Public-private partnerships (PPPs) for building and maintaining new school property in New Zealand came a step closer this month, with the Government announcing it will create a detailed business case, and a tender process could start early next year, subject to Cabinet approval.
Under the PPP system, land would be owned by the Government, while the board of trustees would remain in charge of the governance and daily running of the school.
The private-sector partner would be responsible for financing, building, managing and maintaining the property for a set term.
College of Education senior lecturer Darrell Latham acknowledged there might be some advantages in PPPs, but believed the proposals were "long on rhetoric and short on detail", and could lead towards the privatisation of the nation's schooling system.
Finance Minister Bill English said PPPs would expose the public sector to new methods of asset management and procurement, helping them raise their game.
"That is vital if we are to ensure our children and communities get the modern classrooms and facilities they need within available resources," Mr English said.
However, Dr Latham said the statement was a "cop-out, a red herring and another practised manoeuvre by a politician towards the privatisation of New Zealand's schooling system".
"While in the first instance the focus is on school buildings and maintenance, it is not rocket science to see the potential direction this could take the New Zealand schooling system.
"We already have many fine examples of collaborative and co-operative relationships with our business communities.
This policy is suggestive of the business model being imposed on the New Zealand education system."
Dr Latham said PPPs were used in Australian schools, and while they made a modest saving of about 2.6%, many schools and communities saw PPPs as an "abject failure and a rort".
He was also concerned that private partnerships which were involved in the education system would want profits.
Dr Latham said Mr English and Mrs Tolley would be better off ensuring the taxpayers' present investment in education was directed towards priorities and making sure state schools received their full complement of funding rather than it being siphoned off to private schools.
"The reality is, at the end of the day, schools in low-decile and poorer areas will always be the losers under private school partnership and this once again will merely entrench inequality and disadvantage," Dr Latham said.
"Yes, there are some advantages. However, as always, the devil will be in the detail."
Mrs Tolley said PPPs had nothing to do with privatising education, and Dr Latham was making some "pretty wild, unsubstantiated" comments from a political perspective.
"PPPs in schools could result in modest financial benefits - but they also have the potential to deliver excellent educational benefits," Mrs Tolley said.
"School trustees and principals up and down the country tell me that school property is the most difficult management issue they have to deal with.
"Under a PPP, the school could focus more on teaching and learning, with the board remaining wholly in charge of the governance of the school, while not having to worry about maintaining the property."
Mrs Tolley said the Government was carefully examining all those benefits, and would ensure the details are "clear and reasonable".
