John Langley: Pick and mix isn't an educated choice

Dr John Langley

Opinion

During the past 10 years I have heard and read a lot about "choice". Choice, it appears, is a wonderful thing. If you have it your problems will be over and nirvana is only a matter of minutes or days away.

A recent media release from the Education Forum espouses the "benefits from the introduction of choice and competition" in education. It concludes that the problems of our education system can be placed squarely at a lack of such choice and policies consistent with greater choice would be like a new breeze blowing up the kilt of policy reform.

It all sounds very plausible but where have these people been for the past couple of decades? It is also largely nonsense.

The success or otherwise of an education system rests squarely with the quality of teachers and their teaching. It is not "choice" that provides such quality but the manner in which teachers are trained and the knowledge and skill they apply.

To suggest that a good teacher will only become one when confronted with competition and choice is facile and demeaning.

Since 1989 New Zealand has had a comprehensive educational policy framework that has sought both to increase the involvement of parents in schools and to give greater choice to parents in the schooling of their children and their ability to influence decision-making within the education system. The result has seen those with the means able to exercise the choice, those without the means largely unable to do so. So, what else is new?

It is increasingly the case, however, that in recent times the notion of choice and the ability of parents to influence decision-making in education have come to be viewed almost as ends in themselves. I speak to many teachers and principals who have expressed the view that an increasing part of their role is "to keep the parents happy". To a point this is fair enough; beyond that point it can be unhealthy and destructive.

Good schools have always involved, consulted and worked alongside parents. It is also fair to say that parents must be involved in decisions about the schooling of their children.

The questions are: about what? And to what extent? If a teacher using good information and sound professional judgment believes a course of action is in the best interests of a child but a parent disagrees, what happens? How much support will the teacher receive for making a considered professional decision against the parental right to have their say?

At what point can the teacher or principal say, "I'm not doing that because ... " They can, of course, and it is likely that the child will be removed from the school and taken to another where those involved may be more compliant. I've seen this happen time and time again. Choice.

Decision-making at a national level made in the name of choice has also had a negative impact in some areas. Some years ago the then government allowed schools to choose whether or not they would accept bulk-funding of teacher salaries. That "choice" tore apart school after school and community after community.

We also have a situation in our secondary schools where publicly funded state schools can "choose" how to assess students. Never mind that we are trying to become a first-world nation and develop an assessment system that will enable us to look forward, to stress the achievement of our young people rather than their failure. Never mind the large body of information available about how best to assess young people. Never mind the experience of teachers and those who work in education.

It is, it seems, more important to give people choice rather than commit to something and make it work properly.

All of this begs the question as to why we have specially educated and trained teachers at all. Why do we bother having schools with experienced principals? Why bother studying assessment and pedagogy in our universities? Perhaps we should determine education policy and practice with focus groups at St Luke's Mall of a Saturday afternoon!

We have also developed a tertiary system that has been based on the notion of giving students in our tertiary institutions greater choice on the somewhat flawed assumption that the institutions they choose will, by definition, be of better quality than those they do not.

The result has been a complete shambles with a small country of limited resources trying to support a burgeoning number of tertiary institutions, many of which are clearly of iffy quality.

So, what has gone wrong? We have had an economic and public policy framework based largely on choice for the past two decades and where has it got us? Growing gaps between rich and poor and inequalities in all the important areas: education, health, justice.

I still hear politicians and others bleating on about how, if we have still more choice, it will lead to improvements in our health system, education system, justice system and whatever else ails us. This is naive in the extreme. It is the effectiveness of the systems that will determine that, not simply choice and competition.

Of course we need choices. To a large degree the ability to choose gives us power. The question is, however, choice about what and why? In education there is a huge danger lurking that the system will end up being dominated not by good research and practice, but by the whims and prejudices of public opinion. If we are ever to make any progress, that must be avoided at all costs. Otherwise, why don't we all just call in Colmar Brunton to run our lives?

* Dr John Langley is Dean of Education, University of Auckland.