Taking innovation and leadership from concept to practice

Originally published by the National Academy for Education Management (Vietnam) and the World Bank. Co-authored with Janine McKay, University of Waikato

An exercise in comparative education between Vietnam and Aotearoa New Zealand

The Economist Intelligence Unit (2018) recently ranked New Zealand’s education system as the world’s best in terms of preparing learners for the future. The index, which focuses on young people aged 15-24 in 35 nations, measures approaches to education policy, the teaching and learning environment, and broader conditions of societal freedom and openness as key dimensions of future readiness. The Economist has positioned this index as a philosophical and pragmatic counterweight to the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), which ranks education systems by the results of exam outputs in literacy, numeracy, and science alone. The Economist’s index finds that globalisation and technology-induced challenges requires younger generations to gain broad and transferable skills such as critical thinking, collaboration and global competence as a means of navigating a future with new and emerging forms of work, mobility, and citizenship.

Michael Gold, editor of the Index’s report, states that “education systems must prepare our youth for the era of information and disruption or there will be significant implications for the global economy” (Economist Intelligence Unit, 2018. p11). In this light, New Zealand is seen to be steering its system in the right direction. The Economist promotes New Zealand’s strategic imperative to educate for future skills as a comparative advantage, and identifies that this is largely a product of its geographic and demographic profile; New Zealand is a small and remote country “with the vigilance that comes with knowing it has little choice but to be globally competitive, now and in future”(p16). As such, New Zealand has set in motion a systematic government-led approach to making its education system fit for purpose across technology, teaching, curriculum and collaboration with industry and communities.

New Zealand’s system has been an international beacon for teacher educators and policy makers for some time, specifically in the areas of indigenous learning and culturally responsive pedagogies, language revitalisation, and innovative learning environments. The Economist report has thus stoked interest in the broader and more globally significant field of learning for the future. As a consequence, an increasing number of governments seek to understand the consultative processes, policy mechanisms and governing structures that contribute to this recognition, and more specifically the development and management of schools, teachers, and learning resources that support and enhance future oriented outcomes for all learners. Vietnam’s Ministry of Education and Training (MOET) is one such government institution to visit New Zealand for such reasons.

Overview and objective

From the point of view of the University of Waikato’s Institute of Professional Learning, this paper is a situational analysis of the Vietnam Ministry of Education and Training’s two week visit to New Zealand in August 2018. Using this visit as context, a conceptual framework for understanding international government delegations is provided using the lens of Comparative and International Education; from which a current paucity of research on such activities can begin to be addressed and built upon. Further knowledge on the outcomes of engagement between ministries of education and international universities is needed, as is an improved understanding of the corresponding programmatic factors that enhance the transfer or adaptation of learning to delegates’ own systems. This research gap and the abovementioned needs have informed the structure and foci of this paper.

Our aim is to stimulate thinking on how Vietnam can best respond to local learning and development needs at scale, borrowing from New Zealand’s experience, but adapting key strategies to align with the demographic and academic priorities of Vietnam’s schools and learners. Key challenges and overarching priorities as defined by the MOET delegates are first introduced, from which key learning objectives for the delegation can be ascertained. Following this, a narrative of the delegation’s experience is provided, summarizing the day-to-day interactions of delegates as they observed and engaged with New Zealand school leaders, classrooms, teachers, and learners. Next, a literature based overview of the global policy context within which such initiatives take place is presented. This section shows how transnational and multilateral actors define local education policy and motivate and justify the need for international visits. As outlined below, it is imperative that international activities like these are understood within the broader global phenomena of market orientated educational reform, a transnational convergence of educational priorities, and the consequent impact this has on curriculum development and teachers’ work in Vietnam and elsewhere.

Framing the purpose of the visit

In August 2018, a delegation of leaders from Vietnam’s Ministry of Education and Training and key teacher education institutions undertook a two week programme of on-campus learning and school visits in New Zealand’s Waikato region. The delegation connected key concepts in school leadership, teacher innovation, and future-oriented pedagogy with observable examples of best practice in New Zealand schools. At the outset, programme facilitators sought to understand the needs of delegates and address how Waikato’s programme could best offer the insights and learning required. From an initial workshop activity, the delegation co-defined the Vietnam education system’s key challenges and overarching priorities; these are listed below and will be revisited in discussions throughout this paper:

Key challenges:

●      “We need to be more innovative with learning resources, but there is a disconnect with our curriculum; we do not think it meets the needs of 21st Century learners.”

