Estilo de vida

If the complex range of factors that impact on all schools are not managed effectively, the experience of the study schools indicates the potential for such factors collectively to act as predictors of decline. Most schools effectively manage the external and internal influences. The challenge for this research was to understand why it was that the study schools were overwhelmed by these influences to the point of entering a spiraling process of decline. The data showed that there were enough pressures and unresolved problems concurrently present in each of the study schools for the problems to reach a critical mass, tipping the schools into the beginning of decline, or preventing them from coping effectively with a crisis when it occurred. For the purpose of analytical distinction and analysis, each of these catalysts of decline is discussed separately. In reality they were interconnected. A crisis added significantly to the critical mass of unresolved problems. A critical mass of unresolved problems made a school more vulnerable to allowing a difficult event to escalate to the level at which it was serious enough to be considered a crisis.

Crises

Each of the schools experienced a crisis in the form of an event with which they were unable to cope. For one school, it was the event itself that appeared to trigger the onset of the decline. For the other two schools, crises significantly escalated decline processes that were already underway. For reasons of confidentiality it is not possible to outline the exact nature of the crises experienced by each of the study schools because to explain the events in any detail would identify those schools. Typical crises could occur over employment issues, appointments, parental dissatisfaction or friction between factions in the school or community. Crises could also occur as a result of adverse media coverage, poor teacher performance or bad behaviour, new policy implementation, leadership decisions or competitive actions of neighbouring schools.

While, for ethical reasons, discussion of specific details of the crises that occurred in the study schools is beyond the scope of this chapter, it is possible to discuss the ways the crises affected those schools at an organisational level and how they affected the staff and trustees at a personal level. The first reaction of school staff and trustees to the crisis event was usually shock. They were confused about the information they received and had difficulty interpreting the seriousness of the issue and deciding what their response should

be. Another early reaction was sometimes denial or shifting of responsibility, often by blaming other individuals, groups or organisations. Recipients of blame included individual staff, the PPTA branch group, the principal, the BOT, a group of parents, ERO and the MOE.

We all blamed someone else. The staff blamed the management and the management blamed ERO. ERO blamed the board and the board blamed the Ministry. Some of those criticisms were valid but it did not make one jot of positive progress. We all just took pressure off ourselves. (Trustee)

One of the problems is when people in schools don’t own up and say “we have a problem”. They blame other people rather than own up and they need to understand that education is very important for the future of the children and they are responsible for that. (Trustee)

Following the shock and denial, it was common for school personnel to experience a range of debilitating feelings including anxiety, anger, guilt and powerlessness.

I couldn’t really get any lower than that. I think a lot of people like me lost faith in themselves and I think they lost energy and commitment. (Middle manager)

It just put a black cloud over the top of the school which I think hurt everyone. (Support staff)

Dealing with the crises diverted leaders’ time and energy away from day-to-day matters, putting pressure on school systems which were already inefficient and/or ineffective. Systems that were under pressure included finances, property maintenance, administration and documentation, student discipline and attendance, personnel management, compliance management and reporting. Frequently, the systems malfunctioned or were not sound enough to provide the support that was badly needed at that time.

There were governance and management systems that were very murky and they had completely lost where the lines were and who should have been doing what. Financing was all a complete shambles and so were most of the personnel management areas and a whole lot of systems just weren’t working. They weren’t meeting some of our obligations under the (Education) Act. (Senior leader)

Communication, in particular, was often not well managed either within or outside the school.

It got to the point that you couldn’t communicate. (The principal) couldn’t communicate with us because s/he felt under siege, and we couldn’t communicate with him/her because s/he only wanted to hear what s/he wanted to hear. We often didn’t get information we needed. (Middle manager)

Participants reported feeling poorly informed and some felt unsure about what they were expected to do. Participants also thought parents felt poorly informed because, when clear and accurate information was not readily available, rumours began which often had a negative corollary. An example was rumours associated with the schools’ rolls. When parents and students heard about the prospect of a new school, a neighbouring school’s change in status or the possibility of study school closure, it appeared that a drop in the roll was associated with the rumours.

The rumour mill just kept going round and round the district and people would say “Oh you are a teacher. Where do you teach? Oh you poor thing”. And you’d have to defend your school and insist it wasn’t going to close. (Senior leader)

New families were nervous about enrolling because they were being told that the school might close. You couldn’t blame them but we needed those students for the school to stay open. (Middle manager)

Leaders, staff, trustees and parents made personal decisions about their actions and their future depending on how serious they considered the issues to be, their personal circumstances and how their peers reacted to the crisis. While individuals had the right to make decisions that were good for them personally, there were times that their decisions impacted badly on the school. An example was when some of the most respected staff made the decision to leave the school. Participants remaining in the schools said the contributions these respected and capable staff were able to make to the school were lost at a time when they were most needed. Some interviewees reported feeling less confident for the future of their school because they trusted the judgement of the respected staff who had decided to leave.