School flight and inequality
Christchurch has long been afflicted by the phenomenon of ‘‘drive-by schooling’’. Parents determine that, for whatever reason, the state secondary school they are in zone for or live near is not suitable for their children, who are transported across town to a more ‘‘desirable’’, often single-sex state school, integrated school or private school.
These decisions must be respected. Parental choice is important to our education system. There are many reasons for exercising choice, including religion, culture, family tradition or a belief that single-sex education is preferable for some. But at the same time, it is clear that secondary schools in more disadvantaged parts of the city have suffered from losing students to more popular, often oversubscribed, schools in other areas.
Yesterday, The Press reported that Christchurch students travel a total of 171,000 kilometres a day getting to secondary schools, but that would fall by 71,000km if they went to their local schools. University of Canterbury researcher Andrew Devonport analysed Ministry of Education data which also shows, unsurprisingly, that the average journey for state school students was shorter than private school students – 6.3 kilometres compared with 9.8km.
The data also showed, again unsurprisingly, that lower-decile secondary schools are more likely to suffer from the exodus to preferred schools. Hornby High School, Linwood College and Mairehau High School would be the biggest beneficiaries of roll growth if all Christchurch students suddenly opted to stay local.
Efforts to make education more equal have had perverse outcomes. The decile system was designed to distribute education funding according to need but was misused as a blunt instrument by parents when assessing the relative ‘‘desirability’’ of a school or suburb. School zones were intended to foster local communities and create educational equality but became a tool to enhance property values.
Former Education Minister Hekia Parata opposed the decile system and signalled that it could be replaced by a predictive risk modelling index, perhaps by as early as 2020. Despite the nervousness around exactly what the replacement involves, the disappearance of the decile ratings should be seen as a positive step in the journey towards greater equality of educational opportunity.
Some might argue that replacing the decile system is merely cosmetic tinkering, and they would be right, up to a point. The ‘‘class flight’’ from local schools to socalled better schools in leafier suburbs has taken place against a backdrop of social inequality, which grew in New Zealand in the 1980s and 1990s, and has become entrenched ever since.
A society that has clear economic divisions, and sees aspirations almost purely in economic terms, will inevitably respond to social and cultural signals that say education is a commodity and that the quality is better at one place than another. Again, that is simply the free market in action and families have a choice.
The problem of ‘‘desirable’’ and ‘‘undesirable’’ schools will not be solved until inequality itself is significantly reduced. Educational reformers often look to Finland as an ideal model. As well as having an enviable education system, it also has the lowest income inequality in the European Union. These problems are not unconnected.