Can we cast away Crusoe? A search for other edu/economic-leaderships

The great power of utopias is to disrupt our surrender to orthodoxy, freeing us to understand the status quo as contingent, not predetermined, as changeable, not inevitable. (Pearl, 2017 Para 11)

Educational leadership has become a prime focus in the past few decades. My thesis is that, as the New Zealand education reforms of the 1990s were bundled with neoliberal economics, the discourse of educational leadership ascended. The country is unique in that its devolution of educational management to individual schools, and an ever-smaller role for the central state, has a 30-year history. This paper first examines the discourse of educational leadership, within the context of New Zealand’s neoliberal economics, through a genealogical lens, looking at the economic, rather than educational, underpinnings.

Genealogy allows the researcher to seek out the knowledge-power possibilities (Foucault, 1984) while making the taken-for-granted appear strange. The strong individual can be decentred as the myriad of small streams of effects can be made visible. Humankind, Foucault argued, is a modern construct, so if mankind is decentred, the fragile assemblages of linear history can be made explicit. Genealogy can be used to research problems of the present and, in the 1980s, the New Zealand Treasury saw problems which called for a ‘detailed review of the operation and performance of the New Zealand system of central government’ (Treasury, 1987: p. 45).

Government Management [GM] (Treasury, 1987), a set of papers drawn from the Chicago School of Economics, noted a range of societal approaches from the ‘rights-based approach, the contractarian approach and the utilitarian approach’ (p. 416). It argued for an individualistic approach, positing that ‘each person lives for his or her own sake and the achievement of one’s open happiness [as] the highest moral purpose’ (p. 413). It suggests Principal-Agency contracts can assist in achieving the efficient use of public funds by avoiding ‘provider capture’ (p. 47) by interested parties such as teachers. New Zealand has, since the 1990s, been a neoliberal ‘FIRE economy’ (Brash, 1996; Kelsey, 2015), enacting many of Treasury’s positions through New Public Management.

[NPM led to] breaking up of large government public sector units into smaller units, with an emphasis on accountability systems, performance measures, outputs rather than inputs, efficiency, and the use of “proven” private sector styles of management to operationalise these components … Principals became responsible for the management of the school, including its budget, appraisal of teachers, and development of staff. (Youngs, 2020: p. 63)

In the educational context, ‘parents will be involved in the schooling of their children because they want to maximise the “valued added” aspect of schooling for their offspring [and] will search for the “best deal,” or … exercise school choice’ (Smyth, 2009: p. 17).

A second thesis is that our models of leadership are drawn narrowly from management and military themes, which focus on competitiveness rather than cooperation. There are both costs and benefits which accrue to education ‘These benefits and costs can take monetary or other form and may take effect immediately (consumption) or in the future (investment)’ (Treasury, 1987: p. 133). In GM, one of the options discussed was that ‘a government could decide to deliberately participate in the market as a non-discriminating provider of services so as to equalise opportunities for all people’ (Treasury, 1987: p. 464). This could be achieved by devolving governance and management to each institution.

Social institutions have developed through a process of evolution in order to minimise these problems (scarcity; interdependence; uncertainty or bounded rationality; information costs; and opportunism or incentive problems). These institutions do not fall like manna from heaven but arise from the efforts of individuals either alone, or in coalitions. (Treasury, 1987: p. 13)

New Zealand has a unique culture of self-governance, with a reductive state offering of regulatory policy and funding. Many of our models come from the 19th century. For example, W. S. (Jevons, 1871) views on present and future utility find echoes in GM. Value, he argued, depends entirely on utility. The time the product may be useful can be judged against ‘actual, prospective and potential utility’ (p. 77).

Even Robinson Crusoe must have looked upon each of his possessions with varying esteem and desire for more, although he was incapable of exchanging with any other person. Now, in this sense value seems to be identical with the final degree of utility of a commodity … there is a close connection between value in this meaning, and value as ratio of exchange. (Jevons, 1871: p. 80)

Economics, too, draws on such themes, with individual entrepreneurs winning out, while their foot soldiers’ work remains unacknowledged (Stuart, 2009).

Daniel Defoe’s book Robinson Crusoe was a 1719 fictional account of an (entrepreneurial) shipwrecked sailor, surviving alone on his talents and salvaged goods. Firstly, he was joined by ‘a native’, Man Friday. Later he was rescued. I contrast this with a 20th century real-life story of Tongan boys marooned for 18 months on ‘Ata island. Crusoe was a favourite of 19th century economists. I ask if the Tongan boys’ experience of collaborative leadership has relevance for economic and leadership discourse today.

