Editorial: Let's clear up what's free in education

Every year about this time, complaints surface about the hundred of dollars in fees that some state high schools seek from parents. The sense of grievance leads inevitably to criticism that "free" education has become a mirage. So large have been some of the sums requested this year that the Associate Education Minister has been stirred into action. Boards of trustees will be asked to justify the "outright magnitude" of the amount of some donations.

David Benson-Pope's investigation will reveal a wide variation in the size of the requests. At one extreme a "donation" of $740 is being sought; at the other, schools, usually of the low-decile variety, are asking for little or nothing, preferring to operate a user-pays policy.

What should not be overlooked here is that education does, in fact, remain free. That is, parents are not being asked to pay the tens of thousands of dollars it costs to educate a child each year. What is being sought is money to cover peripheral items or extras, whether they be day-trips, van rentals for sports teams or camping excursions. The two should not be confused.

Regrettably, however, this an issue with potential for confusion at virtually every turn. Achieving a far greater clarity and transparency should be the ultimate result of Mr Benson-Pope's inquiry. The grounds for misconception run deep. While the Education Act enshrines the right to free education at any state school, it does not spell out what the Government is obliged to provide. The closest approach to clarification is a 1998 Ministry of Education circular which says "the right to free education implies that there should be no charge for materials used in the delivery of curriculum".

That proclamation, while insufficiently detailed, suggests that the likes of course and subject fees are out of bounds for donation requests. As they should be; the teaching of the curriculum is the essence of free education. But if this is the preserve of Government funding, it makes the likes of a $740 donation difficult to sustain. That is a considerable sum for what should be add-ons to core education.

The confusion does not end there. Often, it is difficult to know exactly how schools spend donations because boards of trustees record them under different expenses. It appears too easy to channel money into areas for which schools are not supposed to charge, especially when adherence to ministry policy is not monitored. In effect, parents are often in the dark about where their money goes. They could, in fact, be paying for something their child does not receive.

Mr Benson-Pope's investigation should lead to more certainty in such matters. The Government must state precisely what free education involves. There should be clear and rigid guidelines on the spending of donations, and the possible consequences if parents decline to pay. Similarly, boards of trustees must become transparent in accounting for donations. Standard financial reporting of spending should be introduced.

The Government investigation will surely conclude that some of the donations being sought are extravagant. A request for $740 for one child - or $1480 for a family with more than one child at a school - is a heavy burden for many households, even if that sum remains a small fraction of the actual cost of education. Nobody should be prevented from attending any state school because he or she feels intimidated by a donation request.

Most requests are, in fact, far less alarming. The average donation asked for one child is $152, according to a Herald survey of 134 state and integrated secondary schools. Only a relatively few have gone out on a limb. That suggests the Government might also consider a cap on donations. This would ensure a reasonable level of request, and cause some boards of trustees to re-examine the value of some of their spending. Nobody wants them to stop striving to provide the best for their students. But nor should their zeal lead to excessive demands on parents.