community education forums) were abandoned by are not specific to the change itself, but which are nec-

the next government. essary for the change to be able to be implemented?Thepublic does notunderstand (nor do some mem- Let us examine these in terms of three sets of issues:

bers) how it is that the government communicates with societal, infrastructural, personnel.and influences the Taskforce and committees it setup. All these committees either had officials as mem- 7 1 Societal conditionsbers or secretariat, and it was through these officials New Zealand is a relatively peaceful and homo-that communication and negotiation occurred. They geneods societ y peaceful and tokept M\inisters informed of the committee's thinking geneous society accustomed to the rule of law, and toand in turn fed in the Ministers' viewpoint Officials accepting government decisions as being legitimate.acted in turnhfed ineoith isbtwer' viewtask.orce/com- There was never any likelihood that the government'sacted as the negotiators between each takoc/o-decisions would have been disobeyed. Civil disobedi-m ittee and Ministers; the end result being a report and rec- ecis woreove civil disobed;

ommedatonswichhad been pre-negotiated with the gov- ence is rare. Moreover civil disobedience in the publ icommendationswhich service is almost unthinkable. Public servants could beemmnent.


expected to work to implement the government's one, and people who could design a computer system todecisions even if that meant destroying their own jobs carry out the calculations automatically.- and they did.

Did New Zealand as a society have a sufficient 7.3 Personnelnumber of sufficiently capable citizens in every com- The change process depended not only on loyaltymunity willing to join the new voluntary boards oftrust- of personnel, but also on their willingness to take partees for schools and other institutions? At the time no in the change, and on their expertise. The 'white pa-one knew, and the major concentration in the pers'didnotgivethefulldetailofthechangestocome.government's advertising campaign was to increase Those leading the change process knew they couldunderstanding and interest in boards of trustees. The not carry it out unless the people already working infirst school board of trustees election was the test, and the old system were drawn into helping to create thein the end every school did have enough people stand- new one. Their knowledge of how the old systemsing to form a board. In hindsight it is clear that some worked was essential in ensuring that the new sys-communities, perhaps 5%, will always have difficulty tems would still deliver what was required at the localfinding the necessary people with the right skills, and level. Partly they were buoyed up by the agreementare likely to need ongoing support from outside. that they were to have first priority in appointments to

Financial corruption and bribery are rare in New the jobs in the new organizations, even though thereZealand. Individual people are, of course, able to be were to be many job losses.tempted, but simple bookkeeping practices can keepthem honest. The government could assume that a 8.0 Implementing the Reforms -group of people elected as a board of trustees would Planning the Processnot get together to siphon public money into their own Nancy Roberts and Paula King carried out an inten-pockets. sive case study of public school choice policy in Min-

nesota. Arising from that study, they analyzed the sig-7.2 Infrastructural conditions nificance of change agents or entrepreneurs in policy

The main infrastructural questions concerned the innovation (Roberts and King 1996), particularly in re-drafting and passage of legislation, communications sys- lation to radical change, and developed a theory oftems, and financial systems. The design and passage policy entrepreneurship and radical change.of the necessary legislation required concentrated in-tegrated work between policy specialists, Ministers and "Thus, our analysis leads us to understandexperienced law drafters. An efficient postal and tele- radical innovation in terms of individualsphone service, together with the rapid spread of fax who initiate action against the current sys-machines in schools, made it possible to get documents tem. The policy entrepreneurs in our studyout to schools and groups and to get their feedback questioned assumptions, they pushed,within short timescales. probed, and challenged the existing order.

A less obvious issue was the development of a new From our perspective, they did not react todevolved financial system, and its associated computer a crisis or disruptive event as much as theysystem design. The devolving of responsibility to 2300 helped create the perception that one wouldschool boards of trustees (and later to several hundred appear if no policy changes were made.early childhood services) depended on the ability of the They functioned as catalysts, and, likenew Ministry of Education to calculate the funding to go chemical catalysts, provoked a reactionto each institution, and for the banking system to transfer around them without themselves beingthat funding electronically into the bank accounts of the transformed. We view catalytic agents asinstitutions concerned. This would not have been pos- essential to radical policy changes. " (psible without the combined expertise of people who were 223).able to unravel the old financial system and design a new


Roberts and King use the concepts of energy and 1988. He decided that his own attention had to be con-alignment. Public entrepreneurs are the people who centrated on the change, and so he retained thecatalyze and focus the 'social energy' required to retiring Assistant Director-General of Education to lookdesign innovation and bring it into being, and who align after all the 'business as usual' aspects of the educa-or constrain or direct this energy and preserve it from tion system.dissipating. The notion of 'public entrepreneurs' is a Second, he set up an Implementation Unit as aparticularly useful tool in analyzing the New Zealand change management team, which he headed, andcase. which reported directly to him. The management of

that team was the responsibility of the other Assistant8.1 A change leader Director-General of Education, who had a wide public

The search for a suitable person to lead the imple- service administration background. He hand-picked thementation of the reforms in 1988 began some time be- best people he could release from elsewhere in thefore the official change decisions were made and pub- Department of Education, and employed a small num-lished. Ballard's appointment as Director-General of ber of communications and planning experts. A keyEducation had to be sorted out before the publication person in this team was an outsider with expertise inof 'Tomorrow's Schools', and was announced to co- project planning, whose job was to draw up all the ac-incide with the publication of that document. The State tion timetables. The Unit grew as the implementationServices Commission was responsible for his appoint- process went on, but Ballard stayed in direct controlment and wanted someone who would drive through of it.the changes which Ministers were in the process of Finally, he understood that successful implemen-deciding they wanted. The job was a hard one to fill. tation needed the expertise and approval of educationBallard was a new broom, a change agent, brought in leadership outside the circle of officials - the leaderson a short-term contract with the task of closing down of the 'stakeholders' - but their involvement could onlythe old system and starting up the new. This was a be as advisers. As soon as 'Tomorrow's Schools'washigh-risk job - failure would ruin the appointee's repu- released Ballard established a collection of 20 'work-tation and be very embarrassing politically. ing groups' to look in detail at various aspects of the

Ballard was an unusually energetic and focused announced changes, and to provide advice on how toleader. He knew what he wanted and made it clear make the changes take effect. (The same system wasfrom the start that it was his task to get the changes in used for the early childhood and tertiary change imple-place by the announced date and he would not put up mentation.) The terms of reference for these groupswith any delays. He accepted temporary solutions to were set by Ballard, and the membership was veryproblems that were too hard to solve in full in the time carefully selected to include a mixture of experts andavailable. As soon as Ministers were confident that he leaders from the various education lobby groups, asknew what he was doing they largely left him alone to well as from the officials.get on with it, or took his advice when questions arose.At the same time, Ballard kept other departments (es- 9.0 Implementing the Reforms -pecially State Services Commission and The Treasury) Making it Happen 1988-89out of the implementation process. He convinced Min- Ballard was in charge of the implementation ofisters there was not time for the usual inter-depart-

r the 'Tomorrow 's Schools ' changes from August 1 988mental debates and consultations, and they accepted until the demise of the Department of Education on 30his argument. (There was a price to pay later for freez- September 1989 - barely 14 months. This period alsoing these other departments out of the process - see included the development ofthe tertiary and early child-

chapter I11.) hood reform policies, on a different timetable to take

8.2 Ballard's key decisions effect on I January 1991. Ballard therefore was in-8.2Ballard'sookthr key decisions on his arrivalinvolved in a mix of policy development and implemen-Ballard took three key decisions on his arrival In tation.


