Zoning
August 31st, 2006 at 7:54 am by David FarrarNorman LaRocque writes in the NZ Herald on the problems of zoning. Some key points:
* more rigid school zoning laws do not remove selection from the system
* Instead of students being selected by schools, they are selected by whether or not they can afford to buy a house near the school of their choice (selection by mortgage).
* Children of low-income families are excluded from attending popular schools because they cannot afford to live near them
* High-income families have all the choices – they can choose a particular state school by moving to the relevant zone, an integrated school or an independent school if they wish to pay fees.
* Removing zoning can provide increased choice by breaking the link between where a family can afford to live and where children can go to school.
* Zoning legislation raises a fundamental issue: Why should some parents have their right to choice of school denied especially when we know school quality varies, in some cases quite considerably?
And of most interest to me was this:
Research from the Smithfield Project carried out in the 1990s after dezoning shows that Maori and Pacific students took the greatest advantage of choice. The proportion of Maori who attended their local school fell from 82 per cent in 1990 to 69 per cent in 1993. For Pacific students the fall was even greater (from 87 per cent to 67 per cent). For Pakeha, the figure went from 75 per cent to 72 per cent. That’s called voting with your feet.
Norman summarises with some common sense in what is such a polarised debate:
The real issue is which one is better, not which one is perfect. In my view, the costs of zoning exceed its benefits. The changes to zoning laws in the mid-1990s under National and later under Labour had no policy basis. It is time to review them.
No tag for this post.
August 31st, 2006 at 8:33 am
No quite that simple. What about the right of children to go to a school that is close to them instead of needing to be bussed all over town. Keep the Zones, if you got the money buy a house that is GZ, stuff those who cannot afford to do otherwise. Of course what Labour could do is “franchise” the successful schools to take over lesser performing schools. But the Teachers’ unions would not like that.
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 8:50 am
“stuff those who cannot afford to do otherwise.”
Vote:And there you have it, folks, the great New Zelaand egalitarianism in all its shining glory.
August 31st, 2006 at 8:56 am
What all of this conveniently ignores is what to do about “poor” performing schools. Its all very well to bang on about parental choice but in the end there need to be enough schools located convenietly to population centres so that we don’t end up bussing kids all over the place. Frankly, a hundred interviews with the head of Auckland Grammar does nothing to throw light on the situation.
ERO, in my opinion was a very good (National) initiative but it needs either more teeth. It also leads schools to the situation where they want to be able to select their own students (which DPF seems to support). This is not very thinly coded language for saying “we only want bright kids here thanks” or only entering children likely to get good grades into exams.
I would also like to see a system that provides principals with training and mentoring to make sure the a running a good institution. Heads really can make or break a school, whether it be in the poorest most disadvataged areas or the best richest ones.
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 9:19 am
Surely as noddy eludes to, the issue is more about getting the schools up to the grammer standards, not the other way around.
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 9:44 am
Those bringing up the “bussing kids all over the place” argument for zoning are conveniently ignoring the size of our current zones.
We already *do* bus kids all over the place.
I would think a blended system where a small zone radius around a school can give automatic entry (and consequent phenominal house prices to those few houses…), but then the rest are based on entry criteria.
Don’t forget that in terms of public schools it can still be up the Government to set *what* those entry criteria are…
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 9:56 am
I know that when zones were removed from schools in the 90s that the two major secondary schools in Otara (Hillary College and Tangaroa College) almost collapsed in the preceding years. It was not a good situation for the remaining students who attended the schools.
The arguments for zoning and the removal of zones are too theoretical and I would much rather see some hard facts based upon what occurred in the 90s. There must have been reasons for removing the zones in the early 90s and reasons for the subsequent rezoning mid 90s. One thing you can guarantee is that whenever there is a major change to the school systems (school zones, NZQA) the change will inevitably disadvantage some students. Would it not be better to improve the current system instead of another major change. Perhaps look the curriculum of the most successful state schools and apply that curriculum to all state schools?
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 9:57 am
I know that when zones were removed from schools in the 90s that the two major secondary schools in Otara (Hillary College and Tangaroa College) almost collapsed in the preceding years. It was not a good situation for the remaining students who attended the schools.
The arguments for zoning and the removal of zones are too theoretical and I would much rather see some hard facts based upon what occurred in the 90s. There must have been reasons for removing the zones in the early 90s and reasons for the subsequent rezoning mid 90s. One thing you can guarantee is that whenever there is a major change to the school systems (school zones, NZQA) the change will inevitably disadvantage some students. Would it not be better to improve the current system instead of another major change. Perhaps look the curriculum of the most successful state schools and apply that curriculum to all state schools?
