Sandy Latimer: Hidden costs of schooling cause alarm

Opinion

The recent exchange between Bill English, the National Party spokesman on education, and David Benson-Pope, the Associate Minster of Education, on the amount parents pay for their children's free compulsory education was noteworthy.

Mr English's comments could be summarised as: free education was a myth; the Government should stop blathering on about it and acknowledge the huge financial contribution that parents make by giving them more say in how schools are run.

Mr Benson-Pope's response was that parent contributions were only 6 per cent of total Government funding and had increased little in recent years, whereas Government funding had increased considerably. In other words, there was no problem.

The important point to note is that neither National nor the Government has suggested that parents should pay any less.

The statistics in their press releases focused mainly on parent donations and fund-raising. This is the easily visible part of parent contributions. More important, but better hidden in schools' financial statements, is the amount the parents pay in activity fees.

This includes such things as charges for trips, photocopying, use of computer equipment and subject fees. These are the charges which, if not paid, result in a child's exclusion from the activity.

It is impossible to know what these amounts are because in schools' financial reporting they are lumped together with items such as community education. If Mr Benson-Pope really knows how much parents are paying for their children's education, he must be clairvoyant, or have access to information not made public.

It is not possible to determine from schools" financial reporting exactly how much parents do pay. We know only that it is very large and it is increasing. This is a matter of considerable concern.

Free compulsory education is one of the hallmarks of a developed country. Within the international community, New Zealand is publicly proud of its free compulsory education system (aside from a few niggles about the NCEA).

The Government, in its periodic reports to the United Nations on New Zealand's treatment of children under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, has described in glowing terms the legislative and policy framework guaranteeing our children the right to free compulsory education.

What the reports do not acknowledge is that there is no mechanism within the education system to ensure this policy is implemented, and that schools' adherence to the policy is not monitored.

The reality is rather different from that described in the reports to the UN. It is true that the 1989 Education Act establishes free compulsory education as a statutory right, and that the policy on what parents may and may not be charged for is set out in Ministry of Education Circular 1998/25.

But schools' compliance with the policy is low. For example, my research found that only 29 per cent told parents that the donation was voluntary. Eighty-four per cent of secondary schools and 63 per cent of primary schools used mandatory words such as "levy" or "fee" instead of calling it a donation.

Thirty per cent of schools were charging parents for items for which they were not permitted to charge, according to the ministry's circular.

This is not just a case of naughty schools. The issue is systemic, imbedded in the structure of Tomorrow's Schools. The incentive to keep money flowing in from parents is strong at every level of the system, from Government through the ministry and schools to parents.

It is not by accident that the ministry does not concern itself with what schools are charging, legally or illegally.

There is a worrying lack of integrity within the education system, brought about by Government desire to maximise revenue from parents and minimise the contribution required from taxes.

Despite evidence to the contrary from principals and the School Trustees Association, the Government persists in saying its funding enables schools to meet all their costs for delivering education. Neither has the Government shown any interest in ensuring that parents are not over-charged and that children are not disadvantaged.

My research identified two relevant themes in schools' views. While they reported they could not manage without funding from parents, those at all levels above decile 1 (the very poorest) expressed concern for poorer families who struggled to meet the schools' charges, and sometimes could not. Hardship occurs and children are being excluded from participation in aspects of school life.

The other even more disturbing theme was the view expressed by many schools that free compulsory education was a myth, that it has been for some time and that we should stop pretending.

This loss of belief in the ideal of free compulsory education sits oddly beside the Government's proud assertions to the UN.

But perhaps we no longer believe that free compulsory education is important. In the past 15 years, New Zealand has moved a considerable distance down the path of user-pays in education.

We are becoming a society where a child's access to a reasonable level of education is increasingly dependent on parental ability or willingness to pay. Is this what we want?

We need to remind ourselves that a high-quality, compulsory education system, in which all children can participate, is fundamental to achieving a knowledge economy.

New Zealanders must decide whether a free primary and secondary system is worth the investment. If it is, we must stop pretending, and fund it appropriately.

If the Government does not believe this is a desirable goal, it must ensure this view has the support of most New Zealanders. It must either enforce the law or propose to change it, and let voters decide at the next election.

* Sandy Latimer, of Forrest Hill, wrote a thesis on issues surrounding compulsory free education for a Master of Public Policy degree at Massey University.