Political ly the period was turbulent. The next Gen- neurs' during this period (see Roberts and King 1996).eral Election was not due until late 1990. The Labor Lange took the political leadership role, and from hisGovernment had been returned in 1987 with a sound position as Prime Minister was able to ensure themajority and was in the midst of wide-ranging state implementation did not stall because of any waveringsector changes, and showed no signs of wavering from in government commitment. Ballard took the practicalthat intent. The main opposition political party,National, leadership role, to ensure the implementation kept todid not oppose the direction of the reforms, but con- its pre-set timetable.centrated its fire on the way the reforms were being Organized labor was in disarray. So much changeput into place. was going on concurrently that the state sector unions

There were, however, internal tensions develop- were unable to fight all fronts at once. The teachering within the government, between the 'right wing' unions seemed to be (temporarily) intimidated by thereforrnists centered on Finance Minister Douglas, and government. There was a feeling among the unionsthe rest, which included Prime Minister Lange. Lange that the government at this time seemed to care noth-and others were having second thoughts about the ing for public opinion. In any case, the announcedextent of 'pain' which was being inflicted on the coun- changes protected the positions and conditions of alltry, as the public sector cuts took effect, and the un- teachers, so it was difficult to work teachers into agi-employment numbers rose. The rift between Lange tation against changes which were so popular withand Douglas was public by the end of 1988, and wid- parents.ened through the months of 1989 until Lange threw inthe towel. To a degree there was an absence of clear 9.2 News media and communicationsleadership from Cabinet during this period, and Trea- The news media in New Zealand are very influen-sury had less influence on education than might have tial. They are independent from government control orbeen expected - which left the way clearer for Ballard interference, and can usually be relied on to take an auto-to exert his own control of the reform implementation. matic 'negative' stance towards any government policy

or action - irrespective of what party is in power. Thegovernment accepted it would have to spend money to

9.1 Ballard and the Prime Minister buy advertising time on radio and TV to be sure of get-Ballard had a strong Minister of Education (Prime ting its 'good news' side of the changes outto the public,

Minister Lange), and with his Prime-Ministerial back- as well as the usual expenditure on newsletters and pam-ing was given a virtual free hand to do whatever was phlets. Ballard understood from the start of the imple-needed to get the reforms into place. There was a mentation phase that he had abig 'communications' taskclear recognition that he would need to cut corners on his hands. He hired someone withjournalism and pub-and might make some mistakes in order to meet the I lic relations experience, whom he trusted, and all com-October 1989 deadline. Ballard was in no doubt that munications about the changes went through her: TV/he personally had Lange's full support and backing. radio advertising, press releases, responses to negativeBallard says that Lange told him "That's my policy. stories in the media, print materials.You put my policy into effect and I will support you Inadditiontotheuseofnewsmediaforcommunica-one hundred percent in doing it". (Ballard 1993). Nor tions, Ballard identified a small number of 'cause cham-would Lange allow any of the pressure groups to sub- pions' from among the education groups and stakehold-vert the policy or its implementation through direct ap- ers, who were enthusiastic about the changes and wereproaches to him or to other Members of Parliament - good communicators. They were helped to travel theanyone who tried to do this was told to take the matter country speaking to public meetings about the changes.up with Ballard. Ballard described this knowledge of Theywereveryeffective,especiallyinthesmallertownssupport as "very liberating". It gave him the confidence and rural districts, in helpingto maintain the tide of publicto get on with the implementation job, assured that his opinion in support ofthe changes.position was not being undermined behind his back.

Ballard and Lange both acted as 'public entrepre-


9.3 Workingparties Nicholas Barr in an unpublished paper for the WorldBallard set up working parties on various aspects Bank (Putting Educational Policy into Practice,

of the changes, with the task of working through the Barr 1996) has argued for the importance of continu-detail necessary to implement the changes success- ous interaction between policymakers and the peoplefully. These working parties included some of the lead- affected by policy change, and that this interactionership of every major education interest group, in some should take place during policy design and during policycases as nominees from the interest group, in other implementation. Barr argues that to be successful, thecases hand-picked by Ballard. initial design of policy should include 'policy design

The working party process was effective in en- experts, people with practical political skills and peoplesuring that most of the policy was checked out and with practical administrative expertise (i.e. all threefound to be workable, and that it was accepted by the ingredients are represented)'. Ballard's working partyeducation interests. Working parties were told very process is an example of this interaction in practice.firmly that the policy decisions had already been takenand were not to be reopened. They were also told that 9.4 Teacher unionsexisting education finance was to be redistributed but Secondary teachers were the only major group notthere would be no more money put in. If a good case to take up all their invited places on the working parties.was put, however, Ballard and Lange had no com- They tended to stay aloof and put all their efforts intopunction about changing the details of what had been opposition, and failed to exert the influence that mightannounced in 'Tomorrow's Schools ' if they were sat- have been expected. Staying out of the process did notisfied that a working party was advising something more gain them support or strength. The primary teachers'workable. Some of the working parties were chaired union accepted that the changes were going to happen,by officials, some by outsiders such as school princi- and took a full and generally constructive role in the work-pals or chairs of Education Boards. In almost all cases ing parties, and had considerable influence.an official acted as secretary and wrote the report ofthe working party. 9.5 Other scrutiny

Working parties like this in New Zealand have their Late in 1988 Ballard appointed another tier of ad-own dynamics. New Zealand has such a small and vice, the 'Education Evaluators', as a counter to criti-mobile population, that especially when people with edu- cism that the working party process was too mecha-cation interests are brought together, they frequently nistic. This group of eminent educators met regularlyfind they know one another. Even when they do not, to scrutinize the work of the working parties, beforethey will find they have common acquaintances or com- their reports were passed on to the Cabinet Commit-mon experiences. Most people invited to join a work- tees which needed to make final decisions. The re-ing party accept, figuring that by doing so they may be ports were also scrutinized by the government's Cau-able to achieve something for their cause or the people cus Education Committee, which consisted of govern-they represent. By accepting an invitation to take part, ment MPs with experience or interest in education,members have tacitly agreed that they will work to- but who were not in Cabinet.gether on the task. Finally, although individual mem-bers often have some special interest that they wish to 9.6 No turning backpromote, other members are seldom willing to let any Meanwhile Ballard drove the Implementation Unitone special interest become too prominent. The usual very hard. As the Unit grew he set up a small man-outcome of such working parties is a workable tradeoff agement structure, but the arrangements were seldomof special interests, which all members sign up to. Mi- formal, and depended on his own decisions. Once thenority reports or walk-outs are rare. Once members first elections for school boards of trustees had beenhave signed up to their report there is strong social held successfully in mid-1989 it was absolutely clearpressure on them not to change their minds or reject there could be no delays or turning back( the first itemthe report afterwards. of legislation early in 1989 had been a separate Bill for


the election of Boards of Trustees for schools). From tive-designate.that point on almost the entire attention of Department Only one person from the top three tiers of the oldand Education Board staff turned to the close down Department won a senior post in the new Ministry Al-and start up details. most all senior positions were filled initially by people

