Derek’s Blog, launched in 2003, serves as a platform for sharing thoughts and reflections related to his work. It offers over 20 years of searchable posts, categorized by the tags below. Feel free to comment, as your feedback contributes to ongoing reflection and future posts.
System Persistence
This post is taken from some thinking I’ve been doing as I begin to construct my next ‘thought piece’. The motivation comes from reflecting on many years of effort in our education system to address many systemic issues that create pressure on schools, educators – and ultimately impact on the quality of educational experience of our tāmariki. As I’ve been working again in schools as yet another school year begins and witness the anxiety, confusion and frustration being expressed in so many places, I’ve been pondering again the challenge of the ‘revolution vs evolution’ argument re system change, and the extent to which system persistence represents a significant barrier to meaningful education reform.
Beyond Reform: The Case for Transformation
Our education system is not broken – it is functioning exactly as it was designed. This is precisely the problem. Created in an industrial era to produce standardised outcomes, sort learners into predetermined categories, and maintain existing social structures, the system continues to fulfil its original purpose with ruthless efficiency. The issue is not that the system needs improvement or reform – it needs complete transformation.
When we frame the challenge as one of “reform” or “improvement,” we perpetuate the fundamental misconception that the current system’s basic premises are sound. We cannot simply enhance a system designed for a bygone era with different societal needs, values, and understanding of human potential.
The Current Reality
Our education system stands at a critical juncture. Despite promises of reform and declarations of intent to create an inclusive, learner-centred system, we remain tethered to outdated paradigms that fail our tamariki and rangatahi. The statistics tell a stark story, particularly for Māori and Pasifika youth, whose disproportionate rates of academic failure, depression and suicide attempts reveal the human cost of our systematic shortcomings.
When you consider the current changes in education being made in New Zealand – and around the world – they reflect the ‘reform and improvement’ mindset, rather than transformation (with a few significant exceptions). Concerns about falling literacy and numeracy rates are being addressed by initiatives aimed at improving the way maths and reading are taught – and assessed. Solutions for poor attendance are seen as involving a range of measures to get students back to school, and difficulties with attracting and retaining suitably qualified teachers are being addressed through lowering entry standards and time for training. We continue to seek improvement without seriously challenging many of the assumptions upon which our current system is based.
Learning from Past Reform Efforts
The history of education reform in recent years in Aotearoa New Zealand provides compelling evidence for why transformation, rather than reform, is essential. Consider these examples:
| Initiative | What was Promised | Shortcomings |
| Tomorrow’s Schools (1989) | Increased local autonomy and community involvement in school governance Improved educational opportunities and achievement for disadvantaged groups, particularly Māori children and those from low-income homes More efficient and less bureaucratic administration of schools Enhanced home-school partnerships Better targeted resource allocation to schools | Greater competition Wide variability in performance both between and within schools Widened gaps between communities – greater inequities Increased administrative burden Uneven outcomes between schools over time Reinvention of the wheel in many schools without overall system improvement |
| NZ Curriculum (2007) | A vision for young people as lifelong learners who are confident, creative, connected, and actively involved A curriculum that reflects New Zealand’s cultural diversity and values the histories and traditions of all its people Capabilities alongside content Flexibility for local contexts “Learner-centred” pedagogy | Emphasis on the ‘back half’ only Achievement objectives dominate planning Significant reduction in prescribed content compared to previous curricula, potentially leading to knowledge gaps Overemphasis on preparing students for workplaces at the expense of broader educational goals Concerns about a decline in academic achievement and persistent disparities between advantaged and disadvantaged students |
| Kahui Ako (Communities of Learning) | Develop collective responses to local challenges Build professional capability through collaboration Focus on student achievement challenges Create pathways across education levels Enable smoother transitions for learners between schools | Achievement challenges often became compliance exercises Leadership roles sometimes created tension within and between schools Bureaucratic requirements overshadowed genuine collaboration Time and resource constraints limited meaningful engagement Artificial groupings that didn’t always reflect natural communities Funding model reinforced hierarchical rather than collaborative relationships |
| Ka Hikitia | Māori achieving success as Māori Building cultural responsiveness System-wide change for equity | Focus on activities rather than deep change Limited impact of core teaching practices Overburdened Māori staff – system barriers |
| NCEA | Recognition of diverse forms of learning Promoting lifelong learning competencies Recognising success as progression | Schools continued to translate achievement standards into traditional numerical grades The focus shifted to credit accumulation rather than genuine learning progression Assessment became more granular and bureaucratic, rather than holistic The system’s flexibility became viewed as a weakness rather than a strength Its potential for recognising diverse forms of achievement was largely unrealised |
