A tale of two principals

Image source: CanvaAI

The ways in which we operate as educators and as an education system are determined by our personal and shared beliefs about education, and the philosophical frameworks that we construct on the basis of those beliefs. This is the case regardless of whether these things are explicitly recognised and valued, or simply revealed implicitly in the way we work.

This post begins with an allegory, the tale of two principals, whose personal beliefs and philosophical frameworks are evident in the ways they work and lead. Born just three years apart, these two men (yes, male characters, but the reason will be evident further on) worked in exactly the same time in history, yet each had quite different personal beliefs about learning and developed very different philosophical perspectives on what education is all about and how schools should operate. For the sake of the allegory, let’s call them Fred and John:

Fred

The mission statement of Fred’s school is “Striving for Excellence”, emphasising the school’s is dedication to maintaining high academic, extracurricular, and behavioural standards. Fred leads an ongoing effort to improve in all aspects, including teaching methods, student performance, and school facilities. The school prioritises the needs and potential of each student, aiming to help them achieve their best.

Fred maintains significant authority over decisions in the school, and there is less emphasis on collaborative decision-making or input from teachers. Decision-making processes are highly centralised, with Fred and his small leadership team making most of the strategic decisions. Policies and procedures are designed to ensure uniformity across the school.

Fred and his staff are proud of the comprehensive, detailed procedures they have in place for all aspects of school operations, including teaching methods, student assessments, and administrative tasks. Instructional methods are highly prescribed, leaving little room for teacher autonomy or creativity in order to maintain the high level of conformity and coherence across the school.

Teachers and students are closely monitored and assessed on their performance. Frequent evaluations and data collection on student performance are common, with the results used to make decisions about grouping of students, forms of instruction and resource allocation. Ongoing professional development is provided for teachers focused on the implementation of standardised, scientifically-proven teaching methods. Training sessions are held regularly, aimed at improving efficiency, classroom management, and adherence to prescribed protocols.

The school culture is one that encourages competition among students, with rewards and recognition for high achievers. Students might feel pressure to perform well on assessments to secure their place in higher tracks or ability groups – and to secure places in tertiary settings or enhance future career prospects. The school environment can feel mechanical and utilitarian, with a focus on efficiency and productivity over creativity and individual expression. There is generally less emphasis on holistic education, social-emotional learning, and student well-being.

John

The mission statement of John’s school is “Together We Create The Future”, emphasising the school’s focus on preparing students for the future, incorporating forward-thinking approaches and innovative practices in education. His school emphasises teamwork and collective effort among students, teachers, parents, and the wider community in achieving this mission, and there is a belief in shared responsibility for the educational process and outcomes, highlighting the importance of everyone’s involvement. The school is dedicated to making a lasting positive impact on students’ lives, equipping them with skills and knowledge for future success.

Students are empowered to take an active role in their learning and in shaping their future, fostering a sense of agency and ownership., with teachers acting as facilitators or guides rather than traditional authoritative figures who ‘deliver’ the curriculum. Students are regarded as core participants in their learning processes, actively exploring topics of interest, asking questions, and collaborating with peers. At any time in John’s school you are likely to find classrooms buzzing with conversation and activity as students work together on problem-solving and inquiry-based projects, with an emphasis on group work, discussions, and projects where students learn from and with each other.

There’s plenty of evidence of students being encouraged to think critically and solve real-world problems, with lessons designed to challenge students to question assumptions, analyse information, and develop well-reasoned conclusions. There’s also evidence of programmes and practices that support the development of students’ social and emotional skills, such as empathy, collaboration, and conflict resolution.

John ensures that all of his staff and students understand the value of formative assessment to provide continuous feedback and support student growth. Assessments include a variety of methods such as projects, presentations, and self-assessments, rather than relying solely on standardised tests and end of course exams.

There’s a great feeling of community participation at John’s school too. He works hard to maintain strong connections with the local community, including partnerships with local organisations and opportunities for students to engage in community service. He provides encouragement for students to understand and address social issues, fostering a sense of social responsibility. Many of John’s students have graduated to become highly productive members of society, pursuing a wide variety of career opportunities but often where there is a strong sense of moral purpose and social good outcomes.

What can we learn from this?

The stories here could easily illustrate what is happening in any number of schools in New Zealand – some identifying more with Fred’s style of leadership, and others with John’s. Both stories provide an image of a school that could be rated as ‘successful’ by our current system of school review. The community of Fred’s school is likely to ascribe ‘success’ to the fact that there are high academic expectations and rigour in terms of instruction and assessment, ensuring all learners graduate with the credential required to access further education or secure employment. The community of John’s school might see ‘success’ in terms of the care given to the whole child, and the emphasis on developing competencies that will equip them for the uncertain future of work and society, where they may become the future problem solvers and working for social good.