By early 1989 it was obvious there was too much from the old Department, but drawn from the middleundecided about the tertiary changes to bring them fully ranks. The proportion of women in senior posts in-into the new Ministry on I October. Those parts of the creased dramatically. Staff from the ImplementationDepartment which dealt with tertiary education would Unit figured prominently in the new organizations.therefore stay as they were until 1 July 1990. Every- It was accepted that there would be a need forone else had to apply for new jobs and go through a ongoing transitional arrangements to continue to final-new appointments procedure. New jobs required dif- ize the unfinished business of the closures of the oldferent skills in the new organizations, and the organi- organizations. The new Ministry included a Residualzations in total were under direction to employ more Management Unit to look after and deal with such mat-women and more Maori people than in the past, at all ters as leases for buildings which were no longer re-levels. quired, winding up contracts for services which were

In August 1989 Lange resigned as Prime Minister now not needed, and so on.after several months of Cabinet in-fighting. Goff, his O'Rourke and her new team were committed toformer Associate Minister, replaced him as Minister the rationale for the changes they were now putting inof Education. Interestingly, there was no attempt to place, and to the need to adopt new roles themselves.reverse the education changes at this time. The Edu- Much of the agenda for 1990-91 was already set incation Act 1989 had almost completed its passage outline: getting the new tertiary councils elected, de-through Parliament and implementation was too far signing and putting new funding systems in place foradvanced to be able to be undone. tertiary and early childhood education. More widely,

however, there was a need for the Ministry and the10.0 Implementing the Reforms - other new organizations, including boards of trustees

iMaking it Happen 1989-91 of schools, to leam what their new roles meant. TheMinistry took a 'hands off approach to schools, toallow the new boards of trustees to take on the re-

1. Thenew MniStry sponsibilities they were meant to have, without inter-At midnight on 30 September 1989 the Depart- vention.

ment of Education and the Education Boards went outof existence; and the Ministry of Education, school 10 2 Signs of oppositionboards of trustees, and the other agencies sprang into By mid-1990 some of the early euphoria about thellegal existence. Ballard moved out to anotherjob, and changes was beginning to wear off. The govemment had

Dr. Mars O'Rourke took up herjob as the foundation to put extra money into school funding in order to arriveSecretary for Education in the new Ministry, at a funding formula which would be acceptable to the

O'Rourke had been appointed some months be- newly elected boards oftrustees. Parents found they stillfore, but her appointmnent was a complete surprise, an- could not get their children into popular schools whichother- indication that the old was being swept away. were full. Boards themselves were starting to realizePrior to her involvement in the Implementation Unit, how much voluntary work was involved in their role, andO'Rourke had filled a mid-level role in a regional of- how much control the government still held. Early child-fice of the Department. Although O'Rourke had some hood education groups were unhappy that the govern-influence on the structure and staffng Of the new Mm- ment had not raised their funding rates to the full extentistry, and of new appointments, she was not in com- recommended in 'Learning to be More'. Some of the

plete control of either. The structure of the Ministry, unsolved questions which Ballard had put aside with tem-and the job descriptions for positions, had been largely porary arrangements were becoming more problematic.settled before her own appointment as Chief Execu-


And opposition to some aspects of the new system was ernment had brought some tinkering and reversals butstarting to emerge. the main pieces had not been touched.

From late 1989 the government was confrontedwith a well-organized campaign by the universities, sup- 11.0 Reviews and Evaluationsported by Dr. Lockwood Smith, the Opposition spokes-person on education, to back off from parts of the 11.] Impact of academic commentchanges it had announced in relation to the universi- The New Zealand education changes have pro-ties. The battlecry was 'academic freedom' but it was vided fruitful ground foracademic comment since 1988,at heart a power-struggle about limitations on gov- comment which has been largely ignored by officialsernment control. There was a serious threat of an and politicians. There are three main reasons for this.international boycott of university teaching vacancies First, there is very little crossover between aca-in New Zealand. By mid-1990 the government was in demics and officials. Academics seldom take up posi-trouble politically, coming up to another General Elec- tions as officials and vice-versa. There is in practicetion, and the Prime Minister, Dr. Geoffrey Palmer, a very little contact between academics and officials.former university academic himself, was of a mind to Academics are unwilling to become involved in thegive some ground. The Education Amendment Act turmoil of politics, or in the give-and-take of policy1990, which set the legal foundation for the tertiary debate and policy formation. Second, academics aseducation changes, was substantially amended from university staff became very early identified with theits original form. Unhappy with the price they believed opposition to the tertiary education change proposals,they had paid for structural and other change in the alnd lost credibility with the government on that ground.economy, the electorate voted the Labor government Next, the academics seldom interviewed or ques-out at the end of 1990. A National government took tioned the policymakers or officials. Senior officialsoffice, with Dr. Lockwood Smith as its Minister of and politicians involved in the change policy and imple-Education. mentation did not know about many of the academic

papers being produced, did not read them, and were10. 3 Lockwood Smith as Minister not questioned about them. Finally, the downfall of com-

This could have seen the end of the change pro- munism undermined the credibility of the Marxistcess but Smith reinvigorated it. He believed the changes analysis which seemed to be the prevailing philosophi-of the previous government were in the right direction, cal approach adopted by university commentators onbut that they did not go far enough in devolving author- education.ity to the education institutions. In his view the new Most of the university academics who commentedMinistry and other government agencies had too much on or reviewed/evaluated the initial reform actions didcentral control and did not give enough freedom to in- so from a standpoint of opposition to the changes.stitutions to decide policies for themselves. Other Min- Some attacked the changes as a far-right conserva-isters supported him so that legislation was passed in tive plot to privatize education and remove the state1991 to give further devolution of authority to councils from its role in the provision of education. Some sawand boards of trustees, and to correct several drafting them as a planned move to increase the power of theerrors which had arisen in the rushed legislation of the state over local communities while walking away frompreceding two years. local responsibility. Others acknowledged the initial

Nevertheless, by the end of 1991 all the major el- popularity of the proposals but predicted difficulties inements of the reforms proposed by the Picot Taskforce the future. There was an almost total lack of commentin 1988 were in place and running: self-governing edu- from academics in the fields of business and manage-cation institutions, the Ministry of Education and a clus- ment.ter of new education agencies including the EducationReview Office and the New Zealand Qualifications 11.2 Official review o the new organizationsAuthority, and formula funding for education institu- Ahtions driven by student enrollments. The change of gov-

18 The Education Reforn and Mat.agement Series, Vol. 1, No.2

to pay for the stance Ballard took to exclude the State handful of schools - predictably, those in inner city orServices Commission and Treasury from involvement poor suburban neighborhoods. The extent of the de-in the implementation decisions of 1988-89. Late in cline has depended upon the number of places readily1989., even before the establishment of the Ministry available in neighboring schools. In 1997 the govern-and the other new bodies, these two departments ar- ment announced additional money and teacher staff-gued that the reforms were already off-track. Broadly, ing for redevelopment programs for the worst-affectedthey claimed that the central agencies such as the schools.Ministry were bigger than they needed to be, and that It is not realistic to expect a formal evaluation ofthe working party process had allowed entrenched self- an education system change as big as this one. Thereinterest to subvert the reforms. Ministers were con- are no 'pre-test' measures and no agreement on whatcerned that the changes had not produced the finan- they might have looked like if it had been possible tocial savings they had thought might eventuate. To some take them. The change has been so large that the onlyextent Treasury was revisiting unfinished business from realistic evaluation is a political one: how much of theits policy briefing volume of 1987. changed system is stable against a change of Minister

