Not Government Policy – For Discussion Only
Material to support consultation with the
Taskforce
Taskforce on Regulations Affecting School Performance (the
Taskforce)
The Government has established an independent taskforce to consider how
improved legislation and regulation could contribute to the goal of raising the
achievement of all students, but particularly the most vulnerable.
The overarching objective for the Taskforce is to provide the groundwork for a review
of the Education Act 1989 (the Act) in 2015. To do so effectively, the Taskforce is
considering how the Act and related regulations should provide a suitable, fit-forpurpose statutory basis for our schooling system, now and into the future.
Below are some of the issues the Taskforce has identified as topics worthy of further
consideration. These are grouped under three main headings: governance,
management, and use of existing regulatory flexibility. The issues have been framed
as hypotheses and a range of possible responses has been identified in order to
facilitate discussion.
The hypotheses and possible responses are not Government policy and the
Taskforce has no predetermined view on the most appropriate responses or the
outcome of this consultation process.
Please read the questions and consider whether you agree that there is an issue and
whether the hypothesis has correctly identified it. Please provide us with your views
on the suggested responses or tell us of others that you think might work better.
The Education Act
The Act provides the statutory framework for the education system. It sets out the
establishment and activities of state and private (independent) schools. Further
regulation of the system is provided by second and third tier legislation in the form of
regulations and guidelines introduced through the Act.
School boards of trustees are established by the Act as Crown Entities. They are
responsible for the governance and the control of the management of the school.
Most of the provisions in the Act and associated regulations apply specifically to
boards rather than the principal or staff.
The Act was established in response to an administrative review of the schooling
system, thus it tends to be procedural in nature. The current focus of our schooling
system is on raising student achievement. The Taskforce is interested in how
improved legislation and regulation could support this focus on raising student
achievement.
Not Government Policy – For Discussion Only
1
Not Government Policy – For Discussion Only
Taskforce Hypotheses for consultation
Governance
Questions

What regulatory barriers to effective governance do boards experience,
particularly in relation to raising student achievement?

Do you think the hypotheses below identify current problems? If yes, how
much of a problem? If no, why not?

Do you agree with any of the responses?

What other regulatory changes would you suggest to enhance effective
governance to support raising student achievement?
Hypothesis One: The Education Act 1989 does not provide a visible statement of
the desired goals and outcomes for the schooling system.
Comment: Raising student achievement, particularly for the most vulnerable, is the
focus of our education system. This is not clearly conveyed by the Act and related
regulation. Instead, schools receive a range of messaging from government about
the desired goals and outcomes for the schooling system through various pieces of
legislation, regulation and guidance.
The official National Education Goals (NEGs) are found in third tier legislation. The
NEGs have rarely been amended since 1989, although schooling has changed
considerably since then. The lack of clarity about desired goals and outcomes may
create uncertainty for schools about what they are expected to achieve.
Possible responses
Option 1: Provide more guidance in the Act of the objectives and desired goals and
outcomes for the schooling system.
Option 2: Review or replace the NEGs – consider the best ways of providing
guidance from government.
Option 3: Keep the status quo – the desired goals and outcomes for the schooling
system are sufficiently clear.
Do you have any other responses to suggest?
Hypothesis Two: The roles and responsibilities of boards of trustees are unclear in
the current Act and this can create uncertainty about what it is they should, and can
legally, do.
Comment: The Act establishes boards as Crown Entities. However, unlike other
Crown Entities, the roles and responsibilities of boards are not set out in legislation
Not Government Policy – For Discussion Only
2
Not Government Policy – For Discussion Only
and evidence indicates that boards interpret their roles and responsibilities in diverse
ways.
In contrast, other governing bodies established by the Act, such as tertiary institution
councils, are provided with clear guidance on their roles and responsibilities. These
include that tertiary councils should plan for the institution's long-term strategic
direction, and ensure that the institution operates in a financially responsible manner
that maintains the institution's long-term viability. A range of other roles and
responsibilities are also included in the Act.
For schools, the roles and responsibilities of boards could, for example, include the
responsibility to report to and involve parents and communities in key decisions.
Possible responses
Option 1: Change the Act to set out more clearly boards’ roles and responsibilities
around governing a school.
Option 2: Keep the status quo, but with improved guidance about the roles and
responsibilities of boards.
Do you have any other responses to suggest?
Hypothesis Three: The regulation relating to schools’ planning and reporting does
not reflect the processes associated with best practice strategic planning, self review
and continuous improvement.
Comment: For schools, planning and reporting is based on the National Education
Guidelines (government’s requirements); the charter (how the board will give effect to
the National Education Guidelines and the board’s own priorities); and the annual
report (the board’s assessment of how well it has performed). The requirements can
be focussed on compliance, rather than emphasising the role of planning and
reporting as a tool for raising student achievement.
The regulated process through which charters are reviewed means that schools have
to provide their charter by a single date and the Ministry has only a short time to
review all charters.
Possible responses
Option 1: Investigate ways to make the planning and reporting processes outlined in
regulation more effective as a tool for raising student achievement
Option 2: Keep the status quo but review to ensure that the process and all the parts
of it are clear and fit for purpose.
Do you have any other responses to suggest?
Not Government Policy – For Discussion Only
3
Not Government Policy – For Discussion Only
Management
Questions

What regulatory barriers to effective school management and raising student
achievement do schools experience?

