24 June 06 Choice
Improves Quality Printer
friendly version (PDF) View >>>
A good education is one of the greatest gifts that parents can
give to their children: education provides skills that equip
people to make their way successfully in an increasingly
complex world.
The
days when it was easy to earn a good living from manual labour
are virtually gone. Instead, technology has replaced man with
machines, and globalisation has substituted production lines
in China for factories in New Zealand. To improve national
productivity qualifications are now more important than ever
before.
With
education being one of the most expensive areas of government
spending, the question that we should all be asking, is how
well does our system work for students, and are taxpayers
getting value for money?
In
answering these questions, we need to remind ourselves that
the four levels of education – pre-school, primary school,
secondary school and tertiary level - operate quite
differently. The preschool and tertiary sectors operate a
voucher system whereby parents and students choose from a
range of approved providers and the funding follows the child,
whereas primary and secondary schools are monopolies run by
the government.
The
performance of schools in the state sector has long been the
subject of concern. Back in 1987, the Lange Labour Government
established a taskforce under the leadership of Brian Picot to
review the system. The report identified a number of
“serious weaknesses”, namely that it was poorly managed,
over-centralised, and that schools were unresponsive to the
needs of parents and students.
The
changes proposed lead to the “Tomorrow’s Schools”
initiative and the 1987 Education Act. But while the changes
were designed to give schools more autonomy and parents more
choice, they were implemented in a half-hearted manner and
have now been all but dismantled.
Mark
Harrison in his book Education Matters: Government, Markets
and New Zealand Schools, puts it this way: “Despite the
world wide trend away from central planning and government
owning the means of production, the education sector in New
Zealand remains predominantly government owned, funded and
controlled, and the serious weaknesses identified in the Picot
Taskforce persist”.
“In
Harms Way”, a 2003 publication by the Maxim Institute
analysing the results of four international surveys involving
thousands of New Zealand’s primary and secondary school
students, found that while the best students perform well,
those at the bottom end of the scale perform very poorly: only
19 percent of fifteen year-olds performed well on fixed
international benchmarks for reading literacy being ‘capable
of completing sophisticated reading tasks’, with the gap
between the top 25 percent and bottom 25 percent of achievers
in reading literacy being the second largest amongst 32
nations.
In
mathematics education, New Zealand ranked last amongst six
participating English speaking nations and 20th out
of 24 OECD countries, with 31,000 out of 71,000 Year 9 pupils
being ‘unable to apply basic mathematical knowledge in
straight forward situations’.
Such
results show that the New Zealand school system is failing
disadvantaged students, who are, of course, the children most
in need of a good education. Worse, the zoning laws recently
introduced by Labour, is now locking these vulnerable children
into failing schools, preventing their parents from being able
to move them to alternative schools that are performing
better.
Students
whose parents can afford to pay for a private education have
the power to protect their children from state school failure
by choosing an independent school that best meets their needs.
But the problem is that relatively few New Zealand families
can afford to pay twice (once through their taxes and secondly
through private school fees) for their children’s education
– and nor should they have to do so.
The
reality is that it is government ideology and union power that
prevents the same voucher system that operates at pre-school
and tertiary level from operating in the primary and secondary
sector. The teaching workforce is strongly controlled by the
unions who violently oppose any moves - such as bulk funding,
national testing, and performance pay - that could free up the
system. Further, judging by the extent of political ideology
in the curriculum, Labour undoubtedly views education as
an important
tool for social control and is unlikely to support any moves
to free up the system.
However,
if we are serious about wanting to improve our education
system then we should recognise that countries with schools
that perform well in international comparisons operate
mechanisms to encourage school choice: they understand that if
parents are given a choice of schools for their children to
attend, and if schools are given the freedom to satisfy the
needs of their students in their pursuit of educational
excellence, then everyone wins – the children succeed, their
parents are happy, and as the school undergoes that process of
continual innovation and progressive improvement that are the
hallmarks of successful enterprises, national educational
standards continue to rise.
The
school systems of both the Netherlands and Sweden – two
countries that score well in international comparisons - are
good examples: the state monopoly in education in Holland
ended in 1917, creating a vibrant private school sector, and
Sweden has a thirty year track record of school choice with
vouchers now widely available.
This
week’s NZCPD guest, student leader Helen Simpson, shares her
experience of the Swedish school system, which she enjoyed as
a seventeen-year old New Zealand exchange student.
The
poll this week asks: Do you think
that a voucher system for primary and secondary schools should
be introduced?
Your comments and contributions are welcome. Send your comments here
>>>.
Opinions expressed are those of the contributors, and do not
necessarily reflect those of the editorial staff.