●      “All public education resources and facilities are outdated, we need to upgrade in a way that meets future learners’ needs.”

●      “Teachers’ performance is not the same across different parts of the country; how do we ensure consistent teacher performance in many different contexts?”

●      “Although we have annual development for teachers, the quality management and delivery of the training is very transactional. It is difficult to achieve transformational change with our current approach.”

Overarching priorities:

·       “We want to develop an incentive policy that attracts quality teachers and improves their performance”

●      “We want to improve professional development for teachers, making sure all teacher education is free, and that teachers receive quality professional development annually”

●      “We want to make sure teachers know how to respond to the needs of minority group learners in remote areas”

●      “Schools specialised for the 54 different minorities are in provinces, but only cater for small number of minority learners. We want to improve access to these schools as well as their effectiveness”

●      “We want to improve the quality of university-based teacher education so the teacher workforce can meet the economic and social challenges of the 21st Century”

●      “Our 2014 education sector reform introduced competencies based on student centred priorities, but our system still needs to catch up with this vision”

●      “Learning is predominantly content based. We need to incentivise a transition to competency based, project based, and community connected learning”

●      “We are interested in the review or appraisal of teacher performance every three years, and want to know how this works”

The challenges and overarching priorities above informed an adaptive programme design. They were communicated to school leaders and the New Zealand educational authorities who would also contribute to the programme in a responsive way. This means that focused, targeted examples and key resources could be shared with delegates and as such a tailored educational experience, aligned with key areas on interest, was delivered.

Schooling in New Zealand: First impressions

New Zealand’s system is highly decentralised, affording considerable autonomy to school leaders, teachers, and communities to determine the curriculum needs of learners at a local level. New Zealand schools and classrooms are innovative in terms of their physical design, governance, and educational function, presenting unique opportunities to adapt learning models to identified social, cultural, and economic needs, and deliver future-oriented outcomes for all learners. The programme provided for the Vietnamese delegation focused on the leadership and innovation development required by principals and teachers to implement and manage innovation at scale, and introduced how New Zealand’s experience can inform, in part, Vietnam’s education sector decision makers who share similar future oriented aspirations for their school system, learners, and communities.     

For the Vietnamese delegates accustomed to centralised decision making, curriculum design and implementation, New Zealand’s education system first appeared disjointed and inconsistent across schools and regional contexts. What the observers initially and easily overlooked, however, is the binding force of New Zealand’s curriculum document, and the behind-the-scenes creativity and community connectedness of principals and teachers who work in partnership with key stakeholders, interpreting the curriculum to promote learning which responds to and upholds the specific identity, aspirations, and socio-economic priorities of their context. The role of autonomous but interconnected government agencies that quality assure policy, teacher professional appraisal, and assessment were also difficult to define through observations alone. Yet, as discovered, they each play a key role creating coherence, accountability, and learning achievement across the system.

At the school-level, classrooms looked like they lack structure, academic rigour, or discipline. Conditioned to understand teaching and learning as an orderly and regimented process of subject delivery, academic skills development, and knowledge retention, the Vietnamese delegates initially and easily overlooked the self-managed learning competencies that learners have developed from an early age. Through an inquiry-based approach learners understand and can enact the processes required to pursue new knowledge, apply new learning, and create innovative solutions to real-world problems. Rarely at the whiteboard, the teacher instead plays the role of learning designer and facilitator, committing significant energy to the creation of engaging learning environments, personalised activities, and experiences that meaningfully develop learners’ independent interests, identities, and aspirations.

Understanding the global education dynamic in which this visit took place

Internationally, aid donors and transnational finance institutions, represented by the likes of the World Bank, United States Agency for International Development (USAID), Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and United Nations agencies, regularly formulate policy recommendations and influence education reform aligned with dominant global social and economic paradigms (Robertson, 2012). In the case of schooling, school leaders and teachers are effectively charged with implementing national policy interpretations and performing to global expectations at a local levell. 