Do you think the hypotheses below identify current problems? If yes, how
much of a problem? If no, why?

Do you agree with any of the responses?

What changes, including increased regulatory flexibility, would you suggest to
enhance effective management?
Hypothesis Four: Small schools have an extra administrative burden as they are
required to carry out the same regulatory functions as larger schools.
Comment: This is not just a problem for regulatory functions – it is often the
accumulation of regulatory and non-regulatory tasks that makes this a burden.
Responses may not be regulatory – they may lie in collaboration with other schools,
or extra support for small schools (for example, as is being implemented through the
Ministry’s Property 8 Point Plan).
If the school is spending a large amount of time on administrative functions, this may
reduce the time given to focusing on raising student achievement.
Possible responses
Option 1: Investigate how the burden of regulatory functions can be lessened for
small schools, perhaps through collaboration between schools.
Option 2: Status quo – this is not an issue best dealt with through a regulatory
process but through other levers.
Do you have any other responses to suggest?
Hypothesis Five: The respective roles of the board and principal are not clearly
expressed in legislation.
Comment: Sections 75 and 76 of the Act may come into conflict as the powers
granted to boards and principals are both wide reaching. It is not clear where the
boundaries of these powers lie, and there may be some overlap.
Section 75 gives a school's board complete discretion to control the management
of the school as it thinks fit.
Section 76 gives a school's principal complete discretion to manage as he or she
thinks fit the school's day-to-day administration. However, the principal must comply
with the board's general policy directions.
Not Government Policy – For Discussion Only
4
Not Government Policy – For Discussion Only
Possible responses
Option 1: Amend the Act to make clear the distinction between governance and
management, perhaps through clarifying boards’ roles and responsibilities.
Option 2: Do not legislate – these issues are best worked through in practice.
Do you have any other responses to suggest?
Not Government Policy – For Discussion Only
5
Not Government Policy – For Discussion Only
Use of existing flexibility
Questions

To what extent do schools use existing regulatory flexibility, particularly in
relation to student achievement? (Some areas that you might like to comment
on are: collaboration with other teachers, schools and principals; board
constitutions; flexibility around the length of the school day)

Are there any areas where increased regulatory flexibility would assist you in
raising student achievement?

How can increased awareness and use of opportunities for flexibility be
facilitated?
Hypothesis Six: Schools often do not use the flexibility available to them in the Act
to enable them to carry out their primary function of raising student achievement.
Comment: The Act enables schools to be largely self-managing and provides
flexibility in many areas including governance, the curriculum, and student
management. Some of this flexibility is not used frequently.
For example, the Act allows boards to co-opt members onto the board. This enables
them to broaden the skill base of the boards. This function is only used in
approximately ten percent of boards.
The Act also allows boards, with the agreement of the Minister and the school
community, to use an alternative constitution. This can change the composition and
number of board members. Less than one percent of boards have taken up this
flexibility.
Possible responses
Option 1: Investigate ways to make the flexibility provided in the Act simpler to
access and use.
Option 2: Status quo – provide more information to boards and principals about the
flexibility in the Act.
Do you have any other responses to suggest?
Hypothesis Seven: Schools are not taking up opportunities to collaborate with other
schools, for the benefit of students.
Comment: The Act allows schools to do various things that are designed to support
collaboration. For example, multiple schools can share funds and decision making to
share a particular programme or resource, however there needs to be a lead fundholding school. The Act does not currently allow a group of schools to form a
separate legal entity to collaborate in specific areas, while maintaining their
autonomy.
Not Government Policy – For Discussion Only
6
Not Government Policy – For Discussion Only
The Act also allows more structured and permanent collaboration in the form of
combined boards over two or more schools. These provisions (especially combined
boards) are seldom used.
Possible responses
Option 1: Change the Act to provide additional models of collaboration.
Option 2: Investigate how regulations might encourage or incentivise collaboration
between schools.
Option 3: Provide greater guidance to boards on the benefits of collaboration and
flexibility available to them.
Do you have any other responses to suggest?
Hypothesis Eight: Schools may not have sufficient flexibility to set the school day
and year to maximise student achievement.
Comment: Currently, the Act allows the Minister to prescribe the number of half-days
on which schools must be open during the year, and the terms of the school year.
Primary schools must be kept open 5 days in each week for at least 4 hours each
day, of which 2 hours must be in the morning and 2 in the afternoon.
Recent changes to the Act allow schools, who have consulted with their
communities, to operate multiple timetables with the permission of the Minister.
Possible responses
Option 1: Allow boards’ greater freedom to set their school day and year.
Option 2: Status quo, provide information on current flexibility within the regulations.
Do you have any other responses to suggest?
Other issues
Question
Are there other issues arising from regulatory requirements that you believe could be
altered to benefit student achievement?
Not Government Policy – For Discussion Only
7