Editorial: Egalitarian approach fails pupils

It comes as a surprise to learn the gap between success and failure in our schools is greater than it is in most comparable countries. After all, the prevailing ethic of education in this country is equality. The state system is designed to produce a broadly similar range of ability in all schools. Those schools that are more sought-after, for any reason, are zoned so that their roll will be filled by students in their locality and they will not be able to lure the best from other schools. This is said to be for the good of all, but particularly good for the less-able pupils who can benefit from having better students round them.

Well, that is the theory. In practice, the less able are losing badly. International agencies have drawn attention to the wide disparity between those at the top and bottom of the range here. Now the Education Review Office has decided to do something about the 20 per cent of students who are not reaching a reasonable minimum standard of literacy and numeracy. From next June all schools visited by the ERO will face particular questions about how they are identifying students who are failing and what programmes they have introduced to help them.

Between now and then, schools will no doubt make efforts to ensure they can answer those questions - but at what cost to other students. Teachers, like everybody else, have only so much time and energy to devote to their job. Faced with students of a wide range of ability, they say they direct their material to the middle of the class. Habitually, both bright students and those at the bottom tend to be less well-served. Bright students will be more capable of occupying themselves and it is those at the lower end who cause concern. But neither group is receiving enough of the challenge or assistance it needs. If the bottom 20 per cent are now to receive more attention, the big band in the middle are likely to receive less.

All of that is self-evident and it should cause educational leaders to wonder whether it is wise to ask all schools to cater to the whole range. What would be so wrong with allowing the more successful schools to select the best students from anywhere? It could be done simply by abolishing zoning. When zoning was abolished briefly a decade or more ago, a great deal of mobility occurred in Auckland as parents sought the best-available school for their child. Had the present Government allowed that to continue, there would probably be schools specialising in different levels of ability now. It is unlikely that in any of them as many as 20 per cent of students would be failing to get the help they need.

The newly appointed Minister of Education, Steve Maharey, says the problem of the ability gap within schools might be tackled by applying the success of high-performing schools to others. Some time ago the Government set aside a fund to encourage successful schools to share their methods in this way, but not much more has been heard of it. The fact is, change does not come about simply by setting aside funds for the purpose, or even by adding a question of two to school review exercises. Change happens when it is in the interests of those who provide the service. When their livelihood depends on the numbers of students they can help to succeed, there is unlikely to be as many as 20 per cent left behind.

This implies that schools will be funded strictly according to the number of students they can attract and they will be able to reward principals and staff for results, all of which faces resistance from teacher unions and other traditionalists. But the "tail" of under-achievement is an indictment of the egalitarian set-up. State schools may have a broadly equal range of ability from one to the next but there is nothing equitable about the result. When a system is failing one in five young people it is time to change it.