To present teachers’ work in the global context with singular and definitive purpose, as transnational institutions often do when employability or work readiness is emphasised, defies the extent to which the objectives and outcomes of education systems and respective communities vary. School leaders and teachers are widely acknowledged as central to an education system’s quality and success (UNESCO, 2014) and with this comes the burden of responsibility when a system underperforms, too. In this light, Indian educationalist Manabi Mujumdar (2011) reminds us that any discussion of teachers work needs to take cognisance of the broad cultural and economic context and policy conditions surrounding their current practice. It is also important to consider that these conditions are never static; teachers’ roles and identities are subject to ongoing social and economic developments and policy iterations resulting from competing ideologies and associated priority shifts, which are rarely influenced by school leaders or teachers themselves. In this regard, Mujamdar (2011) writes that “the school system operates within a specific reform climate and remains embedded within a social field of power, which in turn shapes the professional ethos and pedagogic practices embedded by teachers” (p. 35).

With this current power balance in favour of global institutions and market oriented agendas, significant attention needs to be given to globalisation’s impact on the work of schools and teachers. Raewyn Connell (2009) writes that due to industrial drivers and associated consequences “the process of globalisation has been a mechanism for change in teacher’s work” (p. 11). Seeing schools as incubators for future workers who serve national economies, governments have responded with reforms aimed at achieving market favoured outcomes, arrived at through standardised instruments of student and teacher measurement and performance. In this instance, Cheng (2000) identifies that teachers’ work in a global culture of market defined performance measures has resulted in a loss of control over their work, increased accountability, and standards based assessments used to rank systems against each other, align education policy, and improve teaching as a means of servicing a narrow set of education system objectives. Resultantly, Arathi Sriprakash (2011) identifies that bureaucratic systems operating within global agendas position teachers as “functionaries of the state rather than empowered, reflexive professionals” (p. 28).

In the latter part of this paper where teacher innovation and leadership development is discussed, it is important to keep the above contextualisation of global education policy dynamics in mind. This is especially pertinent to the analysis of conditions for teacher innovation and leadership in New Zealand and the extent to which these conditions are present, relevant, or possible in Vietnam.

The interpretation and analysis of education internationally

 Much can be learned from the study of education elsewhere. Yet while this rationale underpins many comparative studies, disciplined comparative research has long warned of the dangers of the uncritical international transfer of policies and practices (Crossley, 2008). As such, this paper is informed by the scholarly field of Comparative International Education. Using this lens, we need to critically consider the social, economic, and cultural conditions in which children learn and the practices that help them learn best within respective contexts. On the one hand Comparative and International Education helps us recognise and give value to the remarkable differences that education systems need to respond to, and at the same time it aides the identification and adaptation of  evidence-based strategies that improve the quality of learning outcomes for children and young people worldwide.

The origins of comparative international studies of different education systems can be traced back to the 19th century. French scholar Marc-Antoine Jullien called for research on the nature and impact of foreign education systems, and sought to use new knowledge to shape the reform and competitiveness of education in France itself. Crossley (2008b) uses this example to reinforce that comparative studies, such as those undertaken by Vietnam, underpin a familiar and long-held rationale for change, but one very much based on assumption and aspiration more than evidence. Decision-makers have steadfastly believed that comparative international studies will enhance an understanding of the workings, needs and priorities of their own system at home. Although not quite a fallacy, without an appropriately critical and reflective comparative lens this proposition carries inherent risk.

Comparative International Education encourages and embodies a plurality of views of social reality, human aspirations, and a corresponding variety of education priorities and theories as a means of framing and analysing education policy and decision making. One of the earliest proponents of a critical approach that unpacked and valued these variables, Sir Michael Sadler (1861 - 1943), prompted the field’s consideration of factors outside the school that provide a more nuanced appreciation of how education decisions are made and why different education systems work. He wrote:

“In studying foreign systems of education, we should not forget that the things outside the schools matter even more than the things inside the schools, and that they govern and interpret the things inside” (Sadler, 1900, p. 49).

Sadler’s often cited Guildford lecture (1900) questioned whether one education system could learn anything of practical value from the study of a foreign system. A memorable passage from this lecture, and one that gives allegorical richness to our own comparative endeavours is quoted below:

“We cannot wander at pleasure among the educational systems of the world, like a child strolling through a garden, and pick off a flower from one bush and some leaves from another, and then expect that if we stick what we have gathered into the soil at home, we shall have a living plant ... but if we have endeavoured, in a sympathetic spirit, to understand the real working of a foreign system of education, we shall in turn find ourselves better able to enter into the spirit and tradition of our own national education, more sensitive to its unwritten ideals, quicker to catch the signs which threaten it and the subtle workings of hurtful change.” (Sadler 1900: 49)

In the 21st Century global education has become a complex and contested space. It involves a range of transnational and national actors challenged to interpret and enact global education knowledge and reform at a local level. We are seeing a global convergence of policy priorities, especially around the decentralization and marketisation of education in emerging economies, of which Vietnam is one. And in some instances, as Sadler’s example shows, we see systems patched together with contextually isolated policies and disconnected initiatives. How then do we use Comparative and International Education to inform contextually aware, locally grown, and coherent approaches to education system reform? 