A. review concentrating on the new bodies was and a change of government.set up, headed by a former Secretary to the Treasury,and completed its work early in 1990 (Lough 1990). 12.0 Implementing the Reforms -O'Rourke insisted she personally be a member of thatreview group. The outcome was some change in the Dei wim t Probles structures, and reductions in the size, of the new orga- not a smooth process, despite the high level of govem-nizations. ment commitment. Problems did emerge from the start

11.3 Research projects - political, inter-departmental, external pressure, and

Several small- and medium-scale research projects administrative.have been carried out since 1991, mostly funded by . .the Ministry, but there has been no single large-scale Political problems

government evlato of th edcto reom (se Political problems were comparatively small butSoikm96no e ariew of the oerall New Zea were potentially very serious, and could have arisenScbiclc 1996 for a review of the overall New Zealand fo pi ntegvmet rfo bneostate sector changes). Various researchers have in- from a split in the government, or from a change ofvestigated such matters as: workloads of boards of political direction which often arises when there is atrustees and principals, financial stability of schools change of Minister or a change of government. Astrstudentesndrllmncpaltms, financi stabils.ity of sc , noted above, all of these political changes occurredstuhdent o enrollmentspaternsy freseachols. Wiprthat during the period 1988-91 with the split in the Cabinethigh degree of consistency, researchers report thatschoo] principals and board of trustee members do not during 1988-89, a change of Prime Minister in 1989,wish to returntothepre-1989system,despitevarying and then a change of government and a change oflevels of dissatisfaction over certain aspects of the new Minister in 1990. But the direction of the reforms re-arrangements. Thei mosticommonncomplaintis othere mained essentially unchanged throughout thesearrngementsugThe mosc changes. The political changes of 1989 took place tooIS not enough money".

4 .. , la~~~~1te to halt the 'Tomorrow's Schools' reforms, andThe question of 'competition' between schools for l

students has received some attention. The removal of the government was too committed to the tertiary andcompulsory school 'enrollment zones'has allowed par- early childhood education reforns to halt them in 1990.ents to exercise greater choice over the school their By the time the new government took office at thechildren attend, and there have been some marked shifts end of 1990, most of the big changes were already inin enrollment patterns . There is research evidence place or committed by law to take place. In hindsight itthat this aspect of the changes (the 'student as was very important that the change timetable had re-voucher') has contributed to a spiral of decline in a quired all legislation to be passed and new administra-

tion structures to be in place or committed, before the


date of the 1990 election. and set up the SES as a fully state-funded agency,sacrificing the competitive element in its makeup. Suc-cessive governments also bought some peace during

12.2 Interdepartmental disagreements the period by putting more money into schools for spe-Interdepartmental disagreements became signifi- cial education.

cant during 1989 as the magic date of I October ap- Secondly, the six universities provided formidableproached, but no department felt so strongly that they opposition during 1989-90 especially, and were effec-tried to stop the change. The Education Department tive in combining their resources at the level of thewas powerless by that time, and the "control" depart- Vice-Chancellors and Councils, and in stimulating dis-ments did not have sufficient authority to go against quiet among university graduates who were now inchanges which were, after all, being led by the Prime positions of leadership in business, thejudiciary, and inMinister as Minister of Education. By the end of 1989, politics. Leadership of university staff ran a very ef-other departments were in a more influential position. fective international campaign. Intense pressure wasThe problem-solving method used was the classic one: brought to bear on the government, particularly on Goffto establish an interdepartmental committee (the 'Lough as Associate Minister of Education, while the tertiaryReview') and let the departments argue their case education legislation was being drafted, and while itbefore an independent chairperson, but behind closed was before Select Committee. Some of this pressuredoors. was public, but much of it took place behind the scenes.

12.3 Lobby groups "A huge lobbying campaign involving bothSome external pressure groups were able to exert local and international activities was then

influence through the working party process, and entered into by the Association (of Univer-achieve sufficient changes to placate them. Others, sity Staff with the result that when the Billhowever, used public opinion and the news media to was reported back to the House, there wereexert pressure on the government. Two examples of 103 pages to (sic) amendments and, later,this type of external pressure, and how the issues were several Supplementary Order Papers. Theresolved, are discussed below. Act which was subsequently enacted was,

First, the education of children with special edu- from the point of view of the universitiescation needs is a political 'hot potato' in New Zealand, and their staff, a significant improvementand so it turned out during the 1987-91 period. (Politi- on what might have been. " (Crozier 1994).cians are helpless when prime-time television puts themup against a distraught mother with a handicapped The university-led opposition was on such a scale thatchild.) The Picot Taskforce had recommended that a the only response possible was a political one: Minis-Special Education Service be set up, which would em- ters gave way.ploy the child psychologists, and other specialists infields such as speech language therapy, education of 12.4 Administrative problemsthe deaf, etc., who were previously employed by the As noted above, most of the administrative-levelDepartment of Education; and this Service would pro- problems of implementation which arose undervide services to schools. But Picot also recommended Ballard's leadership (up to I October 1989) were dealtthat the Special Education Service (SES) should have with very rapidly, because Ballard had a command-to compete with other possible providers of similar ser- post structure in place with himself as the final author-vices. i.e. the 'service' should be made 'contestable'. ity. Ballard accepted from the startthat mistakes wouldThe special education interest groups of parents, child be made and that this was unavoidable in such a hur-psychologists, and special education teachers were ried process. Neither he nor Lange expected that theunited and adamant in opposing this idea. The govern- process would be perfect. The Implementation Unitment bowed to the strength of this opposition early on, held weekly meetings with Ballard in charge, to


resolve problems as they came up, and in turn Ballard income.met weekly with Lange. Decisions tended to be made As the changeover date of I October 1989 drewat those meetings. Ballard would judge which matters closer, remaining unresolved questions tended to beshould go to Ministers. Two examples will illustrate 'rolled over' into the new system, with temporary ar-major problems which arose within the administration rangements put in place so that former funding wouldbut which required political intervention to solve. continue into the new system. O'Rourke, especially,

A crucial aspect of winning public support for the inherited a significant number of these matters to deal'Tomorrow's Schools' changes, was convincing the with, at the same time as she was trying to establish apublic that every school would get enough money to new organization. More of them (colloquially knownenable it to do the things which had been done for it by as 'black holes') continued to appear for some timethe Education Boards or the Department - maintenance after the Ministry was established.of buildings, purchase of classroom materials, provi-sion of electricity and heating and water, wages for 13.0 Continuing Change 1991-97non-teaching staff, and so on. Over the years Educa- After the upheavals of 1987-90 one might havetion Boards had disbursed their funding in many dif- expected the New Zealand education system to settleferent ways, and it was very difficult to identify and into some quietness from the beginning of 1991. In-separate out this funding and then recombine it into a stead a second wave of change took place, particu-rational formula per school. A firm of accountants larly during 1991-94, for four prime reasons: the changewas contracted to look at a sample of schools, to com- agenda of Smith, the new Minister of Education, thepare the proposed funding levels against what the unfinished reform agenda of the State Services Com-schools put forward as the amount they said they mission and The Treasury, the reform ideas of the newneeded. Unfortunately the accountants had not been chief executives of the education agencies, and thetold to compare the proposed levels against what the growing strength of those wishing to halt or reverseschools had actually received the previous year, rather some of the earlier changes.than a 'wish list' of whatthey would liketo get. Itwasno surprise that schools claimed they needed far more 13.1 Lockwood Smith 's change agendathan the amount being offered, and this received a lot As noted in an earlier chapter, Smith took officeof media attention. Ballard had no authority to increase as an activist Minister with a belief in further remov-grant levels above the total budget which had been ing central government from local decision-making. Heapproved. The fuss died down only after Ballard in- tackled the teacher unions head-on over funding schoolvolved a group of leading school principals in develop- boards directly for the payment of teacher salariesing the funding formula, and when the government (bulk-funding for teacher salaries). He promoted theagreed to provide extra funds to increase the proposed idea of a national qualifications framework vigorously.funding rates. He recognized that the changes to date had nothing to