| Innovative Learning Environments (ILEs) | Fostering creativity, collaboration and student-centred learning Intentional linking of pedagogy and space | Adoption of physical changes without transforming pedagogical approaches Teachers were expected to work in new spaces without adequate professional development in new ways of teaching Traditional timetabling, curriculum delivery, and assessment practices remained unchanged Tension between innovative spaces and conventional practices leading to frustration and calls to return to single-cell classrooms |
| Modern Learning Practice (MLP) | Learner-centred approaches Project/problem-based learning Digital integration, collaborative teaching Flexible learning pathways | Technology being used to replicate traditional practices Collaborative teaching hindered by traditional timetabling Assessment requirements limiting innovation Professional development not matching ambition Parent resistance to unfamiliar approaches |
| National Standards (2010 – 2017) | Clear expectations of achievement Better information for parents and whānau Earlier identification of learning needs Ability to target resourcing to areas of need based on data | A narrowed curriculum focus Increased testing and labelling Contradictions with NZ Curriculum’s flexibility Creating artificial benchmarks Damaging student confidence and motivation |
As illustrated in the table above, each of these large-scale, system-change initiatives has been introduced with the best of intentions, with promises made of delivering positive change that addresses identified areas of need that will ultimately benefit the learners we are seeking to serve. The column titled ‘shortcomings’ illustrates that, despite these best intentions, and the fact that there are unquestioningly many benefits that have been gained from them, the scale of impact that may have been achieved has not been fully realised – certainly not in a sustainable manner.
Structural Persistence
A key reason for these shortcomings existing is the issue of structural persistence – the deep-rooted tendency of educational institutions and broader educational systems to maintain their fundamental structures despite reform efforts.
At the school level, this manifests through the unwavering adherence to traditional organisational elements that have defined schools for generations. The rigid timetable structure, with its fixed periods and subject-based divisions, continues to dictate the rhythm of learning, leaving little room for more flexible, integrated approaches. Similarly, the classification of students by age into year levels persists, even when evidence suggests that ability-based or mixed-age groupings might better serve learning needs.
Equally significant are the system-wide structures that resist change: standardised funding models that perpetuate resource inequities, inflexible teacher accreditation systems that may not recognise diverse forms of expertise or emerging pedagogical approaches, and policy frameworks that struggle to adapt to rapidly evolving societal needs and technological possibilities. These entrenched structures at both levels – institutional and systemic – create a complex web of resistance to meaningful change.
Traditional approaches to assessment represent another critical aspect of system persistence. Despite calls for more authentic evaluation approaches, standardised testing and summative assessments continue to dominate educational practice. These assessment structures often drive teaching methodologies backward, encouraging educators to “teach to the test” rather than embrace innovative pedagogical approaches. This assessment-driven culture reinforces conventional teaching methods and can stifle attempts to implement more progressive, student-centred learning experiences.
Perhaps most significantly, system persistence manifests in the maintenance of existing power relationships within educational institutions. Traditional hierarchies between officials, leaders, teachers, and students remain largely unchanged, with decision-making power concentrated at the top. This power structure can resist bottom-up innovation and limit the agency of both teachers and students in shaping their educational experience. When combined with entrenched structural practices, these power dynamics create a self-reinforcing system that naturally resists substantial change.
Where to from here?
Over the next few weeks I intend to continue exploring this thinking and in my next post I’ll write about three more things I see as contributing to reform failure: (a) Implementation gaps, (b) cultural resistance and (c) system contradictions. I’m also building a set of ideas and actions that may be useful for people at any level of our education system to become more thoughtful about the need for transformation in the work they do.
In this post I’ve attempted to develop a compelling argument for transformation over reform in education, highlighting the persistent structures and shortcomings of past initiatives. Here are some questions you might like to ponder and discuss with your colleagues as you think about what I’ve written…
- “In what ways might the deeply ingrained power dynamics within educational institutions – from national agencies to classrooms – be the most significant barrier to transformative change? What strategies can be employed to redistribute decision-making power and empower teachers and students to shape their educational experiences more fully?”
- “Given the history of well-intentioned but ultimately limited reforms in Aotearoa New Zealand, how can educators and policymakers move beyond incremental changes to address the core structural issues that perpetuate inequities – in particular for Māori and Pasifika youth?”
- “Reflecting on the persistence of traditional structures like rigid timetables and age-based groupings in schools, what innovative, practical steps can you take in your context to foster more flexible, learner-centred environments within the existing system, even while advocating for broader systemic change?”