With the internationalisation of continuing professional development opportunities (like ministerial visits to international universities), which coincide with the advent of policy borrowing and transfer between countries, we have a unique opportunity to introduce policy and decision maker capability development through a Comparative and International Education informed approach. Historically, emphasis has been given to observing and imparting best practice, and mainstreaming what is considered to be successful in one context without sufficient cognisance of the cultural and educational imperatives of another (Crossley 2008). To progress from this tradition, in their book Informed Dialogue: Using Research to Shape Education Policy Around the World Reimers and McGinn (1997) call for ‘informed dialogue’ across cultural and professional boundaries, suggesting that Comparative and International Education:

“… can bring fresh air and new perspectives, but it has to be incorporated into a process of communication so that it informs the meanings of this collective construction of educational problems and options.” (p26)

Further to this, Reimers and McGinn add that such dialogue should take place:

“...not within the simplified environment of the analyst but in the real world where concrete persons and groups express these multiple interests.” (p27)

Comparative and International Education bridges educational cultures and traditions, and as envisaged by Reimers and McGinn, we understand that set in authentic contexts (such as schools, universities, or communities) and in which comparative perspectives and processes are applied, dialogue can enhance the potential to generate contextually relevant and innovative education policy. Reflecting this proposition, and highlighting the reciprocal nature of this approach and its merits, Mikael Bakhtin (1986) posits that through comparative dialogue:

“We raise new questions for a foreign culture, ones that it did not raise itself; we see answers to our questions in it; and the foreign culture responds to us by revealing to us its new aspects and new semantic depths ... such a dialogic encounter of two cultures does not result in merging or mixing. Each retains its own unity and open totality, but they are mutually enriched.” (p7)

Teacher innovation and leadership in Aotearoa New Zealand

The second part of this paper explores how New Zealand has responded to its own education challenges and overarching priorities by building leadership capability that focuses on developing teacher effectiveness and measurably improving outcomes for students.  In this section we describe our unique context, highlight the principles that underpin education in Aotearoa New Zealand, and highlight the systems and processes which support schools to enact these principles and innovate for local learning and development. Across these themes, noteworthy practice insights and examples are connected and expanded upon. Following this, we then consider how New Zealand’s experience informs and contributes to a strategy for system-level innovation and leadership development in Vietnam.

Education in Aotearoa New Zealand

Aotearoa New Zealand is a small island nation situated in the southwestern Pacific Ocean. It has a total land size similar to that of Japan or the United Kingdom with all the facilities of an advanced Western economy, but with a fraction of the population. Aotearoa New Zealand boasts a unique blend of European and Indigenous (Maōri) cultures and traditions, with influences from the Pacific and Asia also. The population is currently 4.8 million people (European 68%, Maori 15%, Asian 10%, Pasifika 7%). 

Aotearoa New Zealand’s Treaty of Waitangi: Te Tiriti o Waitangi, an agreement between Māori and the British Crown, was signed in 1840 and provides strong recognition of the central place of indigenous people within Aotearoa New Zealand. The key principles underpinning the treaty include partnership, participation and protection.  These guide national policy and decision making in all areas of Aotearoa New Zealand society.  Education policy and practice are also driven by this founding document and the principles are explicitly represented in and woven through the New Zealand Curriculum. (Ministry of Education, 2007)

In honouring the Treaty, the New Zealand Curriculum acknowledges our bicultural heritage and expects schools to provide students with opportunities to learn Maōri language and customs (te reo Māori me ōna tikanga).  An additional feature of the New Zealand Curriculum is that it is student centred and needs based. These features inform curriculum decision making and learning design, positioning “students at the centre of teaching and learning [resulting in approaches which are] forward looking and inclusive.” (MOE, 2007, p.9) 

The New Zealand Curriculum also reflects our diverse, multicultural society and enables schools to respond to the aspirations and needs of students, individually and collectively, as well as those of their communities.  In meeting these needs schools are encouraged to provide teaching and learning opportunities that are meaningful, relevant and authentic, and which are reflective of each school’s unique context. These features underpin the vision of the New Zealand curriculum which supports the development of student agency and the skills necessary for young people to be “confident, connected, actively involved, and lifelong learners” (MOE, 2007, p.8).

