Winners and losers in school equity shakeup
Officials coy over specifics as $130m extra dished out across NZ with end to decile system, but nine schools face $100k drop in income under new index, writes Michael Neilson
The new school equity funding system will see nearly $130 million in additional funding dished out to more than 2000 schools, while nine will have to make do with drops of over $100,000 each.
The Equity Index is being introduced this year to replace the nearly 30-year-old decile system, which came to be considered a “blunt” determinant, wrongly seen as a marker of school quality, and out-of-date.
Deciles, ranging from 1 indicating greatest need up to 10, were also seen to increase the stigma and stereotyping of schools. Some experts said they came to be relied upon by real estate agents more than anything else.
The new framework has been described as a much more accurate determinant of need and is used to distribute equity funding, which in last year’s Budget increased a record amount from $161m to $240m.
The Weekend Herald requested a breakdown of the funding change for each school. This was in part refused, with an anonymised breakdown based on previous decile ratings provided instead (the Weekend Herald is continuing to seek the full breakdown).
The data released under the Official Information Act shows 2156 schools — over 90 per cent — will see an increase in funding due to the new calculations and overall funding pool boost.
This includes 376 schools that will see an increase of over $100,000 and 47 receiving more than $300,000 extra.
However, 269 schools will see a dip in funding, including nine that will lose over $100,000.
Three former decile 1 schools and four former decile 2 schools will lose over $100,000.
The biggest drop is $231,473 for a former decile 2 school, and $185,756 for a former decile 1 school.
The greatest changes in funding occurred among former lower decile schools, which the Ministry of Education said was because those deciles were out of date.
The majority of extra funding has been redistributed mostly to schools formerly in deciles 2 to 6.
Of the increases in funding, $42.2m is going to the top end of decile 6 and up, while the majority or close to $88m is going to the lower deciles.
The new framework uses 37 socio-economic measures that are associated with poor education outcomes.
These include socio-economic factors such as a parent in prison or a youth justice notification, as well as parents’ income and benefit history.
The indicators are measured for individual children from a Stats NZ database.
The results are anonymised and averaged over the students in each school for the past three years to give the school an Equity Index score. Index numbers range from 344 to 569, giving 225 possible scores.
A principal of a former decile 9 school, who spoke to the Weekend Herald on condition of anonymity, said he supported moving away from deciles but the principal still found his school’s equity score “arbitrary”.
Under the Equity Index, his school, with a roll of about 80 students, would see about an extra $4000, which would almost entirely be absorbed by the rising cost of living.
His school was situated in an area of relative wealth, but that was not reflected in the reality for many of the students attending school, many of whom had severe learning disabilities.
Former principal and chair of the Government’s advisory group Allan Vester said the concept of “winners and losers” from the new system was misleading.
“While it seems unfair to schools that are now getting less, the reason they got as much as they did previously was that their decile was not an accurate reflection of their need relative to that of other schools in New Zealand.
“I am sure those schools seeing a drop will be concerned. But the reality is that under the decile system money was going where it was not needed as much as others, and at some point, you have to make the change. That is also why the changes are being spread out over several years with significant support.”
No school or kura will receive less funding in 2023. From 2024, any reduction in funding will then be capped at 5 per cent per annum of their 2022 operational grant, to make sure drops in funding are phased out over time.
To ensure no schools lost any funding the extra funding provided by the Government would have had to be “significantly larger”, Vester said, and it was already the largest addition to a form of equity resourcing since deciles were introduced.
The old decile system was more focused on the community in which a school was based rather than the specific needs of the students.
“This system is considerably more accurate,” Vester said.
Vester said a perception that a school that might have poor socioeconomic factors but high education outcomes would lose funding was also incorrect. This was because the database was averaged out across the whole country, with the formula then applied to schools.
Still, Vester said New Zealand had long underinvested in education, in particular around equity.
“This only puts us in the middle of the OECD. It is good [to see the increase] but there is a lot more we could be doing.”
NZ Principals’ Federation president Leanne Otene said the group supported the new system but wanted to ensure there was funding certainty for schools.
“It’s good it’s child-based and going to the schools where it’s needed. But the concern lies with how schools are going to strategically plan and budget when there’s no certainty from year to year.
“But I have faith that has been considered, and that schools will not see dramatic changes.”
National Party education spokeswoman Erica Stanford said the party supported the move but she questioned why, given education funding had increased massively since 2017, the Government could not ensure no schools had a drop in funding.
She also said there remained principals who didn’t understand how the Equity Index has been calculated and why their school will receive less funding despite having more students with greater levels of need than ever before.
Ministry of Education operations and integration hautu¯ (leader) Sean Teddy said there was a balance between directing funding now to those schools and kura and young people who needed it most, while also making sure the transition was sustainable. “For the small number of schools who will receiving less funding, this does not mean that their students don’t face any disadvantage. It simply means that there are other schools and kura who have relatively more.”
‘I am sure those schools seeing a drop will be concerned. But the reality is that under the decile system money was going where it was not needed as much as others, and at some point, you have to make the change.’ Allan Vester, advisory group chair