A less-public administration problem concerned the do with improving student learning, and set out to re-arrangements for a tertiary student loan scheme. The form the national school curriculum. He had clear ideasgovernment's preference was that this scheme should on breaking down the barriers between different typesbe one which was run commercially by a consortium and levels of education institution and the qualifica-of banks. Extensive negotiations with banks eventu- tions they offered ('seamless' education). These, to-ally came to nothing. Banks would not agree to make gether with new vocational workplace training arrange-loans to all students irrespective of their credit-worthi- ments (Industry Training Act 1992) and a range of fis-ness. In addition, students threatened to take their own cal changes, were his main agenda for the next fewprivate banking business away from any bank which years. O'Rourke saw her task as helping Smith to de-took part in the scheme. Ministers then reluctantly velop his policies, gain approval forthem, and to imple-agreed to set up a government-funded student loan ment them.scheme with repayments to be made through the taxa- In the terminology of Roberts and King (1996),tion system, and dependent upon the person's taxable


Sm ith and O'Rourke were 'publ ic entrepreneurs', like more closely. It is no accident that a new Cabinet Com-Lange and Ballard. They too showed dynamic leader- mittee structure emerged at this time, with the Primeship, but in this period much of their energy was given Minister chairing a new Education Training and Em-to institutionalizing changes which had begun to be ployment Committee. Smith found it increasingly diffi-implemented, as well as introducing further changes cult to get new policy ideas through Cabinet unlessof their own. they had the active support of the Ministers of Finance

(Bill Birch) and Labor (Wyatt Creech) and their se-13.2 Treasury and the State Services Commission nior officials. Although there was no shortage ofthings

The Treasury and the State Services Commission he still wanted to change in legislation, Smith was nothad unfinished business, particularly in tertiary educa- able to get an Education Amendment Bill into Parlia-tion. The Treasury signaled its views in its 'Briefing ment after 1993.to the Incoming Government 1990' (Treasury 1990), The Labor opposition party was beginning to re-arguing for substantial increases in the fees to be paid ject some of the things it had done while in office dur-by tertiary students. The Commission was more inter- ing 1984-90. New political parties which opposed fur-ested in the management of tertiary institutions, in re- ther change, or sought to reverse some of the earlierducing the influence of the teacher unions, and in im- changes, were gaining support. The government's fi-proving the quality of management of government in nancial position began to improve dramatically fromgeneral. Pushed by Treasury and the Commission, sev- 1992 onwards and the govemment came under pres-eral further reviews of aspects of tertiary education sure to spend more. The teacher unions fought againstwere carried out during this period, as well as a re- block grants for teacher salaries, and fought the gov-view of the arrangements for managing school prop- emient, successfully, through debilitating and drawn-erty. Two of these reviews which started in 1991 - out salary negotiations from 1994-96. The governmentcharging tertiary institutions for the 'cost of capital', became even more cautious from 1995 onwards, cul-and the idea of a commercialized school property minating in Smith's replacement as Minister of Educa-agency - had almost ground to a halt by 1996. tion early in 1996 by Creech, who had a reputation for

The new chief executives of the major education negotiation and conciliation.agencies all took office in late 1989-mid 1990 with zeal Opposition to govemment intentions was strongestand enthusiasm, looking to construct new and forward- in tertiary education. Parents and students (many oflooking organizations which would owe little to the old: whom were voters) did not favor increasing fees forO'Rourke at the Ministry of Education, Maurice students, even though the introduction ofthe fees pro-Gianotti at the Education Review Office, and David vided funds for more student places. Long-term deci-Hood at the New Zealand Qualifications Authority. All sions were sidelined until after the 1993 election. Inset out to make their own mark as well as to construct 1994 the government settled -or thought it had settledeffective and efficient bodies. All three (including Dr. - the tertiary funding issue until 1999, after yet anotherJudith Aitken who soon replaced Gianotti) were com- review committee and report. (Todd 1994). However,mitted to the government's reform direction. Each or- another review by officials was announced in Febru-ganization was reorganized more than once during this ary 1997.time, as the chief executives grappled with finding the Early childhood interests rallied during 1995/96 tobest way to deliver the government's requirements. lobby (successfully) for increased levels of funding,

and to oppose further legislative change proposals.13.3 Opposition to further change Special education interests had not given up their lob-

Meanwhile opposition to further changes was bying either, and further funding increases for specialgrowing in strength. In the 1993 election the National education eventuated.government's majority was cut right back. The gov- By the beginning of 1997, the education reformernment became more cautious about new policies, impetus in New Zealand was over. A new coalitionand began to scrutinize Ministers' ideas and proposals government was in office with a slender governing


majority. Most of the main actors in the dramatic Not only were teacher labor market matters leftchange years of 1987-91 had moved on. Of the poli- unchanged by the education reforms, they are anticians Marshall, Douglas, Lange and Palmer had left anachronism within general labor market reforms. Thepolitics. Neither Goffnor Smith were involved in edu- national teacher unions still have national collective con-cation any longer. Ballard still headed another Depart- tracts and they still bargain directly with central gov-ment but had stayed away from education business ernment. This is not true of other public servants, andsince 1989. O'Rourke, Gianotti and Hood had left the derives from the fact that the government is still thepublic service. Aitken remained heading the Educa- only significant purchaser of their labor (which it musttion Review Office. A few of the Implementation Unit buy in order to meet compulsory schooling require-team were in the Ministry and elsewhere. And a hand- ments), and that the individual school as the unit offul of the original thinkers were still present in the Com- employer organization is too small to be able to bar-mission and the Treasury. gain effectively against a strongly-unionized labor force.

The situation is not one which governments like, but

14.0 Unresolved Issues they have so far not seen any way out. Boards of trust-ees (parents) have made it plain that they do not want

Despite the comparative rapidity of the New the responsibility for bargaining over salaries with theirZealand education system changes, and their compre- teachers.hensiveness, there are several issues which remain un- For good tactical reasons the government largelyresolved or unaccepted. These issues fall into three left school teacher labor issues aside during the othercategories: school teacher labor market, levels of fund- reforms, and as a result school teacher opposition toing, and locus of control and responsibility. the reforms was limited - unlike the opposition of uni-

versity teachers which was strong, well-organized and

14.1 School teacher labour market effective. As New Zealand enters a decade of risingThe school teacher labor market remained largely school enrollments and consequent high demand for