In the context of this current vision, it is vital to note the role previous policy has played leading us to this focus on partnership and collaboration through communities of learning.  Education reform during the 1980’s, known as Tomorrow’s Schools, saw schools moving from centralised administration to site-based localised governance and management. This placed new demands on all schools, education professionals, and their communities, highlighting the need for more targeted professional learning and development and resulting in educational leaders reporting isolation and a lack of support, particularly in terms of developing effective leadership practice (Robertson, 2016).

With the recognition of the different expectations and responsibilities of school leaders as distinct from school managers, it became clear that there was a need for a reframing of educational leadership throughout Aotearoa New Zealand. This in turn led to a more explicit focus on the professional learning and development required to build leadership capability, enhance teacher effectiveness, and improve student learning.

School improvement is complex and changes need to be strategically managed to be successful and sustainable. As alluded to in this paper’s introduction, recent shifts in New Zealand’s educational climate stoked significant interest from other education systems as they observe the impact of current reforms and associated transformations. And although these reforms demand greater professional support and development for educational teachers and leaders, they aspire to grow the collective leadership and expertise of the profession so as to improve success and achievement for all learners.

There is plentiful research, multiple theories and numerous frameworks available to support and challenge educational leaders’ and school managers’ understanding and practice of leadership. To reinforce the objectives of this paper, we provide a selection of key approaches to exemplify how leaders are supported to build teacher capability and capacity across Aotearoa New Zealand.

The power of collaboration and connectedness

Traditional leadership models are being challenged by research which compels us to consider more collaborative approaches to building teacher and leader efficacy, both within and across schools.  As Aotearoa New Zealand moves towards ways of leading that demand collective responsibility for achieving improved learner outcomes, professional learning initiatives must respond and change accordingly.  The opportunity for teachers and leaders to work in more collaborative ways has been the central tenet for many recent leadership initiatives.

Across school collaboration

The initiative Investing in Educational Success (IES) encouraged the setup of Communities of Learning, whereby groups of geographically or philosophically clustered schools and providers work collaboratively on shared objectives to raise student achievement within their community. This was the first of a number of collaborative partnership models being used to support and enable educational leaders and teachers to effectively and collectively address their professional learning and practice needs. The aims of these learning communities were to:

●      share evidence and expertise in teaching and learning

●      establish collective approaches to strategic resourcing

●      help students successfully transition from primary to secondary school

●      build and share leadership capability across contexts 

Communities of schools are encouraged to identify particular learning needs or challenges across the group, establish shared achievement goals and then work together - often with the support of a professional development provider - to achieve them.

Previously, narrow and prescriptive ways of leading defined teaching and learning. This shift to communities of learning, however, fosters collaboration, connectedness and innovation at multiple levels. Collaborations such as these also provide enhanced opportunities for the development of middle leadership within and across school contexts. As such, the provision of professional learning support to build leadership capability must be responsive to the evolving teaching and learning models and associated pedagogies happening in classrooms. It also needs to reflect a style of leadership that is for and of learning (Starratt, 2004). 

Within school collaboration 

Responding to the need for transformational leadership in professional learning, there has been a drive to reconsider and reshape physical learning spaces within schools. Progressively, Aotearoa New Zealand is moving away from traditional school structures and implementing Innovative Learning Environments (ILE) which are much more conducive to learner collaboration, learning differentiation, and creativity (OECD, 2015).  With a fair degree of urgency, this has required teachers and leaders to “rethink spatial relationships and reframe schooling in keeping with the discourse of 21st century learning” (Charteris, Smardon & Nelson, 2016). The concept of ILE school environments with flexible learning spaces and adaptive curriculum design encourages teaching and learning that is personalised and meets learners’ needs in innovative ways. These spaces also encourage collaborative teaching (co-teaching) co-planning, shared practice, and a shift to a collective responsibility of all teachers for all learners. In such settings, the one teacher, one classroom, and closed door experience of teaching and learning is a relic of the past.

