KEY POINTS:
A few weeks ago Auckland University's dean of education, Dr John Langley, wrote a spirited piece in this paper pointing out that parents are not experts in his field and they should have more respect for the professionals.
We have, he wrote, "systematically undermined the status of teachers
by giving parents and communities the expectation that, not only should they be involved in the governance of schools, but that they know best about how their children should be taught.
"Can anyone seriously contemplate doctors, dentists or engineers," he asked, "putting up with such intrusion?"
Dr Langley ought to have been happy then when he read this week of the result of the election for the Selwyn College board of trustees, but I suspect he was not. Selwyn College lies in the heart of Auckland's eastern suburbs and has had some well publicised differences with its affluent "community".
The school sounds like a model of the social and educational principles close to the hearts of the profession. Words such as liberal, inclusive and diversity feature in its descriptions.
The "community" believes it concentrates too much on the performing arts and not enough on academic rigour, examination results and discipline. Its roll of 920 is about 200 below capacity and includes a mere 10 per cent of children from the primary schools of Mission Bay, Kohimarama and Meadowbank.
But whatever Selwyn is doing, it must be satisfying the majority of those who send pupils there and voted. When the result was reported this week candidates loyal to the school's principal and philosophy had trounced a ticket of concerned residents. The defeated campaign was determined, running even to advertisements in the Herald, and Education Minister Steve Maharey for one, was in no doubt it represented the local majority. When the loyalists won he issued a public reminder that they had to make changes.
"I will await advice and evidence from the board on how it is addressing the concerns expressed," he told the Herald. "The board must ensure the school meets the needs of the community".
What has happened at Selwyn, illustrates exquisitely a misconception at the heart of the way educational professionals, and their tame Government, want to run schools in this country.
They are fond of the the phrase, "the school's community" by which they mean the district in which it is situated.
But they do not give all the residents of the district a vote for the school's board. They do not dare, who knows what would happen?
They restrict the board membership and its constituency to those who already have children at the school and can be more easily led by its principal and staff.
Anyone who has sat on a board of trustees, as I have, knows this is exactly what happens.
Personally I don't mind very much. Dr Langley is right that teachers are the experts and should be trusted to run a school as they think best.
But the other side of that coin is that parents must be free to send their children to the school they think best, and they are not, unless they pay for private education.
This Government, at the urging of Dr Langley's profession, has fenced off the few state schools that are too popular so that all the others can have a secure catchment, called their community. When Dr Langley compares his profession to doctors, dentists and engineers he forgets that none of them ask the Government to divide cities into exclusive zones to ensure they always have customers.
They run their own operations and prosper, or not, on their reputations.
In a small town necessarily served by a single secondary school the notion of the school's community has meaning. In a city like Auckland it does not.
City dwellers are members of many communities for different purposes. The only interests most people share with their neighbours are the state of the physical amenities.
When it comes to social and cultural activities they can move more widely to associate with people of similar preferences and character.
That indeed is why people congregate in cities, for variety, choice.
This is anathema to educational theorists who believe that given a choice most would prefer schools like Auckland Grammar and that only the brightest, chosen by Grammar, would benefit, leaving the rest skimmed of their cream.
The Selwyn College election should be a revelation to them. Selwyn parents were offered a chance to change the character of the school and the majority of those concerned enough to vote have opted to keep it much as it is.
Sadly, they haven't got that choice. Somehow they must make the school conform to its fictional community or Mr Maharey says he will take direct control.
Why? Power and job security. So long as schools pretend to be nominally answerable to (non-voting) communities they can have a captive supply of pupils regardless of how well they do.
