Sara Meadows: Fees compound disparities in our education system

COMMENT

Well, I've finally done it - paid the last of this year's school fees, that is. No, not private-school fees due each term, just regular state-school fees, politely requested at the beginning of the year and often more fervently requested as time moves on.

Every February the dreaded school "fee", or donation, monster raises its ugly head. There are several problems with these "contributions" that parents make to education.

The first is the huge disparity between schools over the amount able to be "charged". In a survey of eight secondary schools earlier this year, two (with decile ratings of 2 and 3) requested $60 a student but, with a compliance rate of only about 50 per cent, collected around $30 a student.

At the other extreme was Auckland Grammar (a decile 10 school). There, 90 per cent of parents pay the $700 fee, meaning a return of about $630 a student. In other words, Auckland Grammar has 21 times as much money per student to spend as the poorer schools.

Wayne Edwards, a Massey University professor of educational administration, aptly described the situation when he said Auckland Grammar was "riding the crest of the knowledge wave, whereas other students will continually struggle to have the resources, facilities and skills to meet their aspirations".

What about the other five schools? They were all collecting between $100 and $150 a student - that is, up to five times the amount of the poorest school, yet less than a quarter that of the richest.

How can this possibly be equitable? It is one thing for governments to lie about primary and secondary education being free. It is far more pernicious to silently condone the donation process by which the "haves" get more, while the "have-nots" fall further behind.

And, yes, I know the Government funds schools differentially according to their decile ranking. The difference in funding, however, does not negate the argument that the disparity in donations increases the gap between rich and poor schools.

Secondly, the issue of fees can cause division and misunderstandings between parents and schools, instead of encouraging support for schools. This may be especially so in the lower-decile-rated schools, where parents' support and involvement are essential for the children's sake.

It is an embarrassing situation for parents who cannot afford the fees; they avoid contact with the school. And it is frustrating for the parents who pay, knowing that others could afford to but don't. They resent subsidising other children.

It is also difficult for parents who wish to make a political point by not paying, and, finally, it can lead to financial uncertainty and a considerable amount of wasted time for school administrators.

It has even led to relationships between schools and their students deteriorating to the point where students whose parents have not paid fees have been "named and shamed".

How can any of these situations be anything but destructive?

Thirdly, most parents never question whose responsibility it is to provide a suitable education for their children. If the state has the power to determine what will be taught, by whom, and when and where this will take place, surely it also has the responsibility to fund this education adequately. After all, appropriate education of the young benefits the whole of society.

It is widely understood that better education leads to a reduction in problems with health, housing, employment and crime. Imagine the savings in all these areas if sufficient public money were put into schools, rather than underfunding all schools and hoping some will make up part of the shortfall through parent donations - and ignoring the inequities this system encourages.

Finally, it is clear there is confusion over what schools can charge actual fees for, as opposed to what donations may be spent on. Many schools will have been surprised to read in the Herald earlier this year that they "cannot legally charge fees for special education programmes, photocopying except in exceptional cases, or computer facilities".

Is your school playing by the rules? The answer to that is almost certainly no.

Many principals have itemised things they could not fund without donations. Everyone identified information technology as one of the main areas that must be supported by donations.

Now the Ministry of Education claims that state schools are not allowed to demand a fee or levy to cover the cost of tuition or materials used in the curriculum. But it fails to provide the funding schools deem necessary to deliver the level of computer literacy apparently required by the curriculum.

Catch-22? You bet.

My local primary school, for instance, receives ministry funding sufficient for about two of the six computers that it needs to replace annually.

In a school of 400 pupils, $11,000 is spent a year on photocopying, paper and computer consumables.

I assume these figures are typical for a primary school of this size. How is any school supposed to cover these costs? Fund-raising? From within the rest of their budget? I don't think so. They desperately need the donations, despite the fact that, legally, they can't use them for these items. What a ridiculous situation.

What should be done? Here are a couple of ideas:

* Petition the Government to make school fees illegal, and demand it funds schools adequately through taxation. This would spread the load more equitably across society, all of which benefits from quality education. It might also lead to a wider interest in education generally and possibly to some questioning of what quality education actually is.

* Do some thorough research into the benefits of computers in primary schools. It appears to be assumed that it is not just good but essential that all levels of children use computers. As a teacher and a parent of five, I reckon that real experiences, talking, discussing ideas, reading, writing, creating and problem-solving will be of greater benefit to primary-school children than anything they might do on a computer.

Is the cost of this technology educationally justifiable? Would it be better spent on more teachers, books, excursions and resources? Not to mention teaching children the critical, creative and evaluative thinking skills essential in today's world. Why not wait until Years 7 and 8 to teach the basic computer skills required before secondary school?

Society no longer expects equal outcomes in education, but we are still a long way from providing the equal opportunities that supposedly replaced this concept.

School fees are part of the problem. They exacerbate the differences of opportunity and mask the true extent of education underfunding. Let's get rid of them.

* Sara Meadows is a Helensville writer.