Editorial: Cure for school fees worse than disease

Taxes can never cover all educational possibilities schools might provide. Photo / Thinkstock

Opinion

Parents who object to paying a school "donation" should be careful what they wish for. Two years ago, responding to criticism of fees, the Ministry of Education issued a memorandum to schools that parents should not be charged for activities that were part of the curriculum.

The result, we report today, is that some schools have stopped taking pupils away on science trips and other excursions that broaden a child's horizons.

It would be easy to say, as school principals often do, that tax-funding should cover all these things. Taxes can never cover all educational possibilities schools might provide. Education is an infinite benefit limited only by its cost. Governments have to draw the line for taxpayers.

An alternative solution sometimes suggested is to outlaw school fees entirely.

The survey in our report is yet another illustration of a widening gap between rich and poor schools even within the state sector. Clearly, not all schools are adhering to the ministry's advice, probably only those that find parents unable or unwilling to pay a fee are having to cut back on curriculum extras.

But equality is hard to enforce. Better off schools do not owe their good fortune only to the ability and willingness of their parents to pay their fee. Many, as we report, gain a great deal of additional income by attracting foreign students and they use it to offer additional programmes, facilities and activities to all their pupils.

Therefore, there would be no point demanding that all state schools strictly adhere to the ministry's memorandum on fees and no principal in our report is suggesting that.

Their concern is rather that the ministry's response to opposition to school fees has not made parents aware of what their children are missing.

It is absurd that schools can, and do, charge parents fees for extra-curricular activities such as sporting trips and cultural outings but not an excursion for observations of geology or biology or even to the sea for parts of a physical education curriculum.

Obviously the schools have less of a problem exacting the costs from parents of those going on a sports or cultural trip. They find it harder to convince all parents that they should pay for curriculum experiences, and those cannot be optional.

Unless all, or nearly all, parents are willing to pay a fee, the curriculum must be delivered entirely within the school.

The ministry ought to rescind its memo, let schools offer all the experiences a reasonable fee can provide and if some steadfastly refuse to pay, so be it. Give the children of free-riders a free ride.