Dialogue: Parents entitled to choice when it comes to schools

Far from ignoring reality, National's plan to abolish school zoning sponsors a return to community-based decision-making, writes MURRAY McCULLY*.

Christine Fletcher's attack on the National Party's school-enrolment policy flies in the face of common sense and recent history. Mrs Fletcher should be supporting this policy because it is essentially the policy she negotiated and voted for in 1998 when she was an MP.

At the core of National's policy are two fundamental values. The first is that parents should have the maximum choice of schools for their sons or daughters. The second is that schools and their communities can make far better decisions than Wellington bureaucrats.

To make sense of the debate it is necessary to look at the recent history of zoning laws. In the days before Tomorrow's Schools, enrolment schemes were controlled by education boards. In 1989, Labour established home zones determined by the Ministry of Education.

National abolished these zones in 1991 and gave the power to determine enrolment policies to school boards.

The enrolment law was amended in 1998, with the support of Mrs Fletcher, giving parents the right to have their children attend a reasonably convenient school, but still leaving the development of enrolment policy to school boards.

The big change occurred in 2000 when the Government forced schools to have a geographic zone and required that any surplus places be allocated by a ballot. Schools lost any discretion and all the powers rested with the Ministry of Education.

An equally important change was made to the school property policy. New buildings would be provided only when all schools in adjacent areas had used all surplus capacity. Today's space crisis in Auckland secondary schools is directly attributable to this more restrictive policy on funding additional space.

National's school enrolment policy proposes to revert to the moderate 1998 legislation with some improvements. Mrs Fletcher's critical response could be justified if National was proposing an open slather enrolment policy. It is not.

Our policy is to repeal Labour's rigid zones and give schools back control over their enrolment schemes. It also involves a change of ministry policy in funding additional school buildings, rather than forcing pupils to attend schools where they do not wish to go.

National is also proposing that schools have the authority to require pre-enrolment by November 1 in the preceding year, to ensure a far smoother start to the school year.

The irony of Mrs Fletcher's criticism is that she wants Wellington bureaucrats, and not Auckland parents, to determine how our schools are managed. National has far more confidence in Aucklanders making these sorts of decisions for Auckland.

Mrs Fletcher failed her constituents in not getting progress on additional school space in her electorate in the 1990s because she refused to accept anything other than her pet site for a new school.

In contrast, National MPs to the north and south worked with ministry officials to meet the demand for additional space.

In my electorate, Pinehill School was built and opened. Rangitoto College received more than $20 million of additional buildings in the 1990s and other schools received huge boosts to cope with their growing rolls.

It will be interesting to watch Mrs Fletcher's stance as schools such as Auckland Grammar, Rangitoto College and McLeans College respond to the Government's directive to reduce their home zones.

This will see ugly neighbourhood arguments over who is, and who is not, local. It will see parental choice still further eroded and the property developers and real estate agents winning again. Our policy will work better for Aucklanders because it values choice and will reward excellence

At the moment, the most underperforming schools have to be full before the most successful schools can expand. What kind of message does it send if the worst schools in New Zealand are setting the pace rather than the best?

National will abolish the compulsory ballot for out-of-zone places. What sort of signal does it send to our young people when the places at select schools are determined by a game of educational lotto? Surely it is better to reward students' effort and success.

National's policy also recognises that not every school or school community is the same. Some students excel in a single-sex environment, some in a co-educational. Some schools specialise in music, others excel in sport. Why force the sporty student to go to the musical school and the musical student to go to the sporty school?

But this is not an issue just for Auckland Grammar and Remuera residents.

There are 350 schools, from decile 1 to decile 10, that have been forced by the Government to have zones. Parents in these communities are ambitious for their children and want the choice of where they go to school.

Our ambition is for a world-class education system that rewards excellence, provides choice to parents and students and is driven by community-based decision-making.

* Murray McCully is the National MP for Albany and the party's housing spokesman.