Labelling our schools

Pass marks to Education Minister Nikki Kaye for coming up with an alternative to the decile system for supplementary school and early childhood funding. 

Despite serious reservations as to what has been proposed, decile ratings have prompted unfortunate unforeseen consequences.

The one to 10 deciles are calculated across several measures based on a school’s catchment area.

Schools in  lower deciles receive extra money — worthwhile recognition for the greater challenges faced by schools and teachers in those places.

Decile 10 schools are in the wealthiest and most educated neighbourhoods, and decile 1 in the poorest.  Some parents equate decile numbers with quality, to the detriment of local schools in lower decile areas. 

Other parents, understanding the system better,  look for other reasons to judge schools. A well-led low-decile school could, in fact, add far more value to pupils’ education and be better than a higher decile school.

Ms Kaye is developing a system  whereby money will be allocated  according to numbers "at risk".

This would be compiled from school rolls and government data through its Social Investment Agency. Both the Ministry of Education and schools themselves would not know which specific pupils were "at risk".

The total amount of  funding for each school would also be private so this could not be used by the public to judge school quality.  The next stage is further liaison with education interests and government chief science advisers  to finalise the risk factors. This system would target the challenges  schools  face with far more accuracy.

Supposedly, parents would judge schools by examining Education Review Office reports and the  strategic plan.  Neither will be particularly  revealing, unless the school has serious problems.

Instead, the rumour mill, the charisma of principals and location will remain important. 

Schools in low socioeconomic suburbs, particularly those  close to wealthier areas, will still suffer pupil flight.

Another drawback will be the  loss  of the context decile ratings provide when examining school achievement. 

Those who recognise the privilege, advantages and head starts for pupils from high socio-economic groups from the day they enter high school  expect considerably higher-average results from high-decile schools.A further reservation is over the secrecy of the proposed system. 

The disinfectant of sunlight from openness discourages favouritism and corruption.  It promotes senses of fairness and justice. 

It is always dangerous to keep information under wraps.  School information that does not relate  specifically to individuals is usually  made publicly available.  

The minister is planning to talk to the ombudsman about maintaining confidentiality on school "at risk" totals.

The proposed "at risk"  points make sense; for example whether the child has a Child, Youth and Family notification, the mother’s age at the child’s birth, the  father’s offending and sentence history and so on.  Ethnicity is also advanced as a risk factor.  

It might make more sense, though, for  ethnic disadvantage to be picked up, as it will be, through all the other measures.

Ms Kaye has allayed some fears by saying no school will lose funding under the changes.  

At present, about 3% of school operations budgets are through decile funding.

Like the decile funding, schools would be free to spend this money as they see fit. 

Given the dissatisfaction with the decile system and,  at the same time, the necessity to provide additional funding to schools with more disadvantaged pupils,  a change should be worthwhile.  

Ms  Kaye’s  proposal has  strengths and weaknesses and is worth further work, liaison and modification.

Whatever system eventuates,  schools will be labelled by parents, often on the basis of the part of town in which they are located and often unfairly.