One of the key principles underlying the Tomorrow's Schools reforms was the notion of community involvement in education. The Labour government's original concept was a partnership between professionals and communities, with the board of trustees the linking mechanism. Anyone familiar with the subsequent history of the New Zealand school sector knows that things have not quite worked out that way and the original vision has never been realised.

The reforms introduced in 1989 – including parent-dominated school boards of trustees – have been largely successful and remain a distinguishing feature of the New Zealand school sector. Subsequent reforms such as the bulk-funding of teacher salaries and the abolition of school zoning in the early 1990s built on the initial moves. Unfortunately, the period since the late 1990s has seen a steady erosion of community and parental control over education and a recentralisation of decision-making in Wellington .

The 1998 changes to school enrolment scheme legislation under National were only the beginning. The pace of recentralisation has accelerated since late 1999, with a further ‘tightening' of enrolment legislation, the abolition of bulk-funding of teacher salaries and the re-introduction of a collective contract for school principals. The result is a school system that is hugely influenced by education ‘central command'. Just last week, news reports highlighted the extent to which the Ministry of Education continues to control schools. Forty-six schools were believed to have broken the law because they had not sought ministry approval for their pay offers to principals. The centrally driven schools closure policy and the minister of education's decision to sack the parent board of the Correspondence School are further evidence of the degree of central control in the system today.

More threats loom. The proposal to give the secretary of education the power to dock the pay of striking teachers and the potential for increased regulation of integrated schools would both be further nails in the coffin of Tomorrow's Schools . Ministry of Education documents suggest its role is likely to expand, rather than contract. In a recent strategic document (called a statement of intent), it boasts that it “has been extending its range of activities” and that it is “no longer the hands-off Ministry that followed ‘Tomorrow's Schools' ”.

Unfortunately, the ministry document does not provide any evidence that its interventions do much good or that the ‘ Wellington knows best' school system will mean better education outcomes than one where communities and parents play a much greater role.

A report released in late May by the Maxim Institute, A Snapshot of What Parents Think of Schooling in New Zealand, suggests that the increasing intrusiveness in schooling is not something parents support. Indeed, the view from the parents interviewed was that the government should be less intrusive, more trusting with teachers, principals and especially parents, and more democratic.

The report canvassed the views of the parents of 137 children from right across the social spectrum. It consistently records that parents care passionately about schooling for their children. They go to great lengths to find out about schools through a variety of means, including word of mouth, Education Review Office reports, NCEA results and league tables. The report includes a number of other interesting findings:

• school zoning policy constitutes a major frustration for parents who want more direct control of schooling for their children;
• school discipline was a major decision factor for parents when choosing schools;
• teacher quality is of great importance to parents;
• parents were critical of the government and Ministry of Education roles in the education system and the fact that the autonomy which Tomorrow's Schools promised was unrealised;
• parents wanted a significant ‘say' in their children's education; and
• parents believed that the best schooling situation was one where school life and values mirrored, or supported, parental values.

While the results are suggestive only, given the nature of the survey, they are instructive. They indicate that top-down, one-size-fits-all solutions simply won't work in a school system where the needs of children and the desires of families are so individualised. They also indicate that we should have confidence in the ability of parents to make the right decisions for their children. It only makes sense – parents have a far greater interest in the welfare of their children than bureaucrats in Wellington .

The clear message from the Maxim report is that we should show a little faith in the ability of parents to ‘do the right thing' for their children. Given the chance and, where required, a bit of help, they won't disappoint. As Thomas Jefferson said, “I know of no safe depository of the ultimate power of society but the people themselves and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion.”

For more information, contact:

Roger Kerr
Executive Director
Ph: 04 499 0790
Email: rkerr@nzbr.org.nz

David Young
Communications Advisor
Ph: 04 494 9101
Email: dyoung@nzbr.org.nz

Web: www.nzbr.org.nz