Brian Rudman: A two-fingered salute to the Ministry of Obscurantism

Predictably, Auckland Grammar's battle to expose zone cheats has quickly been seized upon by theorists eager for another chance to argue the toss over this form of pupil rationing. A more relevant reaction would be to apply a red hot poker to the boffins in the Ministry of Education, who have failed, once again, to produce a few simple rules, in plain English, that parents and principal alike can comprehend.

This week it's zoning regulations that leave even those with a master's degree in Double Dutch struggling to understand. Last week it was the ministry trying to explain to parliamentarians the finer points of secularism in public education. I'm not sure how the MPs coped, but I had to have a quiet lie-down after wading through the document. I still can't fathom the ministry's claim that Maori spiritualism passes muster and can be taught in schools, but that white man's religion does not and is therefore not allowed in places of education. Except, that is, when "fenced off".

Then again, after a decade of watching the ministry ducking and diving over how "compulsory school fees" slot into a system of free education, I shouldn't be surprised. My guess is the ministry has a whole sub-department specialising in obscurantism, and welcomes any chance to spread confusion into new realms.

Getting back to zoning. Whether you buy into the idea of single-sex education or not, the Auckland Grammar brand is one that attracts eager parents, some willing to push and shove and even cheat to get their sons accepted. As a result, the school has had to hire a truant parent officer to try to identify those who have lied about their place of residence.

The Education Act says you cannot use "a temporary residence" or false address when enrolling at a school. But it doesn't define "temporary". Nor does it say whether the child can stay on if the family then shifts out of zone. Auckland Grammar has taken a literal interpretation of the act. The central bureaucrats have decided the school has been too harsh and said 20 of the 51 boys given the sack should get a reprieve. Headmaster John Morris has accused the ministry of making policy on the hoof and is now threatening court action.

For the kids caught up in this, it's a nightmare, and it's the bureaucrats with their oracular legislation who are to blame. If they'd made the rules plain, everyone would have known where they stood from the beginning.

Mind you, Headmaster Morris must have got a shock that the bureaucrats finally summoned up the courage to challenge him. For years I've been expressing my amazement at how Mr Morris and other principals up and down the country continue to give the two-fingered salute to the statutory requirement that education be free. From time to time the ministry grumbles, then rolls over and on it goes.

A few years back I quoted a letter Mr Morris wrote to hopeful parents inviting them to an enrolment evening which included the obvious nudge nudge that "it would be appreciated if you could bring the school fee of $500 at this time to confirm acceptance of the place offered".

This despite ministry directives that any such letter should indicate that any donation is voluntary and that every child between 5 and 19 "is entitled to free enrolment and free education".

Imagine if Taito Phillip Field had written such a letter to desperate constituents seeking his help. But shaking down parents is such a culturally acceptable part of New Zealand education that it carries on under the ministry's Nelsonian eye, in just about every school in the country.

A couple of months back, the ministry promised new draft guidelines on the matter. How many times have we heard that?

As for the promised new guidelines on religious instruction in schools, what a confusion they promise to be. On the one hand, there's a gesture towards secularism with the recommended ban on "whole-of-school" instruction or observance and an "opt-in" rather than "opt-out" requirement for attendance at any religious happening.

But then the ministry goes all soft and decides that when Maori culture is taught, "it may contain elements that are spiritual or religious" and therefore does not "allow for a split between secular and spiritual or religious content".

In other words, Christianity is okay in Maori but frowned on when offered in English. What would we do without them?