KEY POINTS:
Private ownership of state schools is an idea that will alarm the teacher unions as much as it has the Minister of Education. "The taxpayer would be paying for a school to be run like a private sector business," said Steve Maharey when he heard the National Party was contemplating the policy. It would "send a chill down the spines" of the education system, he said. His party would "die in a ditch over these arguments".
The Labour-led Government just might die in that ditch if National explains the idea well. Labour's opposition to private sector participation in public services is based on ideological dogma that appeals to its core voters but not to most moderate, open-minded, practical people who decide elections in this country.
One of the first acts of the present Government was to shut the door on private insurance companies competing with ACC. Next it ended a private company contract to run a state prison. It did not want public hospitals to put surgery out to private hospitals. It tried to exclude private childcare centres from its early education subsidies. It ended a state scholarship for attendance at private schools.
Independent schools that receive state subsidies were not permitted to increase their rolls. No more such "integrated" schools were to be set up where they might take pupils from state schools. A new tertiary education funding system frowned on private training establishments.
None of these restrictions were made in response to public clamour; Labour was simply looking after the interests of one of its largest constituencies, state sector employees. National under John Key has softened its opposition to many of Labour's moves and may struggle to present points of difference at the next election. This policy could provide its main distinction.
In "privatising" state school ownership, National would be doing no more than applying the very successful integrated schools model more widely. State-supported independent schools, many of them set up by Catholic religious orders, remain highly popular with parents seeking something more for their children. Integrated schools generally receive more applications than they can take and, under this Government, cannot expand their capacity.
National's policy has been to lift those restrictions and now it is considering a more general invitation to the private sector to build, own and maintain schools. The educational programmes and staffing of the schools would remain under state control.
The private sector would own only the buildings and grounds but the benefits to the public could be considerable. First, schools would be kept in much better condition than many state secondary schools appear today. Owners would have an interest in properly maintaining their property and as lessee the state could demand certain standards.
Secondly, the community could benefit from more use of school facilities. Private owners would have an incentive to maximise the return on their investment by finding uses for the facilities after school hours. A great deal of public investment is going to waste in closed schools at weekends.
Last, private initiative would have a chance. Not all wisdom resides in the Ministry of Education when it comes to spotting needs and opportunities for new schools. Communities and other educational interests could put up a plan to provide a school and have it supported.
All of this may be anathema to Labour and the teacher unions but not to most others. It could be the key to better schools.
