John Langley: Third way for school zoning allows pupils to specialise

John Langley

Opinion

Does anyone ever get tired of seeing the words, "Excellent location. In the zone for ..." plastered on signs and in advertisements? Clearly, many do not as they line up with their chequebooks to pay exorbitant sums of money to send their children to some school or other that is perceived to be successful or fashionable.

School zoning seems to be an issue again. It has been a vexed issue within the education system and various communities for years and that is unlikely to change, regardless of the particular model that is adopted.

There are three models for school zoning. Each is based on a different basic principle and has its respective advantages and disadvantages. Before any changes are made to the current system, the advantages of each should be considered carefully.

The first model holds that parents can apply to send their sons or daughters to whichever secondary school they wish, a system we had in New Zealand until the previous government overturned it. The basic principle is that parents should be free to send their children to any secondary school of their choice, regardless of where they live.

The advocates of this stance would say that it should be "parental choice" that determines school placement, not location. And, further, that many young people are disadvantaged from attending certain schools because they live in a different part of the city.

What they neglect to mention is that it is not parental choice at all. It is school choice. Parents can choose where to apply to send their children but, in the end, it is the school that chooses who it will teach.

This system often had the unfortunate effect of young people having to prepare and present curriculum vitae and, in some cases, undergo interviews, to seek access to a school. What a great way to start your secondary school career - turned down by a school for reasons that you will never probably know.

This model also produced two other problems. Firstly, it became common for some young people to be declined access to a school that was in the same street or over the back fence. The second was that a number of the "desirable" schools cherry-picked the most able students in various fields, strengthening their position and status at the expense of other schools.

In other words, the relative gap between schools became worse over time as some schools sought to select those students who would most advantage them.

In the fullness of time, it became clear that this model was not sustainable, either in terms of moral authority or practicality. Consequently, it was rejected by the Labour-led Government in 1999.

The model that replaced it is the one we currently have. It is based on the principle that young people must be able to attend their local school as of right and that any places remaining after that has occurred will be balloted to out-of-zone applicants.

The advantages are clear. Young people can attend their local schools as of right. There is none of the nonsense of making them apply and be interviewed. For those who apply from out of zone, if turned down it is not for some spurious reason or other but because their marble didn't come up in the ballot.

That said, there are some disadvantages. The first is that many of the more sought-after schools in New Zealand are located in the higher socioeconomic areas of our towns, cities and rural areas. It has been argued that young people are denied the opportunity to attend these schools if their parents are not able to afford the price of a residence in the zone.

Hence, the obsession that our real estate agents seem to have with "in the zone" advertising.

Another disadvantage of the second model is that some schools do offer specialist programmes in particular curriculum, sporting or cultural areas that would benefit some young people from out of zone who have particular aptitude in that area.

While it might be transparent and fair, the lack of flexibility inherent in this model effectively excludes them from any opportunity to attend such a school.

It is fair to say that, despite its disadvantages, the model of zoning that supports the principle of attendance at the local school has met with general approval.

A few of the higher-profile schools in Auckland have recently objected once again to the current system on the grounds that the sons and daughters of previous students may not be able to attend as of right if their families live outside the zone.

It must be asked, however, whether or not it is the primary role of our state secondary schools to continue family traditions or whether there are more compelling reasons for increasing the flexibility of the current system.

One possibility is a hybrid third model that would enable attendance at the local school to continue as a right, and retain the transparency of the ballot of those out of zone, but also provide a certain number of places for out-of-zone students who may wish to access specialist programmes a particular school offers.

For instance, a school may have a particularly strong sports academy or drama programme. Surely this is a better use of the possible flexibility within the system than to simply guarantee the daughters and sons of old girls and boys places as of right.

The way we zone schools will never be agreed by all. It should, however, be based on a set of clear and agreed social and educational principles, be transparent, respect the sensitivities of young people embarking on a new adventure, and offer some flexibility to enable schools to specialise and young people to take advantage of that.

It is not about preserving traditions from the past - it is up to those who pass through the school at any given time to constantly create and maintain the traditions of a school, not to maintain the privilege of some family groups at the expense of others.

Dr John Langley is chief executive of Cognition Education, an educational consultancy.