While Adam Smith’s often-quoted value in use is the total utility of a commodity to us, the value in exchange is defined by the terminal utility, the remaining desire which we or others have for possessing more. (Jevons, 1871: p. 162)

The issues of ‘prospective, and potential utility’ (Jevons, 1871: p. 80) of education are those New Zealand educational leaders seek to address. The ‘problem is New Zealand’s slipping academic performance on international measures’, Linda Bendikson (Bendikson et al., 2015; Birks et al., 2013; Brash, 1996) notes when writing about educational leadership. There are a number of interlocking personal skills and attributes that an educational leader must have. These include

confidence in one’s own knowledge of the required process ..., courage to take a strong lead with the process, and the ability to inspire others to act in a timely way. Leading a network of schools is incredibly skilful and hard work. (Bendikson et al., 2015, p. 2)

Many of these ‘problems’ arise because they are viewed through the theory of the Chicago School of Economics which ‘travelled’ to New Zealand in the 1980s As Learmonth and Morrell (2021: 4) argue, the ‘emergent preference for ‘leaders’ [tied in]with the rise of neoliberalism’, while avoiding discussions of structural issues, leadership was barely mentioned in the years following the Education Act 1989. However, at the turn of the 20th century, it became a much-used term. In the interim, state agencies such as Education Review Office, and the Teachers’ Council externally monitored schools and individual teachers and the latter agency led discussions on educational leadership (Youngs, 2020). Devolved self-governance meant many schools, especially those in poorer, low-decile areas, and rural schools, struggled with the weight of administration and expectations that they should be lifting ‘quality’. It is this sui generis environment, and the emergent lexicon of leadership, which makes New Zealand educational leadership unique. In the past decade, one more strategy was implemented: Kahui Ako, a network of schools known as Communities of Learning.

Leadership can be defined by principles, qualities, and high performance. Over centuries, military expeditions to the global peripheries allowed Europeans to first overcome, then domesticate the Indigenous peoples. Military lexica include the importance of vision, aspirations and strategy; the plan includes tactics and goals which lead to measurable action. This language has migrated to the 20th century vocabulary of (educational) leadership and management (Stuart, 2009) to become performative in its intent.

The Ministry of Education (2020) notes on its Web site that;

A key difference between New Zealand and other OECD countries is our particular system of self-managing schools. Our system requires that principals work as chief executives of their boards of trustees to support the development of policy, then take responsibility for carrying policy into practice. This includes setting the direction for the school in ways that reflect the needs and values of the local community. (para 12)

The ‘problem’ is that not all principals are such leaders. Many see education as differing in kind from a firm with a chief executive. They do not, as Michael Porter and Mark Kramer (2020) suggested, envision managing schools or networks of schools as ‘Firms creat[ing] shared value by building clusters to improve company productivity while addressing gaps or failures in the framework conditions surrounding the cluster’ (p. 173). The leaders of educational clusters – such as Communities of Schools – need, Jane Gilbert (2015) (p.11) suggests, to face the ‘unknown’. Leadership ‘involves strategies for “understanding the present”’, ‘what the system is doing now’ and envisioning future possibilities. I explore educational leadership further below, after setting out the methodology of genealogy.

Genealogical examination of neoliberal economics

The economic theory of the ‘maximal utiliser’ arose at a specific time and place and filled a theoretical need to bolster the laws of economics. 19th century economists such as Carl Menger and Eugen Böhm-Bawerk sought a ‘real science’ with laws and principles which could be pursued by rational, choosing ‘man’. W. S. Jevons (1871, p. xiv) had argued that if economics was to be a science at all, it would be a mathematical one, which would remediate any induction problems. Jevrons, Walras and Menger all independently suggested the uses of cardinal ordering in economics. The idea of marginal utility was to be one of the concepts that supported economics’ rise to the status of a science, and established the possible uses of statistics and logic in the social sciences.

People can choose how many hours to work, what to contract with whom, how to affect the greatest outcomes, and where to invest and establish energy. Economic discourse has, at its centre, pictures of leader and led, of self-actualising and acquiescent, with binaries that remain difficult to overcome. The science of homo œconomicus needs a stable, normative individual whose utility preferences can be predicted in an exchange economy: a one-dimensional individual. A premise of Austrian economics is that there are universally valid economic laws such as the theory of catallactics, where institutions, rather than individuals evolve, but only individuals can do things such as invest. A later member of this school, F A Hayek, believed that any government interference was inefficient. Rather, he argued, efficiency lies in the market which has a spontaneous evolutionary order (Devine, 1999). However, Ludwig von Mises differed from Hayek, his colleague, arguing that human action involves the future (Stuart, 2011: p.145). The von Misean concept of planning has, for many years, been used by the education system to influence the economy (e.g. in the insistence on teaching vocational skills).

The ‘principle of diminishing marginal utility’ is central to New Public Economics, which constructs the (education) field as a market. There are optimal average benefits for all but as supply diminishes, utility to the user increases. Fritz Söllner (2016) wrote ‘[e]ver since its earliest beginnings [the neoclassical] school of thought has more or less appropriated Robinson Crusoe as one of their own. He makes his appearance in the writings of almost all of the neoclassical pioneers’ (p. 36). Defoe’s Crusoe can be studied as a purely economic text or, as some would argue, as an economics that positions the ‘other’ as a ‘risk’ as an a priori truth. Crusoe is an utility maximiser, but the figure of Friday confuses the pure economic theory. Söllne cites Learmonth and Morrell (2021) noting ‘how rum, ink, bread, and gunpowder become ever more valuable to Robinson Crusoe as his stores dwindle (i.e. marginal utility increases when the quantity of goods decreases)’ (p. 39). After illustrating the flaws in using Crusoe to bolster economic theories, Söllne concludes ‘Describing human behavior from the point of view of homo economicus leads to an emphasis on certain facets of human behavior while others are neglected’ (p. 60). All aspects of gender, class, race become traits located in the individual. Poor choices, poor breeding, poor education, as theorised by neoliberal economics, positions the educated (white) male as normative. ¹ All others must try harder.

As political œconomy developed, it drew on accepted imagery and writings on property, value and man, the individual. ‘Crusoe enslaved Friday only in order that Friday should work for Crusoe’s benefit …[by] producing by his labour more of the necessaries of life than Crusoe has to give him’ (Etzioni and Etzioni, 2010, pp. 113–114, as cited in Crocombe et al., 1991, p. 99). Racism in the 18th century was explicitly accepted by those writing seminal economic tracts:

Adam Ferguson suggested a ‘never-ending generation of history without degeneration’; of stages of progressive civil development (Foucault, 2008, p. 306). ... America’s ... ‘wandering tribes’ (de Tocqueville, 1835) had been ‘placed by Providence amidst the riches of the New World to enjoy them for a season, and then surrender them’, to be ‘consigned to ... inevitable destruction’. In all utopias, including Crusoe’s island, there is a risk lurking, needing to be tamed. (Stuart, 2011: p. 120)

Over the 19th century, as political œconomics moved beyond mercantilism, and integrated new perceptions of the centre and the peripheries, traces remained of an earlier world.

As economics moved to the field of education in the late 20th century, some of these earlier traces moulded possibilities. New Zealand education, Bob Stephens (1993) noted, was ‘at a crossroads’ such that education was seen by some as a ‘“right,” financed from government coffers’ while others believe that ‘education is a private, normal economic commodity’ (p. 29). Other questions arose in this debate: Was compulsory education to be viewed the same way as early childhood and tertiary education? Was New Zealand education on the economic ‘supply side’ or the ‘demand’ side? If the latter, then each individual ‘will suffer a small reduction in their demand for education when the price rises, but raising the price is more likely to reduce participation of real individuals’ (p. 13).² Schools, and their principals, seeking local freedom, could choose the most appropriate curricula for their community. Freedom to navigate the educational marketplace supported parents to choose the educational institution that best met their aspirations for their children. Educational leaders promoted a culture of competitiveness as educational institutions competed for students to fill Ministry of Education-funded places.

Educational leadership emerges to manage risks

Despite good intentions of effecting greater equity, any educational reform will remain bound by the original economic intent of Tomorrow’s Schools, and the Education Act 1989. It has been widely accepted that the public policy reforms of the late 1980s in New Zealand had embedded New Public Management and Public Choice theories of fiscal and regulatory change, notably in education (e.g. Devine, 2017; Devine et al., 2018; Olssen et al., 2004; Starr, 2019). As regulatory measures increased, external state agencies such as the New Zealand Education Review Office and New Zealand Teaching Council³ assessed individual and institutional outcomes against sets of criteria such as student learning and ethical practices. Teachers need hierarchical supervision, by their educational leader, the assumption goes, as well as by an external agency, to prove their worth on an ongoing basis; to keep them honest. These leaders hold managerial roles, carrying out tasks such as appraising teacher performance with goals and measurable outcomes, and looking after staff professional development responsibilities, to ensure teachers’ knowledge remains current. There is a continual search for improved quality and professional standards. The ‘memes’ of entrepreneurship (Starr, 2019: p. 23) emerging from the neoliberal discourse in education are evident. Leaders ‘expect and demand’ ‘improve’, ‘collaborate’, ‘align’,’ strengthen’, ‘seek quality’, ‘use robust data’ before setting ‘action plans’ to ‘raise student outcomes’.

Education Minister Chris Haldane et al. (2015) instigated a review of the 30-year-old system, noting that Tomorrow’s Schools ‘is inadequately serving some of our learners, in particular Māori, Pacific, children and young people with disabilities and learning support needs and those from disadvantaged background’ (p. 3). He charged the review team with seeking ‘[s]tronger arrangements to underpin principal leadership of the schooling system’ (p. 5). Accepting the Education Minister’s invitation to set up a Leadership Centre, the Chair, Nicola Ngarewa (2020), acknowledged that ‘Government is seeking to lift the performance of the school system with a special focus on the role of school principals, through setting criteria for appointment and through the development of leadership advisor roles to support them’. (para 5)

Educational leaders

Kate Thornton et al (2009) states

Educational leadership has been described [as seeking to]... “improve educational outcomes for students” (Robinson et al., 2009: p. 70). The term also refers to the development of learning communities through capacity building among students, teachers, and parents (Day et al., 2000). Characteristics of educational leaders include: a willingness to work in innovative and transformative ways that will enhance learning opportunities; an ability to engage in critical reflection; and enthusiasm and energy (Robinson et al. 2009. p. 19)

Thornton has written widely on the subject and co-authored with various members of the educational sector (e.g. Denee and Thornton, 2017; Thornton and Cherrington, 2014). Government has supported leadership studies and initiatives since 2001, while there are specific positions in the Ministry of Education relating to school leadership. Karen Starr (2014) suggests that ‘educational leadership is so complex and covers such a huge range of responsibilities that the skill sets required go beyond those found solely within an individual’ (p. 224) yet, in New Zealand, job descriptions continue to locate the concept within individuals (p. 229). Youngs (2020, p.67) suggests that, lately, the term ‘strong leadership’ (sometimes ‘strong professional leadership’) is evident in government policy. The language, as Learmonth and Morrell (2021, p.1) assert, creates ‘a semantic aura’ around leadership which hides a problem: ‘[R]eferring to executives as ‘leaders’ draws a veil over the structured antagonism at the heart of the employment relationship and wider sources of inequality by celebrating market values’ (p. 13). They are critical of language that supports the ‘neoliberal milieu’ and suggest that ‘[u]sing ‘leader’ has effects that undergird and reinforce implied values and assumptions about human relationships at work’ (p. 3). There is ‘creeping linguistic neoliberalism’ (p. 7) in wider society.

Neoliberal economic theories as they impact on NZ education

Under the 1989 Education Act parents were defined as clients, education as an industry; and education advice and policy functions were separated. …[education] services were viewed as self-managing firms (as defined by ... Coase, 1937) within regulatory and curricula parameters set by central government. (Stuart, 2011: p. 45)

The Fourth Labour Government followed much of the prescribed path set out by the Treasury 1987 Briefing to the Incoming Government when instigating education reforms. The Treasury had argued for reform of education, maintaining that in ‘the technical sense used by economists, education is not in fact a ‘public good’ (Treasury, 1987: p. 33). The Treasury believed ‘that increased competition and parental choice, provided they are matched by improvements in targeting, accountability and management and information systems, can improve the average quality of schooling’ (Treasury, 1987: p. 150). An influential think-piece, Upgrading New Zealand’s Competitive Advantage (Crocombe et al., 1991), set out the issues in the country’s economy. The education system, they argued, was ‘misaligned with the requirements for economic success’ (p. 116). The goals of education are developed with little understanding of skills needed for the country’s future development. There are few evaluations of ‘determinants of the national competitive advantage’ (p. 145). Several Education Ministers have amended the Education Act 1989; yet, despite a range of amendments, the Act’s narrowly economic constructs remains. Competition within the education market remains a central tenet. Public choice and human capital theories underpin New Public Economics governmental policies.

The discourse of school leadership began to ascend at the turn of the 21st century. A group of Members of Parliament in the first John Key Government (2008–11) released Step Change: Success the Only Option4 (2010). Their report suggested that schools should focus on ‘choice, flexibility, quality and accountability – to improve outcomes for these students. Most importantly, it emphasises the needs of the student through a personalised learning pathway’ (para 13). Hekia Parata, one of the working group (Working Group, 2014) and Education Minister (2011–17), spearheaded the Investing in Educational Success initiative.⁵ She noted ‘[t]his Bill is about maintaining choice, both for parents and schools so that they have the flexibility to choose what works for their students and what will get great results for their kids’ (Parata, 2017, para.7). Good leadership could address structural inequities such as unemployment, single parent families or poor student results. Parata’s initiative brought in local Communities of Learning networks. New forms of governance, described by terms such as ‘distributed leadership’ ‘interdependence’, ‘opportunities for sharing’ and ‘trust’, are expected to develop between networked sites which are all working towards goals of lifting student achievements. Evaluations of success rely on metrics as institutions evolve to accelerate progress.

A Ministry of Education Best Evidence Synthesis (Robinson et al., 2009) set out the literature, both national and international on school leadership and student outcomes. In the Foreword, Robinson et al. (2009) argued ‘this action-orientation ties to assessing and making progress is especially critical for the main goal of education; that is “to raise the bar and close the achievement gap” …. [while even those who are clear about actions are] hard pressed to mobilize others in a concerted effort for new implementation’. They continue: ‘As the word “strategically” signals, this dimension is not about securing resources per se but about securing and allocating resources’ (p. 43). Effective ‘leaders shape the situations in which people learn how to do their jobs’ (p. 132). They have vision, set goals and expectations, assess these goals, and use ‘smart tools’ and ‘mapping strategies’ to lead interventions which avoid conflict between the needs of groups. Leaders ‘can foster the levels of inquiry, risk-taking and collaborative effort that school improvement requires’ (p. 47). However, each country’s model of educational leadership will depend on historical, geographical, political and social contexts. Much of the lexicon draws from the military, and may affirm Foucault’s theory that politics is war by other means (Stuart, 2009).

The work done by the then Education Council⁶ on educational leadership, and by Treasury on value added measurement was done during the period of the Fifth National Coalition Government. The policy drew narrowly on overseas literature such as the McKinsey report which positioned the principal as an entrepreneurial actor in effective schools. It was a polarising policy, which was much adapted over Minister Parata’s time in that portfolio.⁷ The 9-year period of the Fifth National Government saw increased inroads into the teacher’s soul through enhanced performativity expectations.

The Education Council (2015) published Five Think Pieces: Leadership for Communities of Learning. Jane Gilbert (2015) suggested ‘Seeing education as a complex system opens up new ways to work with the ideas advocated in Investing in Educational Success (collaboration, clusters, networks, and so on)’ (p. 12). Jan Robinson et al. (2009) in her think-piece set out a series of strengths and weaknesses in seeking leadership ‘capability’. ‘The policy rhetoric is there – the practice not necessarily so. Implementation plans and resourcing have not always accompanied and supported the implementation processes of these documents’ (p. 16). And later, too: ‘Education policy ... is based on competition and choice – rather than an egalitarian, “every-school-a-great-school” – ... ideology’ (p. 17). The problems that must be solved, Robertson suggested, include the ‘Long tail of underachievement, Maori and Pasifika; Hard to staff schools; Lack of leadership capacity in schools; Inequity in New Zealand Education’ (p. 21). One of the weaknesses she identified arises from the silos of self-managing schools which are ‘islands unto themselves, with little collaboration from leaders of other places of learning’ (p. 16). All five writers believed that leadership is about an individual’s capability. The report of the Tomorrow’s Schools Review (Ministry of Education, 2019) noted that what is now the Teaching Council ‘currently has no means to realise the Leadership Strategy ... We need to ensure that the system has attractive pathways for leadership development and good leadership in every school/kura’ (p. 77).

(Foucault, 2008, p. 36) suggested that when science begins to ‘tell the truth’, researchers should be prepared to reveal the ‘regime of verification’ that ensures compliance with the power/knowledge discourse of the time. By deconstructing the context of ontologies, things masquerading as educational truths are truths that migrated from economic discourse. In ‘Defoe’s story, Crusoe’s wealth comes to him not from his own efforts on the island, but from colonial appropriation, capitalist contracts and absentee ownership’(Grapard, 1995: p. 40). All of these are structural issues that remain invisible in both economic and educational discourses. Despite a range of techniques to address equity between high- and low-income areas, educational leadership became strategy used increasingly often in governing schools and centres. Leaders in the education context are entrepreneurial individuals, able to navigate through complex problems. As markets are created by the government (Olssen et al., 2004: p. 167) so too, are entrepreneurial leaders.

Foucault and economic truths

It is the emergence of rational choice and maximum utility that supports the site of education as a marketplace, and the entrepreneur as leader. Frugal government, the art of governing, but not too much, emerged in the 18th century. The regime of truth tied to political œconomy was the regulations of the market, the ‘invisible hand’. The market had ‘spontaneous mechanisms’ as well as a ‘site for truth’ where there was

a definite, adequate relationship between the cost of production and the extent of demand. When you allow the market to function by itself according to its nature, according to its natural truth, … it permits the formation of a certain price … (Foucault, 2008, p. 31)

This is a search for ‘truth’, as each age holds a certain truth, which ruptures, and shifts, and moves to a new age and a different ‘truth’.

Crusoe could govern himself, and later, Friday. Fritz Söllner (2016) notes the emergence of Crusoe as utility maximiser. William Foster Lloyd’s

Lecture on the Notion of Value (1834) for the first time explicitly stated the principle of diminishing marginal utility … Lloyd tells us how rum, ink, bread, and gunpowder become ever more valuable to Robinson Crusoe as his stores dwindle (i.e., marginal utility increases when the quantity of goods decreases) … Of course, all authors who make use of Robinson Crusoe in one way or another assume the validity of the principle of diminishing marginal utility for their castaway, even if they do not explicitly state it. (p. 39)

One other aspect of the theory of maximising utility is the notion of time. In education, it is time, including the lifespan, that is crucial to individuals. Time cannot be wasted. Early investment pays later dividends. Crusoe was successful because he harvested his crops, setting aside seed to replant for future harvests. Pupils will gain qualifications early, to later capture a secure spot in the careers marketplace.

Utility maximization also involves decisions about the intertemporal allocation of resources. ... In particular, even Robinson Crusoe (or any other isolated individual) will optimize intertemporally (p. 41) ....¹⁴ To make his equipment he has to forgo at least part of the satisfaction of his immediate wants. “Crusoe must, therefore, decide at what point he no longer cares to make present sacrifices for the larger but larger-to-a-decreasing-degree, future gains” (113) (Söllner, 2016: p.42).

In the 18th century, homo economicus could be left alone to explore his own interests as they converge with the interests of others: the doctrine of laissez faire. In the 20th century, Chicago School of Economics’ von Mises, Becker and Kirzner expanded their theories to generalise the rational maximising individual to fields other than the economic field. Becker’s individual homo economicus is a person who ‘responds systematically to modifications in the variables of the environment, [and] appears precisely as someone manageable … is someone who is eminently governable’ (Foucault et al., 2008, p. 270). New Zealand’s embrace of the theses of neoliberalism was reinforced by government employees and members of parliament who mingled with others of like mind at Mont Pèlerin Society retreats which have taken place since World War 2.

New Zealand’s emphasis on educational leadership is more critical as its premise is more radical than others’. The self-managing school is more isolated and more insular than it is in other societies. Neoliberal environments have stretched the line of educational outcomes, with Māori and Pasifika children clustering at the tail. Such environments, with the individual centralised, harm such students whose cultures tend towards collective, collaborative ways of being.

While education, prior to the Education Act 1989, had elements of laissez faire, the discourse of management was embedded over the next three decades. If teachers were trusted to teach, and encourage children to learn in the former period, there is little trust remaining in the present. Rather, the monitoring of results, efficiency and improved accountability led in fact to increased individual documentation. Various policy initiatives and debates have arisen around the topic of teacher accountability, many of them emerging from economic discourse of ‘value’. A group of Massey University academics (Snook et al., 2013) noted the Treasury’s interest in the Global Educational Reform Movement (GERM) ‘[which] is promoted by international development agencies and private enterprises seeking to influence educational policy. This movement advocates competition, choice, business-style management, curriculum standardisation, “value added” assessment of teacher effectiveness, and performance pay’ (p. 1). New Zealand Treasury, they said ‘advoc[ates] for the development of value-added measures of student achievement as part of a revised individual teacher appraisal scheme. Some teachers, the Treasury have argued, ‘have been less successful than others in overcoming social disadvantage’(p. 4). Such measures allow a focus on the individual with other social and economic factors removed from the quality equation. Treasury’s interest in this viewpoint ‘assumed that value-added assessment measures and performance-related pay incentives will: (1) be valid, reliable and practicable; (2) be motivational to teachers and (3) produce no unintended consequences’ (p. 2). Treasury’s answer to the problem of inequitable student outcomes is ‘more competitive tensions’ and performance rewards. ‘[W]e need a system that selects the right people into the workforce, trains them appropriately, develops them as professionals over time, and prepares some of them for the challenges of leadership’ (Treasury, 1987, p. 3, cited in Snook et al., 2013: p. 15). The Massey University group asserted that reward structures for teachers’ performance are ‘wrong and need evaluation’ (p. 78). They had ‘serious reservations about the use of econometric methods to provide VAM for teacher incentive schemes ... and Performance Pay’ (p. 57). Innovation using human capital is ‘nothing other than the … set of investments we have made at the level of man himself’ (Foucault et al., 2008, p. 231). Despite some continuing to advocate for teacher remuneration based on outcomes (e.g. Seymour, 2019), this discourse is descending.

On 17 May 2020, a story from Tonga was featured in the UK Guardian newspaper, and then on RNZ and the Conversation, about real-life castaways on ‘Ata island in early 1965. A Dutch historian Rutger Bregman⁸ claimed to have found ‘the real Lord of the Flies’.

[On ‘Ata the six Tongan boys] found the remains of a civilisation that had been decimated a hundred years earlier by the Pacific slave trade ...The boys set up a small commune with a food garden of banana and taro, chicken pens, rainwater stored in hollowed-out tree trunks, a gymnasium and badminton court, and prayed “morning and evening to be rescued”. (Guardian, Sat 9 May 2020 09.00 BST) (Guardian, 2020)

It was about this time, after World War II, in Chicago, that Gary S. Becker and Theodore Schultz were adapting the emerging discourse of human capital, of the self-investment of rational mankind in their future economic capital. Frank Knight (Knight, 1961) used Crusoe to illustrate that only when absolutely isolated can mankind be truly rational (Nash, 1998: pp. 12–15). Freedom, in the sense Crusoe lived before Friday arrived, is experienced as ‘an ideal aspired to by society’ (p. 13). The Chicago School’s economic ideas became a totalising theory in the following two decades, with no space for any alternative, subjugated knowledges. Ruptures in this accepted discourse can happen suddenly, abruptly. Hindsight may show that the collapse of neoliberal economic truth was assisted by the Covid-19 pandemic.

Other subjugated knowledges from the Pacific (Palatino, 2020), from Te Ao Māori, may offer new insights, ‘new normative frameworks’ (Learmonth and Morrell, 2021, p. 7) with counter-narratives to speak back against dominant ideologies about schooling (Smyth, 2009). Leadership may indeed become distributive and transformative. The Chair of the Teaching Council, Nicola Ngarewa (2020), noted the central place in any leadership strategy of a

Tiriti o Waitangi based commitment to the recognition and ongoing development of distinctive elements of te ao Māori leadership, derived from indigenous ways of knowing, doing and being, along with acknowledgement and inclusion of leadership perspectives representing our diverse multicultural community.(para 4)

In discussing the boys of ‘Ata, Meleika Gesa-Fatafehi noted that Tongan and Torres Strait peoples had a number of stories of people getting lost at sea and surviving (Fennell and Aualiitia, 2020; Warner, 2020). One survivor was accompanied all the while by a bird he called Rescue. Cultural knowledge was missing from Bregman’s story: ‘omitting reference to the island’s history of colonialism (which is why it was depopulated), and the local belief systems that could explain why the boys behaved the way they did’ (Palatino 18 May 2020). There is no utility maximising individual here; no hint that rational mankind could invest ‘a lifetime labouring to build one fortune… compare the former with various actors in a capitalist economy’ (Sider Jost, 2016, p. 302). It is important to show the leaderful collaborative behaviour that supports all to endure some adversity and survive. This is the message from Mason Duries (2015) Educational Leadership for Tomorrow which recognises the power of collective impact. After citing three whakatauki, Durie advocates for ‘leadership that is inclusive (“ki mua, ki muri”), strategic (“he whakakitenga”), and collaborative (“te toa takatini”)’ (p. 29). Leadership, he states, looks both backwards as well as forwards, and ‘the intergenerational transfer of knowledge, attitudes, values and culture provides a medium where learning can be enhanced’ (p. 30). Whānau are at the heart of educational leadership, he concludes.

Moreover, given the multiple determinants of educational success or failure, it is increasingly apparent that collaborative leadership is necessary to address complex multi-dimensional problems. Collaborative leadership was evident in the ‘Ata boy’s experience, whether from persevering on the open sea, assisting a colleague with a broken leg – allocating and sharing roles, tasks and activities – so as to survive and thrive in a new environment, and keep the fire burning for the entire 15 months. The concept of ahi kā, of continuous occupation, involves futures thinking, collaboration and collective vision. Sione Totau said he and his friends needed to rely on each other to survive.

A group of people … don’t know where they are and don’t have enough food and water … maybe they don’t agree on the same thing, but they have to try to get together and work together and make everything work so they can survive. (Fennell and Aualiitia, 2020, para 13)

A reworked epistemology, shorn of the power/knowledge of the pale castaway, may support new models. As Jo-ann note, ‘[i]ndigenous storywork seeks to rectify the [colonizing] damage and reclaim our ability to story-talk, story-listen, story-learn and story-teach’ (Archibald et al. 2019 p. 7).

New economic models?

The Tomorrow’s Schools Review (Ministry of Education, 2019) noted,

National education systems [should frame] values, core competencies ... knowledge and skills. These include high-level aspirations to enable citizens to take on shared economic, environmental, and social challenges. In our context, it also means a focus on learner/ākonga language, culture, and identity in order for them to feel that they belong and experience wellbeing in their school/kura. (p. 15)

‘[A]diversity of approaches and awareness of local context is important for understanding human behaviour’ [argument] has been made for economics (Dow, 2012), education (Stringer, 2007) and research methods (Guba & Lincoln, 1994)’ (Birks et al., 2013; Brash, 1996: p. 3). Amitai Etzioni and Etzioni (2010), writing after the 2008 global economic slump, explained the discursive power of economics. It ‘feeds and reflects a particular worldview, a view of how the world around us is composed, functions, and might be harmed or improved. Economics helps to inject antigovernment, libertarian ideas’ (p. 123).

Thomas Piketty (2015) argues that ‘if contemporary societies have become societies of managers ... it is primarily a consequence of particular historical circumstances and institutions’ (p. 19). Etzioni (2011) suggests there is now a choice between consumerism and ‘intensified social relations and transcendental activities’ (p. 783). Gesa-Fatafehi notes that the boys of ‘Ata collaborated on the vision of, firstly, survival and, secondly, on being rescued, as ‘We were raised to build community and it’s very hard to exist outside of community’ (Fennell and Aualiitia, 2020), para 15). These are simple visions, but they require complex tasks to be learned and fanau morals and knowledge to be drawn on.

Piketty offers visions that are not narrowly individualistic. If school leadership aims to lift the results of underachievement, which are intergenerational and structural, new economic as well as educational models of leadership, new visions of micro-economic climates such as the island of ‘Ata are needed. This may be an important node for new perspectives of truth/power. There are early, subjugated, models of economics as a local phenomenon which could again emerge, and be re-examined in a world where food-miles are important. James Steuart (1966) believed the state was a body with each vital organ related to the others, and governed for the good of its interconnected elements. Johan von Thunen’s economic model put the town or city at the centre, with concentric rings surrounding it. The emphasis in this model was local production and consumption (Kiker, 1969). Such views about producing and consuming locally, of ensuring food security, may become optimal, as global markets dip, and change. Education, too, can be envisaged as local, close to the home, or the site of parental work. It appears at this juncture that neoliberal individualism’s time has come, and new models of economics and education are being sought. Perhaps, by decentring the Eurocentric models, edu-economics can move to Pacific modes of being. It is time to cast away Crusoe.