Editorial: Schools that want to run themselves should be allowed to

The task force's proposal is to turn the clock back, placing all state schools once again under the control of district education boards, or "hubs" it suggests they be called this time. Photo / 123RF

Editorial

Just before the summer holidays the Government received the report from a taskforce it set up to review the performance of "Tomorrows Schools", the system by which all state schools have been run for the past 30 years. Essentially the system gave them more autonomy. Every school was to have a board of trustees elected by parents which would appoint its principal, set some of its policies, including whether to ask parents for "donations", and maintain its buildings and grounds and with a fund provided from taxation.

Teachers' salaries continued to be paid by the Ministry of Education and all schools had to follow the national curriculum. But otherwise schools gained considerable discretion over the standards of their facilities and much else that was previously decided by district education boards that were an arm of the government.

This has proved to be too much autonomy in the view of the taskforce. It reported that "many boards" do not have the capacity to manage such things as property and principal appointments. As currently constituted (parent elections) it was difficult for them to represent their community. Decisions such as suspensions and expulsion could be made without due process or checks and balances.

Of most concern to the taskforce, it appears, the system had caused "unhealthy competition" between schools to the disadvantage of some children and their families.

The task force's proposal is to turn the clock back, placing all state schools once again under the control of district education boards, or "hubs" it suggests they be called this time.

The hubs would be able to pass some decisions back to school boards that were considered competent to make them but it is very clear where power would lie. No wonder some schools, as we report today, are gearing up to resist this takeover.

They are schools that obviously consider themselves perfectly competent to make their own decisions and do not want to be having to constantly ensure their decisions meet the approval of a hub that could withdraw their delegated authority. That is not autonomy, it is sop to the schools that want it.

Doubtless it is true there are schools that struggle to find board candidates with the skills required and willing to give their time to the task. But if they need more help that is already available from the Education Ministry the hub system could be set up to provide. But it should be the school's decision to pass those responsibilities to the hub, not the reverse.

The Government will be reluctant to give that discretion to schools because, like the task force, the Labour Party is anxious to reduce inequality. Letting some schools retain their present autonomy while others become largely hub-run would not remove educational distinctions in the public mind. But public education has long been fighting a losing battle against popular perceptions of distinction.

They call this "competition" but it is not really. Prestigious schools do not have to compete with others, they invariably have more applicants than they can take. Other schools need to work hard to maintain their rolls by trying to look like the kind of schools most parents want their child to attend.

If hubs can do a better job than boards for struggling schools, they proposal would be worthwhile. But it need not mean taking over schools that want to run themselves and are doing it well.