Qaulity (or lack thereof) of School Principals

Is it just me, or are the quaility of principals getting poorer and poorer by the day. Over the past few weeks there have been serveral incidents that required the attention of principals from several different schools. From the Kelston vs. Auckland Grammar rugby brawl to the horrific school invasion at Lynfield College, Principals have been required to show strong leadership and maintain a level head, something that seems difficult for a few highly paid school administrators.

Incase you didn't know, the the semi-finals of the Auckand Secondary Schools Rugby Championship was played between Kelston Boys 1st XV and Auckland Grammar's 1st XV. It was a hard fought game, literally, in which both teams showed good skill and strength. The real news began after Auckland Grammar scored the try to seal it in the final minutes. A few punches turned into an all-in brawl which allegdly invloved over 100 students and by-standers. You would think that such a display would mean that principals from both schools would investigate their own players, right? Well, sort of, while the Kelston Boys principal accepted that this was the responsibility of some of it's players John Morris, Auckland Grammar school's principal, thought that it was all Kelston's fault. He stated that his players didn't start it so they shouldn't be punished for the most part. A few 2nd XV players were suspended but everyone else was preparing for the final against Mount Albert Grammar the following week. Morris essentially stated that no matter how his players behaved winning the championship is more important. This was quite a poor display of leadership and is good insight into the kind of things Auckland Grammar deem acceptable. For the principal of a well respected school to say that we're not going to take any responsibility is just disgraceful and slightly disturbing.


Then there is the Sideswipe debacle. The New Zealand Herald column points out funny things that people may not have known. It is generally run by emails sent in by readers and is just a bit of fun really. A topic that came up was the uniform rules enforced by some highschools. Readers pointed out that some of the rules enforced by schools were rediculus. The article stated that "Socks up, shirts tucked, hair length, no jewellery and clean shoes are reasonable expectations, but most students who have written in think the worst rule is no singlets allowed." It went on to point out some experiences sent in. The article didn't really need a response and as I know of someone that attends one of the schools in question I know that for the most part it is true. But instead of justifying the rules (which I accept is a difficult thing to do as they have little correlation to learning) John Morris once again decided to deny it completely. He felt the need to send in his own public response which was published a litte while later. He writes "Boys are indeed allowed to wear singlets". He goes on to say that if singlets are worn they must not be seen.But if that isn't enough he puts in an ad for the uniform shop as well stating that "The school in fact sells V-neck blue polyprop singlets for boys to wear" . The only problem with this of course, is that many people would not want to pay for what is essentially a piece of clothing used to keep warm. Again this is just an other example of worrying too much about looking good and not enough about actual education. Mount Roskill Grammar School's principal, Greg Watson, took a more subtle approach. He decided to publish a small paragraph in the school newsletter stating that "This [Sideswipe] item was inaccurate". He then goes on to say the funniest thing I have ever heard "We encourage students to wear singlets under their blouses and shirts". The statement is just an outright lie. I know of students that have had their thermals confiscated and told to buy $100 school jackets. The fact that the principals decided to lie show just how crazy the rules are.

The Lynfield college school invasion was a horrific incident and for the most part it was dealt with swiftly and strictly. The only odd thing I found was Steve Bovaird's smile throughout several television interview. In the TV 1 interview he says that he is "appauled" by this but his facial expression is one of happyness, joy and laughter. It's just a little bit odd really. If he can't keep a straight face on TV then he shouldn't front up or the interview, it just belittles a very serious situation.

I was always of the belife that principals were like Prime Ministers. They were meant to lead schools to success. Their job has never specifically been to target the appearence of the students but rather their academic results. The obnoxious behavouir of John Morris and the lies published by Greg Watson just show the real quality of principals running our schools. I suggest that they focus on getting students to pass rather than worrying too much about what they're wearing. A teacher recently told me that "conformity is important and standards have to be set" This is true and I agree completely with the statement but the standard set has to be a reasonable one. You wouldn't hold retail staff to the same standard as lawyers, it just doesn't make sense. Bovaird's almost cheeky grin was just an unfortunate incident that was kind of funny really.

I just hope that these principals and the policies enforced by them don't have and adverse effect on our students. After all we wouldn't want to discourage a genius because he's cold.