Readers might easily fall into the trap of wanting to defend the story that most aligns with what they believe represents their ‘ideal’. Some might recognise a story of a school they are working in that they struggle to feel comfortable in because the expectations placed upon them aren’t aligned with their personal beliefs and ways of working. Some may enjoy the freedom given to them in John’s school, others prefer the structure and guidance provided in Fred’s school.

These differences become particularly pronounced when there may be a change in leadership where there is an intention to ‘shift’ how things work and move away from what has been established. Again, that’s a very familiar scenario in many schools as principals, BoTs and governments come and go.

So where’s the lesson for us here?

As mentioned in the introduction to this post, the ways in which we operate as educators and as an education system are determined by our personal and shared beliefs about education. Unless we take the time to be reflective on these things, and apply a little metacognitive processing, these beliefs remain internalised and are expressed implicitly in the ways we behave. When schools in NZ became self-managing entities in 1989 all schools were required to develop a school charter – a key part of which was the identification of a mission statement that was to provide a common focus for all staff and the community as they worked together to define the culture of their school. over the past three decades many schools have developed this thinking further, regularly reviewing and re-stating their shared beliefs in the form of the schools vision, mission and values, and translating that into the goals in their annual plans. Making these beliefs more explicit in this way can be helpful in ensuring there is coherence in the way a school operates across all areas – assuming everyone has ‘bought into’ what is stated.

So back to Fred and John. What can we learn from their respective styles of leadership? And, at a time where emphasis is being given to the ‘science of learning’, what is informing their personal beliefs and the ways these are worked out in their leadership and ways of operating in the school? While some of this may be ascribed to things such as personality and preferences of the individual, it’s important to recognise that our education system has been profoundly influenced by many key thinkers and researchers, often seemingly at odds with one another – but each one seeking to achieve the best outcomes (for learners) based on their particular world view and their perception of the problem or need that exists.

So why Fred and John? It was no accident that I chose these two as the focus of my allegories. Their leadership styles are (loosely) based on two historical figures, both of whom were born in the 1850s and both of whom had a profound impact on the development of our modern education system.

Frederick Taylor (aka Fred) 1856 – 1915

Frederick Taylor, often called the father of scientific management, had several key ideological beliefs regarding the management of organisations and the relationship between managers and workers. Taylor, an industrial engineer, wanted to use modern science to better manage production. This is similar to the challenge that educational leaders and legislators face today as they seek to operate more efficiently and provide better outcomes for learners. Taylor believed that work processes should be studied scientifically to identify the most efficient ways of performing tasks. While Taylor’s work was hugely influential in the development of the factories in the industrial age, he also had enormous influence on developments in education at the time, including key figures in education such as Edward Thorndike who applied much of Taylor’s thinking to his work in the design of a modern education system in the late 1800s.

Taylor’s focus on the scientific study of processes has continued to be reflected in the systematic study of school processes, including teaching methods, administrative tasks, and resource allocation with the aim of identifying the most efficient and effective practices to improve student outcomes and operational efficiency. A key part of this efficiency is reflected in the role of teachers. Taylor regarded it important to place systems above people, identifying people as the key point of failure in any industrial system. According to Taylor, workers should specialise in specific tasks to become more skilled and efficient. Applied to education we see clearly defined roles and responsibilities of teachers, administrative staff, and support personnel to ensure that each staff member focuses on their specific tasks, optimising performance and reducing redundancy. Encouraging teachers to specialise in specific subjects or grade levels, and supporting staff to focus on particular administrative functions allows teachers to develop deep expertise, leading to higher quality education and smoother school operations.

To ensure consistency and efficiency, Taylor believed in standardising tools, equipment, and procedures. He believed that work procedures should be standardised to eliminate variability and inefficiency. In education we see this influence in the development of standardised lesson plans, teaching materials, administrative procedures, and evaluation methods across the school, designed to ensure consistency and fairness in education delivery and administrative processes, making it easier to measure and improve performance. The streamlining of administrative processes helps reduce unnecessary workload for teachers, allowing them to focus more on teaching. While Taylor is often criticised for dehumanising workers, he believed that collaboration between management and workers was crucial.

The influence of Taylor’s thinking about scientific management during the age of industrialisation is also recognised in many of the structural elements of our current schooling system – the school day, timetables, the breaking down of human knowledge into ‘subjects’, specialisation of teacher roles and responsibilities and so on – much of which remains at the core of our current legislative and policy frameworks for the schooling system today and so, perhaps subconsciously, continues to shape much of the way we work and think as educators.

John Dewey (aka John)- 1859 – 1952

John Dewey, a prominent philosopher and educational reformer, had several key ideological beliefs that can be applied to leading organisations and working with people within them. Dewey believed that learning was socially constructed, and that brain-based pedagogy (not his words) should place children, rather than curriculum and institutions, at its centre. Many educators will be familiar with Dewey’s work as one of the key theorists behind the constructivist approaches used in progressive schooling.