uintouched throughout the reforms. New teachers con- teachers, it is unlikely that any government will wanttinue to come mostly from the same training institu- to tackle the teacher labor market question.tions that produced them before 1987. Teachers con-tinue to be employed at the local level by locally-elected 14.2 Levels offundingbodies, independent of the Ministry of Education, but The reforms in early childhood and schools haveunder centrally-negotiated employment contracts, and delivered average per capita funding and staffing lev-according to centrally-determined staffing schedules. els which are not greatly different from those which(Note that at the time of the changes, primary teach- applied before 1987, although there has been consid-ers transferred from being employed by district Edu- erable redistribution. There has been dispute aboutcation Boards to being employed by each local school whether levels of funding have kept pace with infla-but under unchanged conditions. Secondary teachers tion, but the government has not declared a deliberatehad always been employed by their local school.) They policy of lowering these levels of funding.receive their salaries through the Ministry but the Min- This is not the case for tertiary education. Espe-istry has no power to 'hire and fire' - that power rests cially since 1990,the govemmenthas introduced higherwith the boards of trustees. Most schools continue to fees to be paid by students, and the levels of thosereject a 'teacher salaries grant' option which would fees have risen inexorably every year. There has beenallow them to receive lump sum funding and decide a clear policy to reduce state tertiary funding to anfor themselves how many teachers and of which lev- average of 75% of tuition costs. Although the govern-els they wish to employ. Most boards of trustees are ment and main opposition party accept this is a fiscalsatisfied with the present arrangements, which leave necessity, it is quite clear that the community does notteachers remarkably free from external oversight or accept it at all, despite the existence of a student loaninterference, either local or central. scheme. Future governments will continue to revisit


and grapple with this question, trying to balance the can take months or years to resolve. Local communi-demands posed by increasing numbers of people wish- ties expect 'the government' to intervene and solveing to enroll in tertiary study, against the necessity to the problem, but there are few powers to do so.set a finite budget for what can be paid for that by the On financial matters, the very large majority oftaxpayers. As time goes on it becomes less and less schools and institutions are well and responsibly run.likely that the student loan scheme can be rolled back. But the government has had to rescue one small poly-

technic from financial difficulties, and has had to res-14.3 Locus ofcontrol and responsibility cue several schools. There are occasional cases of

When Lange set up the Picot Taskforce in 1987 misappropriation of money which come before thehe did so wanting to shift the locus of control and re- courts.sponsibility out from the center. Just as the community The most significant financial change was onein the past was unhappy about too much central con- which is now barely remembered, and which couldtrol, the government has begun to question the lack of have taken place independently of other changes -giv-central control in situations where the local education ing each school a total grant with freedom to spendinstitution appears to have made unwise decisions. that total grant, instead of a grant which consisted of aThese questionable decisions fall into three categories: number of sub-grants (each closed off from the oth-policy, managerial, and financial. ers). Schools now have an incentive to make savings

Boards of trustees and tertiary Councils set the on utilities or administration, because they know thatpolicies for their institutions. In a small number ofcases the savings can be accumulated for bigger projects, orthere are doubts that the elected board of trustees is be redirected into curriculum materials or library. Insufficiently competent to carry out its tasks, but the the past there were no such incentives, because schoolsgovernment agencies have restricted powers to inter- were not allowed to transfer money from one subgrantfere. to another.

There were concerns at the time of the first elec- Despite those areas of difficulty which local con-tions for boards of trustees, that boards might be 'taken trol seems to bring, the government has no desire toover' by subgroups of parents with particular cultural return to a centralist system - nor has the community.or religious agendas. This did not happen, which prob- What people are still searching for is an acceptableably reflects the comparative homogeneity of the New way of deciding when some central intervention isZealand population, and a viewpoint that people did needed, and what that intervention might be.not want the schools to become an arena for otherdifferences. 14.4 Impact on children 's learning

Sometimes boards set policies which are incom- The Taskforce Report was not directly about stu-patible with those of their neighbors, or accumulate dent learning, nor was it directed towards teachersinto system-wide issues. For example, schools which (other than school principals). New Zealand parentsare threatened with risk of overcrowding because they appeared to want to run their local schools, but wereare very popular may limit their enrollments with no geneal hant to rue to leal matters burethought to how the students they have excluded might In general happy to continue to leave matters of cur-attend school elsewhere. Schools which suspend or riculum and teaching practice to teachers. None ofexpel students are not required to sort out alternative the stakeholders expected the reforms to lead directlyeducation arrangements for the students concerned to changes in student achievement, nor were there anybefore they suspend them. measures in place to tell if changes in student achieve-

The most common single cause of unrest within ment took place. There was an expectation that in-an education institution is a breakdown of relationships creased local governance ought to lead to more re-between the principal and the board or Council. Such sponsive decision-making and to more efficient use ofbreakdowns quickly become employment disputes, be- resources, which ought to lay the ground for condi-cause the principal is an employee of the board or tions where improved student learning might take place.Council. Disputes can be public and acrimonious, and In this sense it can be argued that administrative


reformrmaybeanecessarypreconditionforimprove- ten years ago. Whether the state ought to limitment in student achievement. that influence, especially in matters of school

There is an outstanding unresolved issue, namely, choice, against parental wishes, for the good ofwhetherthe education reforms have actually improved other children, is another issue. Having given par-children's learning. Given that systemic change can- ents the degree of choice they now have in Newnot be a controlled experiment, this is a question which Zealand, it is probably impossible for any futurecannot be answered rigorously. There are some point- government to take it back.ers, however.

The first is that children's learning is now differ-ent from what it was pre-1987, because the national 15.0 Lessons from the New Zealandcurriculum has changed as a result of Smith's actions riencebetween 1991 and 1995. In addition, senior high school tp 1987-97students are now able to study industry-training courses peris nd bleve one c ounchangedeither in-school or offsite - an option which was not periences and believerone can transfersthemunchangedavailable to them pre- 1987. to another, but there are perhaps lessons which can be

By placing decision-making in the hands of schools drawn which might act as signposts or indicators forthemselves, it is likely that schools are able to make another country. Possible lessons are grouped belowmore rapid responses than in the past to questions about context, leadership, change management.the provision of curriculum resources or the upskilling 15 1 Contextof a particular teacher. To this extent the conditions in It Certwhich learning takes place have probably improved. A It certainly helped the acceptance of the educa-recent research study (Wylie 1997) reported that most tion changes in 1987-91, that 'change was in the air'school principals thought that the reforms had some in other fields, in business and in the public sector.positive impact on education, including children's learn- Changes in education will find it easier to gain credibil-ing. 'School self-management did bring new energy ity if there are other big changes taking place in theand focus into primary schools.... But there is no evi- country at the same time. The economic crisis, anddence that all children have gained equally.' Eighty- responses to it, made education change easier to ac-two percent of parents were satisfied with the educa- cept.tion of their children, the same as recorded in a similar Change which taps into public support is likelysurvey in 1991. to have a head-start. The New Zealand reform pro-

There is evidence that greater ability of parents to posals unleashed a popular groundswell of support forchoose schools for their children has led to greater the idea of parent governors of schools. This idea re-social stratification of schools. Parents who have en- mained a unifying and populartheme for several years,rolled their children in the schools of their choice be- and ensured a large community support base for thelieve they have maximized their children's opportuni- early stages of the reforms, including support from allties to learn, but there are research pointers which political parties. Support for'local management' meantsuggest that children in the least-advantaged schools that other aspects of the changes were swept up andare receiving a poorer education than they might have supported as well, although they might not have gaineddone. that support if they had been proposed in isolation.

