In early April I read an article in The Oz by Noel Pearson. In it he reflected on the role of principals in the creation of great schools and made the point that length of tenure was a key to their achievements. He used the example of Brisbane Grammar, whose record shows 11 principals in 143 years. That approaches 15 years on average.
In his article he makes the following comment in reference to great schools:
“They are not businesses or bureaucracies where leaders can be interchanged at will and in short order. They are not led by Chief Executives or mandarins. Good administration and management are necessary but not sufficient. Principals such as Short do not lead polities of students, faculties and parents. They are leaders of moral communities that have a past and reach into the future. The ethics of such a community are like a torch carefully kindled and handed down the years.”
I would add that they do not see the position as a means to an end, but as a vocation in and of its self.
My son’s current principal understands this, but unfortunately is of an age that precludes a 15 year tenure. The school association needs to address this issue in other ways, creating the means to keep safe the torch from careless hands. When I raised this issue I was astounded by his reply
He responded that, in Tasmania, the average is around 3 years.
I have witnessed over the past few years what unstable leadership can do to a previously well respected school, and it is far from efficient, productive, or conducive to quality education. It certainly damaged a school’s reputation.
It seems to me, despite my ignorance of the finer points of educational policy, that the minister for education could do no harm, and most likely great good, by instructing the bureaucrats at the education department to do what is required to achieve a situation where the average tenure of principals in our state schools is extended to match those “great” schools. Those schools with the high levels of academic, sporting and artistic achievement.The ones who achieve better than the average results in the Naplan tests.
After all, this is one area where the education system in Tasmania has some real influence, as opposed to the socio economic status of its pupils, or the amount of money available to it.
Speaking of money, it has been my observation on my journey through life that vast amounts of time, effort, and money are spent adapting to changes in management. More practical people call this waste. If we were to look carefully at the education system as one would like to think our education minister is doing at present, one might reasonably expect to discover that there are costs associated with changing school principals and when it is done more often those costs rise.
Perhaps a way to trim his budget and improve educational outcomes at the same time would be to think about Noel Pearson’s observation, and apply it.
Stupidity may well be repeating the same thing over and searching for a different result, but ignorance is not looking at what is working and seeing if it can be copied for a similar result.
