This year both National and Labour announced education policies that aim to strengthen school leadership and collaboration. National is putting far more resource behind their policy, but Labour has a big advantage: they are better at getting buy-in from teachers.

National announced the Investing in Educational Success (IES) policy in January this year.  Around 6,000 teachers and leaders would be promoted to open their classrooms and share their practice across newly formed Communities of Schools. The policy recognises that there is excellence within the system. The idea is that capacity would be built across the system: colleagues helping colleagues. While the secondary teachers’ union (PPTA) is on board, the primary teachers’ union (NZEI) is not.

So how about Labour’s policy? They plan to scrap the IES and use the $359 million earmarked for it to reduce the student-to-teacher ratio instead.

They do also have a policy to build leadership and collaboration. Instead of the IES, they would establish a school advisory service to second excellent teachers and leaders for up to three years to act as mentors and advisors.

They have not yet put figures to this policy, but since they would divert the $359 million to reducing the student-to-teacher ratio instead, it is likely that this opportunity would be available to far fewer than 6,000.  Labour’s policy would not put nearly the same amount of resource behind strengthening teacher collaboration. In saying that, schools may choose to use the extra resources under Labour’s “class size” policy to free up time for teachers to learn from these mentors and advisors rather than reduce class sizes per se.

As well as quantitative differences between the policies, there are some qualitative ones. A valid criticism of the IES policy is that boards may have a hard time explaining to parents why their schools’ best teachers are spending time in other schools.  On the other hand, the IES policy gives communities of schools the resources to work and learn from each other, and teachers would continue to teach rather than be removed from teaching for three years as they would under an advisory service policy.

But the more fundamental difference is a political one. While Labour’s policy to build collaboration and leadership is not likely to be well resourced, they have the upper hand on getting buy-in from teachers.

National still have one card to play though. The IES policy is voluntary. Schools would only opt in to join a community of schools if they perceived that the benefits of the IES policy would outweigh the costs. Making it a voluntary scheme, rather than forcing it upon schools, might be National’s saving grace.