Articles

A Better Deal For Education

The government is currently undertaking a controversial, ongoing review of the school network, with hundreds of schools lined up for review because of the prospect of surplus capacity, empty classrooms and falling rolls. Twelve schools in central Northland and six on the Russell peninsula are included in that review with the government saying that surplus capacity in them totals about 598 surplus student places and about 21 classrooms. While the government and taxpayers must be concerned about ensuring that state assets are well used and that education funding is allocated fairly, the reviews raise an important issue as to who is best placed to decide what the ‘school network’ should look like – how many schools there should be, what the nature of those schools should be and how many of them there should be. It is clear from the reaction to the reviews that parents and local communities want a greater say in decisions relating to the education of their children. The concerns of parents and local communities are heightened by the fact that school reviews have often focused more on factors other than the quality of education provided. Last month, the Education Forum launched a vision piece, or manifesto, for the school sector at a cross-party, parliamentary function in Wellington. The manifesto, entitled A New Deal: Making Education Work for all New Zealanders, offers a way through the current controversy over school reviews. It proposes a new funding system that would see all students funded in a similar way (a base per-student amount of funding plus ‘top ups’), irrespective of what type of school a student attends (mainstream, special character or independent). Such a system would let parents and local communities have a much greater say in how and where schools operated, rather than having their children’s educational future dictated to them by Wellington. Parent power would replace central decree as the driving for decision-making in the school sector. And given the reality of having to compete for students, schools would have a stronger incentive to serve them well. Seem scary? It shouldn’t – it is what happens now in the early childhood and tertiary education sectors. A key part of the manifesto is based around improving academic results by removing the government’s monopoly over the funding, delivery and quality control of education and by handing more control to families and communities, something that would hearten families at the threatened Karetu and Waikere schools. There is much good in the New Zealand education system. It serves many families well and for that it should be applauded. At the same time, it fails far too many – especially those in lower socioeconomic groups and Maori and Pasifika students. The educational gap between the haves and the have-nots in New Zealand is clear and needs to be addressed. Traditionally, the government response to education issues has been to add more rules rather than to evaluate the current ones. In fact, the government could remove many restrictions governing how and where children should be educated if it instead established a system of measuring student progress – in the form of a national test – and required schools to improve the performance of students from all socio-economic backgrounds. So, Whangarei students would be judged on the same basis as, for instance, their peers in Invercargill. Competition should also be infused into the teaching profession. Pay under the current arrangement is largely based on the years a teacher has worked. This serves neither good teachers nor students well. It should be replaced with a system that recompenses teachers more for high-quality teaching and for teaching subjects that prove difficult to staff – generally those that require technical knowledge such as advanced maths and science. Education reform also depends on improving the information that policy-makers and parents receive about school and teacher performance. With these facts in hand, aid policy makers could gauge what works in schools, meaning funding could be directed where it was needed, rather than simply at the latest educational fad and parents would be in a real position to make decisions about what school was best for their child. We believe they should be allowed to do so – our reform plan would eliminate the antiquated zoning laws that tether children to the nearest school to which they live. New Zealand is crucially dependent on education to drive its economic engines. The coming together of politicians from four different parties in October to co-host the launch of A New Deal shows that many people well understand that and are prepared to get together to ensure the best results for New Zealand children, in Northland and all points south. More information on A New Deal is at Education Forum website Sue Thorne is a member of the Education Forum and CEO of the Early Childhood Council.

16/11/03 - Sue Thorne