Successful integration of effective teaching practices within ILEs is dependant on continued inquiry using current evidence of learning to evaluate how effective teaching strategies have been, and to inquire into what strategies could be applied differently if learners are struggling.  These reflective practices are often located within a variety of inquiry models, are cyclical, and ongoing to enrich student learning experiences and improve achievement (Cathy Wylie, 2016;  Louise Stoll, 2007). This way of working encourages teachers to prioritise:

●      debating, planning, problem-solving, and innovating together

●      inquiring together, using evidence and research to guide decision-making

●      capitalising on each other’s strengths and working with each other’s weaknesses

●      actively contributing to a respectful and supportive learning environment (MOE, TKI Online, 2018).

Inquiring into practice also encourages self-reflection and collegial reflection by teachers and leaders. Inquiry questions into professional practice provoke deeper thinking and conversations about what it is it that matters most to learners and their success. Inquiries, even at the classroom level, are connected to the school’s vision and link to school-wide or community of learning wide improvement goals and community expectations.   

Provocative inquiry questions that teachers and leaders in Aotearoa New Zealand often seek to answer include:

What content knowledge am I teaching, is it important, and how do I know? What skills am I teaching, are they important, and how do I know? What intrinsic motivations am I offering? And finally, am I creating space for fun, free thinking and open learning? (Wagner, 2018)

Ongoing dialogue is encouraged throughout the inquiry processes. Consideration of influential or inspiring resources and coaching or mentoring support that builds teachers’ and leaders’ confidence to actively collaborate and achieve relational trust is also critical. Ultimately, this leads to improved learning and achievement; the teachers’ own, and that of their students. Working this way, teachers experience many benefits from collaborative inquiry practices that include access to collegial support, honest and open dialogue, and questions that provoke their thinking, encourage reflection and inform the meaningful evaluation of pedagogical practice (ERO, 2016).

This collaborative inquiry approach in education has seen successful stories emerge from schools around New Zealand. Recent reviews by the Education Review Office have shared that success is most evident when professional learning support for schools is contextualised to suit the needs of teachers and leaders, supports them to unpack deliberate acts of teaching and leading - particularly those needed for collaboration to be effective - and for trusting partnerships to be established between learners, teachers, leaders, the community and families.

Building educational leadership capacity through coaching

The key role of educational leaders in Aotearoa New Zealand is to improve learning outcomes for all learners. As such, their key challenge is to provide or engage in opportunities that build the capability of teachers and grow their own leadership in ways that meet this goal. As a response, coaching models and approaches have been designed and implemented across New Zealand to build effective educational leadership. A particular proponent in this space is Jan Robertson, widely recognised as a world leader in the field of leadership coaching. Grounded in two decades of research, Robertson (2016) shares proven examples of coaching practices that successfully build educational leadership capacity, equipping leaders with new ways of working with colleagues within and across schools. Robertson’s work is founded on and promotes the use of collaborative approaches to build leadership capability through partnerships (Robertson, 2016). In schools, where a coaching pedagogy is lived and professional partnerships formed, the coach is a ‘facilitator’ within the learning process and not the ‘expert’ in the relationship. Robertson emphasises that the coaching process is “dynamic, meeting the changing needs of and resulting in new learning for each person. In this way, it’s also a reciprocal learning partnership” (p.7). Significant research and evidence advocates for the effectiveness of coaching approaches to build leader and teacher capability (Campbell & van Nieuwerburgh, 2018; Robertson, 2016; Robertson & Timperley, 2011). It is this research and supporting evidence that has been central to the transformation of leadership practice in Aotearoa New Zealand. 

Additional examples of successful coaching stories from teachers and leaders in Aotearoa New Zealand highlight the strength of this relational methodology, particularly as transformational experiences build the leadership capability of and between colleagues. Where coaching interventions and approaches focus on learning and development using purposeful reflective questions, active listening leads to the establishment of positive learning cultures that nurture and enable change. This professional development is also a cost-effective and a mutually supportive way of building teacher and leader capability within schools (Campbell & van Nieuwerburgh, 2018). It builds collegiality and ensures a safe and supportive working environment, encouraging teachers to actively contribute to collaborative conversations and reflective practice.