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 11:55 am
The point people miss about underperforming schools is that you really have underperforming pupils. It is a hell of a lot easier for a teacher to do there job properly if the children turn up, are fed, clothed and have a good supportive network at home. What people are getting with ‘better’ schools is not necessarily better teachers or a better Principal but a better peer group for their children.
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 12:31 pm
I went to a decile 3 or 4 high school where you’d see dozens of kids being bussed out of the area in order to attend a ‘better’ school elsewhere. My sister went to a decile 7 high school where she got in off of the ballot of 200 students. My brother went to a private high school. Guess which one of us got university entrance?
A lot of this talk about ‘better’ schools is actually a nice way of saying that they want a better peer group for their kids and nicer classrooms to learn in.
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 1:01 pm
“This is not very thinly coded language for saying “we only want bright kids here thanks” or only entering children likely to get good grades into exams.”
I think Noddy’s correct but that shows another flaw in the system. What zoning also stops is the creation of specialist schools that view ‘bright kids’ in a different way. Why isn’t there schools specialising in performing/arts or sports, or sciences? Zoning means things get homogenised when there should be room for niche schools as well as generalist.
If Hillary and Tangaroa specialised in an area they may find that they attract pupils from all over and that in turn could boost overall performance in other subjects through the halo of being an elite school. Grammar might not like them poaching all the good sports people if (for instance) that was the chosen speciality, though it would be nice to see the worm turn.
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 2:36 pm
Actually insider specialist high schools work better when they are outside of a zoning system. For instance my city has an animation High School where kids from all over the country (Korea) come. There are specialist high schools for a whole raft of things: maths, science, foreign languages, PE but most kids will go to the local high school. Of course they have the population base to support such system where the problem is that NZ does not.
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 2:57 pm
Noddy I am in agreement with you and my fingers are shaking as I type this. I was a “bused” student from one side of Auckland to the other by parents who desired the best education for me(result questionable) My wife and I did likeweise with our children. But it shouldnt be so. Every child should have the opportunity of nothing less than a first classe education at a school close to them. We let the pollies the beauracrats and the teacher union get away with not providing this.Until we apply the blow torch to their Y fronts the lazy bastards will continue to slack.Good parents will always find a way to send their children to the best school they can despite the obstacles from the afore mentioned bastards
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 5:14 pm
stef says “A lot of this talk about ‘better’ schools is actually a nice way of saying that they want a better peer group for their kids and nicer classrooms to learn in.”
Selfish bloody parents – imagine wanting their kids to have good friends and classrooms. They should be prepared to sacrifice their kids’ interests in the name of Labour’s egalitarianism.
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 5:17 pm
“Every child should have the opportunity of nothing less than a first classe education at a school close to them.” Quite so.
That’s why I think ERO may need a few more teeth. As a parent I have read a few of their reports, and where they think attention is required they seem to offer remarkable support, planning and so on. They were also quite contractive in their criticism and suggestions.
I know it seemed to make a difference to our local school, as, in the end, did a change in principal.
Schools and education are always going to be a terrible hot potato. The one thing most people want more than anything else is the “very best” for their kids. But by only emphasising the “choice” for (some lucky) parents to send their kids to the “best” schools I think pollies are potentially getting our system into big trouble.
At primary school level at least, I have heard many overseas people say how good the educational experience is here (that’s from Canadians, USA and Europeans). Not sure how the college level compares.
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 10:57 pm
Taito – “Selfish bloody parents – imagine wanting their kids to have good friends and classrooms. They should be prepared to sacrifice their kids’ interests in the name of Labour’s egalitarianism.”
Vote:How exactly are kids’ interests being sacrificed? My brother and sister went to ‘better’ (read richer, whiter) high schools than I did yet neither of them got good enough grades to go to varsity let alone graduate. While schools can make *a* difference, the biggest difference is parental and community attitudes towards learning as well as an individual predispistion towards it.
August 31st, 2006 at 11:58 pm
That’s your view but why should your view of the relative value of a service limit my access to those services? I might think green doesn’t suit you; does that mean you should have limited access to green clothing?
Like it or not, the perceptions of many parents is that higher decile schools will produce better outcomes for their kids (and most of the time they’re right) therefore large numbers of parents would prefer to send their kids to high decile schools.
By delivering a captive supply of clients the current system removes incentives for underperforming schools to lift their game and protects them from the consequences of poor performance.
The kids who suffer the most from this are not your “richer, whiter” kids but the poor whose already existing disadvantages are compounded.
Still as long as it keeps the teacher unions happy and keeps them voting Labour who cares about the poor kids?
Vote: