TRAINING IN EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION: DEVELOPMENT OF AN AREA RESOURCE MODEL
| Date | 01 February 1984 |
| Published date | 01 February 1984 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/eb009894 |
| Pages | 206-222 |
| Author | I.R. McLEAN |
| Subject Matter | Education |
THE JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION
VOLUME XXII, NUMBER 2 SUMMER, 1984
TRAINING IN EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION:
DEVELOPMENT OF AN AREA RESOURCE MODEL
I.R. McLEAN
This paper describes the evolution of educational administration training for secon-
dary school principals and teachers in New Zealand's Central Region, following a
national pattern of short withdrawal courses to train trainers who would themselves
be expected to train others. Problems associated with this approach are examined,
especially massive client resistance to theoretical approaches. The value of theory in
such courses is seen in its encouragement of role conceptualization, and acceptable
teaching material is designed to achieve this end without theoretical exposition,
through the development of techniques seen as answers to specific school-based
problems, but implying the development of skills and concepts on a broader base.
The management of time is seen as the critical entry point. In this way resource
groups of teachers are trained to continue the autonomous development of ad-
ministrative training in their own in-service areas.
THE NATIONAL BACKGROUND
In 1978 it became the policy of the New Zealand Department of Education
to provide some training in educational administration for principals and
teachers in educational institutions1 and a national planning seminar was
set up to evolve policies and strategies. As this was a new project which
had to be achieved within existing financial resources, the seminar recom-
mended that early priority be given to "training trainers" through the
existing framework of national residential in-service courses.2
Five two-week residential courses were mounted by the end of 1979 to
train senior teachers and inspectors who in their turn could be expected to
become resource people engaged in the training of others. The word
"management" was substituted for "administration", partly because it was
seen as having wider connotations, but mainly because "administration"
was known to have negative signals for many teachers. Membership of
each course included senior representatives of all levels of the education
system — pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary — and of the inspec-
torate. Content included basic theoretical input, some management skills
and training in the organisation and presentation of in-service courses.
I.R. McLEAN was formerly a secondary school principal, first of Tararua College and later of
Hurt Valley High School, New Zealand. Both before and after his retirement he worked for
two and half years as adviser in educational administration for the New Zealand Department
of Education, Wellington.
McLean 207
PROBLEMS OF THE REGIONAL EXERCISE
It was assumed that follow-up work would be mounted at the regional and
district levels, and within this framework the present author was invited to
develop training programmes specifically for principals and middle
managers of secondary schools within the administrative area known as
the Central Region, covering some 80 secondary schools.
At the outset very few of the proposed clients had attended a national
course, and there were other problems in regarding this work as a direct
development of the national programme.
First, membership of the residential courses had encompassed all
sections of the education system. But in New Zealand these sections work
under different regulations, teachers have different training backgrounds
and,
like
their colleagues overseas, face different problems. Scriven notes
major differences in the roles of (primary and secondary) teachers, in the nature
of the schools in which they teach, and in their clientele and societal
expectations
Such differences, he concludes, would indicate a differing emphasis on
training needs.3 They are seen as especially significant by New Zealand
secondary teachers.
Secondly, the author's experience as teacher and principal indicated a
general resistance among secondary teachers to educational and ad-
ministrative theory and to the associated technical vocabulary. Similar
responses among secondary teachers in England and Australia had been
reported by Scriven more than a decade earlier.4
A third difficulty lay in the whole question of the effectiveness of
withdrawal in-service training as a change agent. As Prebble points out,
results of research have been pessimistic.
The nature of the training has been too general, and those forces working
against change have been too strong.5
Morgan has reported evidence of disillusionment with curriculum
renewal programmes in Britain and the United States, possibly due to the
inadequacies in the "centre-periphery" model of dissemination.6 The New
Zealand national programme in educational administration followed a
"centre-periphery" model, as yet untested, in that theoretical concepts
were disseminated at in-service courses to selected administrators who
attempted to pass these on to others. Responses to evaluation question-
naires at the end of courses so far held had been positive and encouraging,
but the relevance of these in terms of long-term value, perceived or actual,
was unclear. Results of survey of 220 Australian principals as reported by
Grassie appear somewhat equivocal on the matter of long-term response
to courses in administration, and in the matter of behaviour change effec-
tiveness Grassie expresses similar doubts to those raised above.7
Finally, the New Zealand secondary system does not give the Education
Department a captive audience. Teachers are not State servants, and in
To continue reading
Request your trial