Ongoing commitment to reflection and review

 In 2017, the Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand engaged the teaching profession in a collaborative venture to develop a Leadership Strategy that supports teachers across all educational roles and functions. What has resulted is an aspirational framework that seeks to enhance the leadership capabilities of all educators throughout New Zealand, strengthen teaching and leadership, and fundamentally raise the status of the profession, too.  In the current context, this new policy document underpins practice in the NZ public education system and brings about a collaborative approach to educational leadership nationwide. This consultation surfaced a number of themes that the Ministry of Education and education professionals see as critical to the success of the vision for education in New Zealand:

To enable every teacher, regardless of their role or setting, to have the opportunity to develop their own leadership capability so that through principled and inspirational leadership, a culturally capable, competent and connected teaching profession achieves educational equity and excellence for all children and young people in Aotearoa New Zealand (Education Council, 2018)

The Leadership Strategy for the teaching profession of Aotearoa New Zealand (2018) provides a new framework that seeks to shift Aotearoa New Zealand’s education profession away from the Tomorrow’s Schools legislative administration and into a space where leadership development is accessible to everyone in the profession, not just principals or administrators. Alongside the Leadership Strategy, a support document outlining core educational capabilities for teachers and leaders has also been developed through a consultative process and is now in circulation.

The teacher policy and practice changes proposed by the Leadership Strategy have come at a time when Aotearoa New Zealand’s education system is responding to evolving social and economic demands. These changes are the result of a two year national Education Conversation, in which the Education Council, Ministry of Education, researchers and academics have collaborated to establish an ambitious programme of work for the education portfolio as part of a commitment to meeting the needs of all learners in New Zealand – no matter who they are or where they come from. This work includes a continued review of current policies and systems guiding the system, for example assessment frameworks, professional learning accessibility and school review systems.

The removal of highly prescriptive National Standards from our primary schools is one such outcome of this process.  As an example of the flexibility and adaptiveness of the New Zealand Curriculum, this removal has shifted decision making back to schools in terms of determining where students are at in their learning achievement, where they need to be or get to, how they’ll get there, and the ways in which achievement or learning needs are reported. 

Abundant local literature to support professional learning and development

The Aotearoa New Zealand academic research base is burgeoning and accessible to all leaders and teachers who are interested in shaping new policy and growing teacher professional practice. Research which includes quantitative analysis and the voice of educational leaders, teachers, students, families, researchers and policy makers has informed national conversations about what works best for all learners. These conversations also highlight diverse challenges and emphasise the need for leaders to continually examine educational possibilities in their schools. Additional non-academic sources of information and guidelines are also available. These resources are based on stories of practice and include work by the Education Review Office (ERO), Ministry of Education (MOE) New Zealand Curriculum (NZC) resources, and New Zealand Council for Educational Research (NZCER) articles. Online resource repositories such as TKI or The Pond are user-friendly and easy to navigate, providing ‘as-needed’ and ‘just-in-time’ access to curriculum and pedagogical support and guidance.

Review and next steps

Despite Aotearoa New Zealand’s geographic isolation, its education profession cannot afford to be isolated or siloed. Collaborations, both domestic and international, are therefore essential and the development of authentic partnerships for transformational change are necessary. This allows Aotearoa New Zealand to stay connected to leading scholarship and debate and learn from other education systems, too. In this global policy context, where diverse ideologies and priorities converge, it is paramount that comparative dialogue and its inherent learning produces reciprocal and contextually relevant outcomes for all. 

This paper has not intended to produce definitive findings, but instead frame a particular activity within the field of Comparative and International Education, and explore the ways in which Aotearoa New Zealand’s policy developments in teacher leadership and innovation might inspire adaptations for the Vietnamese context. The discussion of these developments, and the conditions they have created, demonstrates how a number of the MOET delegates’ key challenges and overarching priorities were addressed through this visit. However, what this paper also promotes is the need for further research and a critical and methodological framework for applied Comparative and International Education.

As our analysis shows, dialogue and a shared appreciation for factors inside and outside the classroom are central to successful comparative learning endeavours between ministries and international universities. It is therefore proposed that future international visits, wherever they take place, adopt an informed programmatic approach shaped by the research and insights Comparative and International Education affords. Accordingly, the trend of ‘policy borrowing’ will no longer be defined by transplanted, incompatible or unsustainable ideas and strategies, but will instead be represented by a critically informed, adaptive and contextually responsive way of working with and learning from international contexts and partners.  

References

• Bakhtin, Mikhail M. 1986. Response to a Question from Novy Mir editorial staff. In: Speech Genres and Other Late Essays, ed. by C. Emerson and M. Holquist (trans. V. W. McGee). Austin: University of Texas Press.

• Campbell, J., and van Nieuwerburgh, C. (2018). The Leader’s Guide to Coaching in Schools: Creating conditions for effective learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin

• Charteris, J., Smardon, D., and Nelson, E. (2016). Innovative learning environments and discourses of leadership: Is physical change out of step with pedagogical development? Journal of Educational Leadership, Policy and Practice, 31(1), 33-47.

• Cheng, L. C. (2000). Teachers Work in the Global Culture of Performance. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 46, 65-74 

• Connell, J. (2014). Teacher Education in the Developing World. London, UK: Maitri Trust

• Connell, R. (2009a). Good Teachers on Dangerous Ground: Towards a New View of Teacher Quality and Professionalism. Critical Studies in Education, 50(3).

• Connell, R. (2009b). The Work of Teaching. History of Education Review, 38(2).

• Crossley, M. (2008). Bridging Cultures and Traditions for Educational and International Development: Comparative Research, Dialogue and Difference. International Review of Education

• Economist Intelligence Unit (2018) Worldwide Educating for the Future Index: A Benchmark for the Skills of Tomorrow. The Economist. London, UK.

• Education Review Office (ERO). (2016). Communities of Learning, Kāhui Ako: Collaboration to improve learner outcomes.  Wellington, NZ: Crown.

• Kreso A.P. (eds) Living Together. Springer, Dordrecht

• Michael Crossley & Keith Watson (2009) Comparative and international education: policy transfer, context sensitivity and professional development, Oxford Review of Education, 35:5, 633-649

• Ministry of Education (MOE).  (2007). The New Zealand Curriculum: For English-medium teaching and learning in years 1 - 13. Wellington, New Zealand: Learning Media Limited.

• Ministry of Education. (2018). The Treaty of Waitangi and the New Zealand Curriculum. Retrieved from www.nzcurriculum.tki.org.nz

• Mujamdar, M. (2011). Politicians, Civil Servants or Professionals? Teachers’ Voices on their Work and Worth. Contemporary Education Dialogue, 8(1), 33-65.

• Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2015). Schooling redesigned: Towards innovative Learning systems. Educational research and innovation. Paris: OECD Publishing.

• Reimers, Fernando, and Noel McGinn. 1997. Informed Dialogue. Using Research to Shape Education Policy Around the World. Westport: Praeger.

• Robertson, J. (2016). Coaching Leadership: Building educational leadership capacity through partnership. (2nd Ed.). Wellington, New Zealand: NZCER Press.

• Robertson, S. L. (2012). Placing Teachers in Global Governance Agendas. Comparative Education Review, 56(4), 584-607.

• Sadler, Michael. 1900. How far can we learn anything of practical value from the study of foreign systems of education? In: Selections from Michael Sadler, ed. by J. H. Higginson (1979). Liverpool: Dejail and Meyorre.

• Sriprakash, A. (2011). Being a Teacher in Contexts of Change: Education Reform and the Repositioning of Teacher's Work in India. Contemporary Education Dialogue, 8 (5).

• Starratt, R.J. (2004). The ethics of learning: an absent focus in the discourse on educational leadership. Paper presented at the 2nd International Summit for Leadership in Education, Boston, MA, 2-6 November.

• Stoll, L. and Seashore Louis, K. (2007). Professional Learning Communities: Divergence, depth and dilemmas. Berkshire, England: Open University Press.

• Tikly, L. (2001). Globalisation and Education in the Post Colonial World: Towards a Conceptual Framework. Comparative Education, 37 (2).

• Timperley, H.S. and Robertson, J. (2011). Leadership and Learning. London, UK: Sage Publications Ltd.

• UNESCO (2014) Teaching and Learning: Achieving Quality for All Education for All Global Monitoring Report. UNESCO Publishing. Paris 

• Wagner, T. (2018). Revolutionising the classroom for the post-knowledge era, a presentation to Teachers and Leaders, Tauranga University of Waikato, New Zealand, November 2018.  

• Wylie, C. (2016). WAPA 2020: Gain and insights from an enduring school network. Wellington, NZ: NZCER. 

• Wylie, C., McDowell, S., Ferral, H., Felgate, R., & Visser, H. (2018). Teaching Practices, School practices and Principal Leadership: The first national picture 2017. Wellington, NZ: 2018.