School choice report can make a difference

One early morning, an elderly man walking on a beach came across a mass of starfish, stretching as far as the eye could see, stranded on the beach by the tide. Nearby, a small child was running back and forth from the beach, picking up starfish and throwing them into the water.

When the old man approached, the boy called out, "Quick, come and help me! The sun's coming up and the tide's going out. If we don't get them back in the water, they'll die!"

"Son," the old man said, "there are miles of beach and hundreds of starfish. You can't make a difference."

The boy bent down, picked up another starfish and placed it gently back in the water.

Then, smiling at the man, he said, "Made a difference to that one!"

As the oft-quoted story makes clear, even one life saved or transformed is worth the effort, and this was no doubt in the minds of the Inter-Party Working Group on School Choice in formulating its recently released report Step Change: Success the Only Option.

The working group, chaired by Act New Zealand's Heather Roy and consisting of National MPs Hekia Parata, Chester Borrows and Jonathan Young, Maori MP Te Ururoa Flavell and Act's Sir Roger Douglas, had its genesis in the National-Act confidence and supply agreement, and was tasked with reviewing policy options for funding and regulation of schools to increase parental choice and school autonomy.

While the report made little more splash than a single starfish, it contains some important findings and deserves close consideration.

Step Change limits its focus to those most in need and those not being served by the current education system, that is, the 20% tail of pupils who are failing and the top 5% who are gifted.

It is notable, however, in that it indicates firm inter-party support for the fundamental concept of choice as a means of improving education outcomes.

Step Change outlines a programme underpinned by the following concepts: enabling the 25% of most needy pupils to choose schools that meets their needs; flexibility for schools to match pupils' needs; quality in teaching, content and performance; and accountability for pupils' performance.

In short, the proposal is that funding will follow these children to the school of their and their parents' choice - government, integrated or independent - and schools can open, expand or innovate in response to pupils' needs and be accountable for their success.

The proposal is hardly radical. Sweden has had a comprehensive education voucher system in place since 1990.

First introduced by a conservative government, its popularity and success has surprised even its architects and ensured that subsequent social democratic governments dare not reverse it.

Chile, Ireland, the Netherlands and Denmark have all adopted similar approaches.

Australia has a large private sector and the Conservative Party in Britain plans to follow Sweden's lead, if it wins this year's election.

New Zealand already has, in effect, a voucher system for preschool education and much of the tertiary sector.

In addition, alternative education programmes already catering for those who are clearly failing or are excluded from school, operate on precisely the basis proposed by the working group: about $11,000 a pupil a year is paid to an approved consortium, with little constraint on how and where the education takes place.

Choice in education providers is also a logical continuum from implementing national standards.

If parents find their children are failing, what are they supposed to do about it? Step Change asks Education Minister Anne Tolley to appoint a task force to determine how to implement its proposals in time for 2011.

A system of choice for all children, not just those at either end of the spectrum, would be preferable and much more in tune with the rest of the world.

Nevertheless, the working group's proposal, based as it is on inter-party consensus, should be welcomed as a golden opportunity to do something constructive about New Zealand's shameful record of failing its socio-economically disadvantaged children. Mrs Tolley should waste no time in implementing the proposal.

If it makes a difference to even a small percentage of children at the bottom of the heap, it will be well worthwhile.

 - Roger Kerr is the executive director of the New Zealand Business Roundtable.