Has children's learning improved as a result Any changes must be consistent with the sup-of the administrative reforms? The question can- porting infrastructures. The New Zealand changesnot be answered firmly, but a reasonable hypoth- could not have taken place as they did without the avail-esis might be 'yes' for some students, 'no sig- ability of a skilled public service, or electronic bank-n ificant change' for many, and 'deteriorated' for ing, or a reliable telephone system, or good local roads,some. Parents can now have more influence over or private-sector firms which were able to do some oftheir own children's education than was the case the things which were previously done by the Educa-

tion Boards. Local education institutions were able to


consider becoming responsible for their own affairs confidence in the officials or advisers who are doingbecause they could access most of the services they the detailed work for them.wanted locally. In order to be workable, changes must At the time it made sense to close the State Ser-be consistent with what other parts of the economy vices Commission and Treasury out of the play duringcan deliver. ( Barr 1996).2 Ballard's term. Ballard had Lange's backing and that

was all he needed, as long as Lange remained Prime15.2 Leadership Minister. The rules changed when Lange resigned un-

Consistent strong committed political leader- expectedly. In an ideal world the leading officialsfromship is essentiaL Between 1984 and 1987 there was the control and planning andfinancial departmentsa group of powerful Ministers pushing public sector should be in agreement with the policy department,reform, and from 1987-89, the education reforms were and thereby strengthen the policy and implementationfronted by Prime Minister Lange. Ballard had the free- processes.dom to get on and implement the changes during 1988- Find other opinion leaders who will help pro-89 because he knew that he had Lange's backing. mote the change. Other people outside governmentLange's special position as Prime Minister gave Ballard and official circles have to be convinced of the valueextra protection, and ensured that Ballard could not be ofthe change, and people who can influence their opin-attacked through approaches to other Ministers. After ions are needed on the government's side. Business1993 Smith found change much more difficult to leaders were involved in the Picot Taskforce. Highlyachieve. His Cabinet colleagues had little enthusiasm respected educators were important in touringfor further dramatic change in education, and he had the country to help bring school principals and parentsto struggle to get their support. Major change prob- on board with the schools changes. The governmentably needs more than just the support of the Minister was never able to find sufficient credible opinion lead-of Education. ers to support it against the university opposition to the

tertiary changes, even though it had very positive sup-"If David Lange hadn't been Prime Minis- port from the polytechnics.ter and been behind these reforms I don't Use the communications media. Ballard had athink they would have got through. " communications budget and employed a communica-(Ballard 1993) " ...good policy design, po- tions expert. They used the communications medialitical will and institutional capacity are all which were appropriate to New Zealand, including TVessential for success. Where one is miss- and radio advertising and print media. Lange and Ballarding, reform willfail (not mayfail, willfail)." recognized that they had to communicate with the wider(Barr 1996) adult population, but especially parents, directly, in or-

der to win and maintain a groundswell of support - inLegislate the change. If the change has gone the New Zealand context it was essential to spend

through the legislative process, this shows the money on well-designed TV advertising. Smith andgovernment is really serious. O'Rourke did not have the ability to buy TV-time for

Ministers must have confidence in consistent most of their changes, and were battling all the time tostrong committed leadership from their officials get a positive message across to the public.This may mean that Ministers need to become per-sonally involved in crucial 'implementation-agent' ap- 15.3 Change Managementpointments. Ministers rely on officials to give them Change quickly - more quickly than is com-advice, and to put their decisions into practice. Minis- fortable. The New Zealand government adopted a de-ters know that officials can either speed up or slow liberate policy of rapid change, which made it moredown work on things ministers want done. The larger

and more contentious the change proposed, the more 2 Barr identifies 'institutional capacity' as an essential leg of aimportant it is that the political leaders have absolute 'tripod' of conditions needed for successful implementation.


difficult for opposition to form orto become organized, portunityto sweep aside almost everyone who had beenbut which was also more humane for the people who in the senior management levels. They sought to ap-were to be affected by the changes. Ballard had full point people they thought would be enthusiastic aboutauthority to complete the changes in the timescale an- change, and who would use the new opportunities tonounced and did so. Sticking to announced timetables the full.for change is very strong upfront evidence that the Be prepared to inject extrafunding. Change isgovernment is serious about the changes, and will not always more difficult to introduce if you are takingbe deflected from them. Experience in New Zealand money away from groups which have been used tosince 1990 indicates that the longer proposals for receiving it. The ideal, but unrealistic, change is onechange drag on, the less likely it is that they will ever where no one loses and everyone gets more! In prac-be agreed to and put in place. Smith and O'Rourke tice most changes produce some 'losers' who can bestruggled through six years 1991-96. Lange had the expected to oppose their own loss. The New Zealandpolitical authority, and Ballard had the backing, to drive government was prepared to put in extra funding to-their changes through in fourteen months. wards the end of the change process, in order to deal

Appoint a specialist clhange manager with au- with some anomalies which were discovered late intitority to act. Ballard came into the role with a spe- the process, and to sweeten the pill for some of thosecific change-management task. His background was affected by the change.in research, large business, and stand-alone govern- Negotiate with and involve or isolate the pres-ment organizations. He was not a career public ser- sure groups. Some of the key pressure groups werevant and had no interest in heading any of the new drawn into the change process, and became publiclyorganizations when they were set up. When the job supportive of the changes( parent groups, secondarywas done he was always going to move on. No one school principals, polytechnic leadership). With thesecould ever accuse him of designing the new arrange- groups the government negotiated from a position ofments to give himself a personal advantage. strength, but was prepared to alter plans if necessary,

Take action to gain the cooperation of staff. If on the advice of these groups, in order to get a betterstaff are going to lose their jobs or have their jobs end product. The secondary teacher union stood asidechanged as part of a change, they may sabotage the and isolated itself. The government was never able tochange as a means of self-protection. Change leaders fully counter opposition from the universities, and un-will need to set up systems to providejob protection or derestimated the power they had to influence publicto ease the transition for the staff affected. In the New opinion.Zealand change, staff knew that as a group they were Allowfor mistakes. Recognize that mistakes willbeing given priority for positions in the new organiza- be made, but do not allow mistakes to upset the gen-tions, but that all the old rules about seniority were eral plan, or to hamper the change timetable. Politi-gone. Those who were not appointed had the option of cians and chief executives should make it known amongbeing paid a severance fee. Ballard worked hard to their change team, that some mistakes are probablygain the respect and support of the senior manage- going to happen, and this is expected. What will bement in the Department of Education, because he important is to identify mistakes as soon as they areknew that only they had the detailed expertise to both found, report them immediately, and take steps to cor-keep the old system going while the new was being rect them. Change staff need to know they will not bedeveloped, and to ensure that the new system was blamed or fired for honest mistakes.designed to cover all that it needed to. Remember exit, transition and entry arrange-

Appoint new people with fresh ideas and en- ments. Change processes involve old ways coming to anergy. Although Department and Education Board staff end and new ways starting. There need to be clear end-had priority for appointments to the new organizations, points or close-off dates forthe 'old'. New Zealand foundthe new appointments turned old seniorities on their there were always loose ends still outstanding at theseheads. Those making the appointments took the op- changeover dates, and it was essential to have a special-


ist group of people as a 'residual management unit' tohandle these transition questions. As the changeover dateapproached more and more unfinished business wasidentified and set aside for the residual managementunit. But these matters were not allowed to delay thechange date. Finally the new arrangements should becelebrated as they begin, in ways that mark them outas special.

16.0 ConclusionThe strongest lesson from the New Zealand ex-

perience is one which is not specific to any situation,nor to any time or country. It is a lesson which doesnot depend upon wealth or geography or experts fromoverseas. This lesson is timeless and without price.The lesson is this: change is possible. Given vision,political will and leadership, and the skill and energy ofone's own people, it is possible for an education sys-tem to change within a manageable period of time.


ANNEX ONE

Terms of ReferenceThe Taskforce to Review Education Administra-

tion was announced on 21 July 1987. It was requestedto report directly to the Ministers of Education, Financeand State Services, and its terms of reference were asfollows:

"The terms of reference for the Taskforce are to ex-amine:* the functions of the Head Office of the Depart

ment of Education with a view to focusing themmore sharply and delegating responsibilities as faras practicable;

* the work of polytechnic and community collegecouncils, teachers college councils, secondaryschool boards and school committees with a viewto increasing their powers and responsibilities;

* the Department's role in relation to other educa-tional services;

* changes in the territorial organization of public edu-cation with reference to the future roles of educa-tion boards, other education authorities, and theregional offices of the Department of Education;

* any other aspects that warrant review.

The Taskforce will endeavor to ensure that thesystems and structures proposed are flexible and re-sponsive to changes in the educational needs of thecommunity and the objectives of the Government.

It will identify any costs and benefits of its recom-mendations and recommend the nature and timing ofany necessary transitional arrangements.

The Taskforce is to make recommendations whichwill ensure the efficiency of any new system of edu-cation administration that might be proposed."


BIBLIOGRAPHY AND Jesson, Bruce (1989)Fragments of Labor. Auckland:

REFERENCES Penguin.

Ballard, Russ (1993) unpublished remarks. Kelsey, J(1995) The New Zealand Experiment: AWorld Model for Structural Adjustment?

Barr, Nicholas (1996) Putting Educational Policy Auckland: AUPinto Practice (draft). Office of the Senior Vice-President and Chief Economist: World Bank. Kingdom, John W (1984) Agendas, Alternatives and

Public Policy. Boston: Little Brown and Company.

Barrington, J( 1991) Report to the Ministry of Educa-tion. OECD:Education Evaluation and Reform Lange,D(1988) Tomorrow's Schools: The ReformStrategies. Wellington: Ministry of Education. of Education Administration in New Zealand.

Wellington: Government Printer.

Boston, J(1991) 'The Theoretical Underpinnings ofPublic Sector Restructuring in New Zealand' in J Lange, D (1988) Before Five: Early Childhood CareBoston, J Martin, J Pallot, and P Walsh (eds) Re- and Education in New Zealand. Wellington: De-shaping the State:New Zealand's Bureaucratic partment of Education.

Revolution. Wellington: Oxford, ppl-26. Lange, D (1989) Learningfor Life Two: Policy Deci-

Codd, JA(1993) 'Equity and Choice: the Paradox of sions. Wellington: Government PrinterNew Zealand Educational Reform' in Curriculum Studies Vol 1 ,No 1,pp75-90. Lough, N (1990) Today's Schools : A Review of the

Education Reform Implementation Process.

Crozier, Rob (1994) 'Foreword: Learning for Life - Wellington: Ministry of Education.When Will They Ever Learn?' in Access 13(1).

WMcQueen, H (I 99 1) The Ninth Floor. Auckland:

Dale, Roger (1994)' The State and Education' in Sharp, Penguin.A(ed) Leap into the Dark: The Changing Roleof the State in New Zealand Since 1984, pp 68- Marshall, Hon Russell (1993) 'The Clem Hill Memo86. Auckland: AUP. rial Lecture' in Delta 47, pp.-9.

Dixon, Keith, David Coy and Greg Tower (1995) 'Per- Meade, Anne (1988) Education to be More: Reportceptions and experiences of annual report of the Early Childhood Care and Educationpreparers' in Higher Education 29: pp287-306. Working Group. Wellington: Department of

Education.

Gordon, L(1995) 'Controlling Education: AgencyTheory and the Reformation of New Zealand's Meade, Anne (1990) Women and Children Gain aSchools' in Educational Policy Vol 9 No I,pp54- Foot in the Door. Paper presented at the Second74 Research into Educational Policy Conference,

Wellington, 30-31 August 1990.

Hawke, Gary (1988) Report of the Working Groupon PostCompulsory Education and Training. Middleton, S, J Codd and A Jones (eds) (1990) NewWellington: Department of Education. Zealand Education Policy Today: Critical


Perspectives. Wellington: Allen and Unwin and Port (eds) Developing Educational Leaders, pp. 40-Nicholson Press. 56. Harlow: Longman.

Ministry of Education (1993) The New Zealand Cur- Roberts, Nancy C and Paula J King (1996) Trans-riculum Framework. Wellington: Learning Me- forming Public Policy: Dynamics of Policy En-dia. trepreneurship and Innovation. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass Publishers.Ministry of Education (1993) Three Years On: The

New Zealand Education Reforms 1989-92. Schick. Allen (1996) The Spirit of Reform : Manag-Wellington: Learning Media. ing the New Zealand State Sector in a Time of

Change. Wellington: State Services CommissionMinistry of Education (1994) Education for the 21st and The Treasury.

Century. Wellington: Learning Media.

Thrupp, M (1995) 'Poor Performers or Just PlainMinistry of Education (1995) Changing Directions Poor? Assumptions in the Neo-Liberal Account

Wellington: Ministty of Education. of School Failure' in Waikato Journal of Edu-cation 1, pp. 45-60.

Mitchell, D (1993) Hear Our Voices: Final Monitoring Report of Monitoring Today's Schools. TreasurY The (1987) Government ManagementEllamilton: University of Waikato. Brief to the Incoming Government, Vol. II. Edu

cation Issues. Wellington: The Treasury.

Nash, R (1989) "Tomorrow's Schools': state powerand parent participation' inNZJES Vol. 24,No 2, Wylie, C (1994) Self-Managing Schools in Newpp. 113-38. Zealand: The Fifth Year. Wellington: NZCER.

Nash, R (1993) Succeeding Generations: Family Re- Wylie, C(1995) 'Contrary Currents: The Applicationsources and Access to Education in New of the Public Sector Reform Framework in Educa-Zealand. Auckland: Oxford. tion' in NZJES, Vol 30, No 2, pp. 149-64.

Peters, Michael C, John Freeman-Moir and Michael Wylie,C.(1987) Self-Managing Schools Seven YearsA Peters (1994) 'The Corporatisation of New On. Wellington: NZCER.Zealand Universities' in Access, Vol. 13,No 1.

Phillips, D (1993) 'Curriculum Development in NewZealand' in Educational Review Vol. 45, No 2,pp155-64.

Picot, Brian (chair of the Task Force to Review Educational Administration) (1988) AdministeringforExcellence:Effective Administration in Educa-tion. Wellington: The Task Force.

Rae, K (1991) 'Te Ao Huruhuri -Tomorrow's Schools:Administrative Change and Consequences forEducational Administration and Supervision' inRibbins, P,P R Glatter,T Simkins and L Watson


ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Lyall Perris is currently a government consultant residing in Aukland, New Zealand. Perris served for 16years with the New Zealand Ministry of Education, culminating in his appointment as acting Secretary forEducation from 1995-1996. Prior to joining the Ministry, Perris was a teacher at the secondary and tertiarylevel. Originally a student of physics, philosophy and mathematics, Perris also holds post -graduate diplomas ineducation and public sector management.

EDUCATION SYSTEM

REFORM AND

MANAGEMENT

EDUCATKONT H E W O R L D B A N K

HUMAN DEVELOPMENT NETWORK

THEWORLD BANK

Abv) thssris. ,_ .

Documents

EDUCA1 ON - World Banksiteresources.worldbank.org/EDUCATION/.../Implementing_ed_reform… · the education reform and management series implementinc; education reforms in new zealand: