Educational change in New Zealand has been a hot topic in 2012. We have faced cutbacks, closures, charter schools and league tables, not to mention the 'rejuvenation and consolidation' of Christchurch schools following the 2010/2011 earthquakes. A common reaction has been resistance-from teachers, principals, teacher unions, academics and, in the cases of class sizes and the Christchurch closures and amalgamations, also from parents and boards of trustees. Much of the writing on resistance to educational change (see, for example, Zimmerman, 2006) offers strategies for gaining compliance and successfully implementing the mandated change. Such writing presumes that the changes are necessary, appropriate and will bring about the predetermined benefits without any detrimental effects or unintended consequences. Those of us who have been constantly buffeted by the winds of educational change tend to be a little more wary. Many recent changes in New Zealand education have barely had time to be implemented before the next one is imposed. Given this situation it is hardly surprising that the first reaction is resistance. While teachers are often accused by politicians and the general public as being defiantly resistant to change, I want to take the side of teachers and ask if resistance to change is necessarily a bad thing. The Minister of Education's backdown over several recent educational policy directions highlights that not all policies are equally well-researched, carefully planned or subject to rigorous stakeholder consultation. In this regard, it was heartening to read a blog by highly-regarded educationist Larry Cuban (2011). Although writing about the situation in the United States, his comments ring true in the New Zealand context. He begins:
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Carol Mutch (2012) studied this question.