FAMILY TIES Schools hit back
Outcry over move to take out ‘Grammar clause’ in ballots
A proposal that would make it harder for parents to send their children to their old school if they don’t live in zone has generated a wave of protest.
The move has been criticised by some highly sought-after schools and their alumni, who fear family links could be lost as demand for out-of-zone positions continues to grow.
Around 1500 submissions have now been made about the proposal by the Ministry of Education, which fears the current system may be giving an unfair advantage to students with family links to a school.
The idea of changing the current priority rankings has raised ire from schools such as Auckland Grammar and Macleans College, which have strong alumni networks and are planning public meetings before consultation ends on June 16.
The current “Grammar clause”, as some call it, was introduced in 2010 to give children of former students preference over staff members’ kids and other out-of-zone applicants.
Under one of three proposals put forward by the ministry the chances of the children and siblings of former students being picked from the ballot are reduced to the same as a child with no links to the school.
An alternative proposal would see siblings of former students remain a priority but the children of former students having the same chance as those with no links.
In theory, changing the order would slightly increase the chance of a student from a lower socioeconomic area, with no family link, getting into a more sought-after school. The third option would see the priority rankings remain as they are now.
Vaughan Couillault, principal of decile 3 Papatoetoe High School, said he’d be “very comfortable” removing preference for children of alumni, while retaining priority for siblings of former students.
Both options would see children of teachers and other staff gain in preference, which Couillault said was widely supported because all principals wanted to serve their current community’s needs. But he was less concerned at the potential removal of alumni preference because almost nobody applied to Papatoetoe through that clause.
However, Couillault said that as national president of the Secondary Principals’ Association he knew of principals for and against the proposals.
Writing to Old Boys and current parents at Auckland Grammar, headmaster Tim O’Connor said the school’s community was defined not by geography, but by “the relationships forged with generations of families who consider Grammar their school”.
There were 85 sons of Old Boys among this year’s 554 Year 9 domestic students, including 33 from out of zone. Those 33 would not be able to continue their families’ connection to the school without priority status, O’Connor told the Herald.
“In our experience many wha¯nau — particularly Ma¯ori and Pasifika families — with strong multi-generational connections to central Auckland schools have been forced to move out of the enrolment zones. These families rely on the familial priority categories to send their children to their family’s school. Removing the ‘children of alumni’ category will disadvantage those children and result in a less diverse student population.”
Macleans College principal Steven Hargreaves said ending historic family links would “limit the school in terms of building community, sense of belonging and smoothing transitions for young people into school”.
His school’s zone is very small, and some former students just 600m away are out of zone.
If they want to send their kids to Macleans, the school should be able to take them, Hargreaves believes.
Others come from as far as Clevedon but are highly invested in the school — putting on van transport and ensuring their kids stay for extracurricular activities, he said.
“They’re making those arrangements with people they themselves went to school with. There’s a really good community and support network in place for it — that’s probably not going to exist now if they’re coming from all around Auckland because for some reason they might think our school is something special.”
Of this year’s 550 Year 9s, 25 got in as children-of-alumni, and a further
23 because a sibling had attended in the past.
Hargreaves, who is president of the Auckland Secondary Principals’ Association, believed few schools would want family legacy clauses removed but did favour increasing priority for staff and board members.
“You’re talking really small numbers — most schools that would be five, at most — so you’re not going to lock out many people but you’re going to really look after the welfare of your staff.”
Down the road at decile 8 Howick College, about 150 of out of 450 Year
9s came from out of zone this year. Of those, just eight used the sibling-of-former-student clause, and six the child-of-alumni clause. Principal Iva Ropati said abolishing those categories would be “crazy” and go against ministry values of community and whanaungatanga.
The changes would hurt a small number of children who felt strongly about attending their family’s school — without making a “scrap of difference” to overall equity, Ropati said.
“They underestimate just how important it can be when you’re talking to kids and parents and their eyes light up when they say, ‘My dad went here or my mum went here’.”
The Ministry of Education does not have a preferred option, deputy secretary Dr Andrea Schollmann said.
Education Minister Chris Hipkins had commissioned advice on whether the existing balloting criteria were equitable, fair and transparent, Schollmann said.
“We are consulting publicly so that we can be better informed before providing this advice.”
In response to a parliamentary question in May from National’s Paul Goldsmith, Hipkins said the Government felt students should not be given preference because their parents attended a school.
“If they want to enter the ballot for an out-of-zone place, they can do so, but they should not be bumped up the list on the basis that their parents might have attended 20 or 30 years ago.”
But in response to written questions from the Herald , Hipkins said: “We have no formal position on the matter.”