KEY POINTS:
There is a dilemma over school funding. How schools are funded is always a touchy subject.
It has been an ongoing debate for years and won't go away as long as the present funding structures exist. Invariably principals, trustees and teachers say there is never enough money.
Equally predictably, politicians and officials plaintively respond by saying that there is, and point out increases in recent years.
"How much is enough?" Education Minister Chris Carter recently asked in desperate tones.
Schools get most of their money from two broad grants. The first is a base grant that supposedly covers the delivery of the curriculum, resources, professional development and school administration.
It is based on the number of students in the school. Hence the reason that schools wage war on each other to get the "bums on the seats".
The second is a decile grant based on the socioeconomic status of the students in the school. The lower the socioeconomic status of a school the more money it gets.
This grant is based on the cynical notion that parents from schools in richer areas will cough up additional funds so those schools won't need as many taxpayer dollars. In short, it is an attempt to level the playing field.
So, what is the problem? Basically, neither of these funding mechanisms bear any relation to the actual achievement of schools. There is simply no alignment between funding as an incentive and the performance of the school.
What are schools supposed to do in order to be deemed successful? The short answer is the achievement and wellbeing of students.
In the case of the base grant there is increasing confusion about what the grant is actually supposed to cover. How anyone would determine whether the money is being effectively used is a mystery. A rethink of this grant is needed.
What are the expectations of policymakers, parents and communities? Are the "basics" which the grant is supposed to cover fair and reasonable, or is it quite unrealistic to expect schools to deliver what is expected with the money they get?
This, of course, needs to be considered in the light of the tendency to heap responsibility for almost every social problem on schools to "fix".
Even worse is the decile grant. To begin with it stigmatises schools. The impression is often given that higher decile schools are better than those of lower decile. This is simply not true.
Why on earth should a school receive a bulk sum of money because of its socioeconomic status regardless of performance? If this situation persists we will continue to fund low decile schools with many extra millions of dollars regardless of what difference they make to those in most need of a boost in their achievement.
The schools where a little bit of anything is seen as better than nothing.
Similarly, high decile schools that cruise on the backs of more fortunate students, who sometimes succeed in spite of the quality of what their school offers, will have no incentive to improve or innovate. These are the schools where unsuspecting parents fork out tens of thousands of dollars for a house to get "into the zone".
Then, relieved to have their daughter or son in that school, they fork out even more in school fees. One must ask what value is really added in some of these cases?
Conversely, we will continue to ignore the high decile schools that really do make a difference for their students and receive no reward or acknowledgement for their troubles. And the low decile schools that do the same and receive nothing more than those that do very little, apart from moan about their plight.
So, what do we know already? What does current research tell us? We know that what makes the difference in terms of an effective education for our children are the quality of our teachers and the environment in which they work.
Not a particular kind of school! Not whether children and young people wear fashionable uniforms. Not whether or not the school itself is fashionable with people who are prepared to spend many thousands of dollars to "get into the zone".
Not whether the children and young people are streamed. Not class sizes. Not whether they are assessed by NCEA or Cambridge. Not whether or not they go to intermediates or middle schools.
It is all about the quality of the teacher and the quality of the environment in which they work. And quality teachers must be rewarded within an environment that motivates both them and the schools in which they work toward high standards of professional performance. There are three steps that need be put in place to change all of this. First, reward schools and teachers for their performance.
In terms of funding schools, let us have a sensible discussion about what any "base" grant should be in relation to what is expected to be delivered.
This discussion should also include a debate about what both schools and teachers should realistically be expected to provide to communities and not what we currently have - burgeoning expectations and the following uncertainty about who should fund those expectations.
Second, scrap the decile fund. Replace it with a funding system based on three criteria - maintenance, improvement and innovation.
Third, let's pay teachers more. It might be useful to increase the salary package of teachers by 15 to 20 per cent and make the last 10 per cent of that based on the achievement of those they teach.
Over the last decade much lip service has been paid to the importance of education, the need to have good teachers and how important it is to promote good schools.
When we do discuss these things we often look in the wrong places and, as a result, make very little change. Those who have always succeeded continue to do so and those who are disadvantaged continue to be. It is time to stop bickering about the small ones. Our teachers and learners demand - and deserve - nothing less.
* Dr John Langley is dean of education at the University of Auckland.
Contact: Amber Older, communications adviser, Ph (09) 373 7599 ext 83257 or 021 942 677. a.older@auckland.ac.nz>