Dewey’s emphasis on a student centred approach encouraged teachers to focus on the needs and interests of students, tailoring education to their individual learning styles and needs, thus creating a supportive and engaging learning environment that maximises each student’s potential.

Key features of Dewey’s approach include:

• A focus on experiential learning, encouraging hands-on, project-based learning where students learn through experiences, making learning more relevant and engaging, helping students to develop critical thinking and problem-solving skills.
• Promoting a culture of continuous reflection and improvement among teachers and staff, encouraging educators to regularly assess and refine their teaching methods and practices for better student outcomes.
• Encouraging teamwork and collaborative projects among teachers, students, and staff, in order to build a cooperative learning environment where everyone works together towards common goals.
• A focus on the overall development of students, including their intellectual, emotional, social, and physical growth to ensure that education is well-rounded and prepares students for all aspects of life.
• Being open to new ideas and adapt to changes in educational practices and societal needs, keeping the school dynamic and forward-thinking, continuously improving educational outcomes.
• Developing ethical and social responsibility in education, suggesting schools should instil a sense of ethics and social responsibility in students and staff and that the curriculum should promote values such as integrity, respect, and civic responsibility, preparing students to be responsible citizens.

Life Isn’t Binary

By drawing attention to these two, seemingly oppositional characters, I am not suggesting that it is a matter of choosing between which approach to adopt. The truth is, we are all, to some extent, influenced by both of these ideologies and vacillate between them depending on the context (social, political, personal) and the priorities we see in front of us at the time.

My reflection really is that, as professionals in the education system, we must actively seek to understand the influences that shape our personal beliefs and actions in order to better understand the decisions we make on a daily basis about the work we do.

It’s not so much a case of choosing between the two ends of a spectrum. Part of living in a VUCA world is the challenge of dealing with complexity and ambiguity. While seeking to release and empower the learning potential of individual students, we also need to find ways of organising people, resources and time to ensure we are efficient in the ways we do this. While we recognise learning as an individual endeavour, we also want to be able to understand what a successful education system can produce in terms of the capabilities required for our future workforce – and so on.

The key point of my reflection is that, unless we are thinking in this way our personal foundations as educators become suspect, and we find ourselves in the position of being ‘battered’ by every new wave of thinking that is introduced into our system – often as a reaction to some perceived weakness or threat caused by the current approach(es) being taken. Failure to have explicitly identified the influences that shape our thinking and response leaves us in a position of being like reeds in a pond, bending to whatever political or ideological wind is blowing at the time – and after a while, we know that the resilience of such reeds to bend will fail and they snap.

The idea of ‘finding your why‘ has been popularised in professional development and leadership development circles in recent years. And this is the reason. It’s not simply the latest ‘trendy term’ to align ourselves with. It’s the anchor that will enable us to navigate our way through the complexity, ambiguity, uncertainty and volatility in our contemporary world. It enables us to recognise what lies behind the different ideas and approaches we’re asked to conform to at times, or the leadership styles we encounter when joining a new school or faculty etc. By being more aware of these influences we are in a better position to formulate our response, rather than simply reacting to it all at a superficial level.

Call to Action

As you consider the stories of Fred and John above, and the balance between efficiency and individual empowerment in education, I challenge you to reflect on your own educational practices. Here are some ideas on how you might do that:

1. Find Your ‘Why’:
   • Reflect deeply on your personal ‘why’ as an educator. Why did you choose this profession? What drives you to continue growing and improving in your role? Write down your ‘why’ and keep it visible as a daily reminder of your purpose and motivation.
2. Identify Influences:
   • Make a list of the key influences that shape your educational philosophy. Consider your personal experiences, mentors, professional development courses, and the educational environment you work in. How do these influences align with or diverge from Taylor and Dewey’s theories?
3. Self-Reflection Journal:
   • Take some time this week to journal about your experiences and beliefs as an educator. Reflect on specific instances where you leaned more towards Taylor’s systematic approach or Dewey’s experiential learning. What influenced your decisions in those moments?
4. Peer Discussion:
   • Engage in a discussion with your colleagues about the balance between efficiency and individual empowerment in education. Share your reflections and listen to their perspectives. How can you support each other in finding this balance?
5. Action Plan:
   • Develop a small action plan to integrate both efficiency and empowerment in your teaching. Identify one area where you can apply Taylor’s principles to improve organization and one area where you can apply Dewey’s principles to enhance student engagement and critical thinking.

Extra reading

• Teaching Under the New Taylorism: High-stakes Testing and the Standardization of the 21st Century Curriculum
• Edward Lee Thorndike and John Dewey on the Science of Education (Oxford Review of Education)
• Taylorism and the Logic of Learning Outcomes, Aaron Stoller
• Dewey and Taylor on Scientific Management in a Democratic Society
• The End of Average: How We Succeed in a World that Values Sameness, Todd Rose