Preparing Our Children For The Best Possible Future

The name 'Correspondence School' usually conjures romantic images of children working with their mother through a package of educational material in an isolated high country station while their father musters sheep on horseback.

While this isn't a necessarily accurate image, the Correspondence School filled a curriculum gap in rural areas that lacked the sufficient student population to support a diverse range of subjects.

Over the past decade, however, the Correspondence School has been restructured four times - there has been a large number of redundancies, parent representation has been removed from the Board and the Post Primary Teachers' Association has advised members not to apply for positions within the school. Why? Because its role has changed in a way no one foresaw.

One issue is the increase in academic failures in mainstream education, with enrolment in the Correspondence School seen as a supposed 'solution' to the problem of educating children no one else wants to teach. In some cases, it has become the 'school of last resort'.

But the Correspondence School never claimed to be a soft option, a remedial school, or able to work in the absence of a committed parent. The school's core role is distance learning, but it has become something of a dumping ground for difficult children rejected by the mainstream.

Politically, it's easy to see how this happens: if a child were rejected by all branches of the educational establishment, the media would descend like a wolf on the fold. The child would become a household name and we'd get regular bulletins until action is taken. The pressure on the Education Minister would be intense. Enrolment in the Correspondence School avoids this and gives the appearance of action - an attractive option for any Minister.

Many mainstream education 'misfits' are from dysfunctional families. Should they be educated through correspondence, when a dedicated adult is a prerequisite to distance learning success?

The school's focus changed from educational to welfare - a change never debated. Results were predictable: academic results fell and costs rose. The school appeared in academic and financial crisis - a consequence of its changing role. The Correspondence School was set up to fail.

The financial crisis is a result of budget constraints. It defies belief that it costs more to teach a child by correspondence than in a school - it is simply that the school's new role is unfunded.

The obvious answer is ignored - provide facilities for those stood down and expelled from schools. Maybe this is ignored because it wouldn't be cheap: facilities would have to be small - 100 expellees in one place is too awful to contemplate - well-staffed and teachers would need higher pay to take on the extra challenge. A reasonable ratio of male teachers would also be desirable - but getting more men into teaching is an issue of its own. The Correspondence School would be left to do what it does best: impart distance learning.

ACT's education policies would go a long way toward dealing with many of the issues the Correspondence School has faced over the past four years, while also dealing more effectively with disadvantaged learners.

Education is the key to long-term prosperity - our next generation needs the skills and creativity to thrive in the 21st Century, not the 19th. Right now, we're failing our kids.

While there are some great schools around, most are only available to those with the means to pay for them. But under ACT, those schools would be more accessible to all. We'd award a scholarship to every child - not just those great at soccer or music - as of right.

Labour spends around $8,000 on each high school student in the State system and $5,500 on every primary school pupil. ACT would make that money available to every child as a scholarship. Should they choose another school - independent, integrated, kura kaupapa, the Correspondence School - the full amount that would otherwise be spent at a State school follows them. If they want to stay with the school they're at, fine - but they have the option. It's only fair.

Education Minister Chris Carter says Labour pays around $1,500 for every private school pupil - meaning these parents are short-changed $6,500. ACT says they should get their full entitlement - why should they pay twice: through their taxes, and through school fees?

ACT's policy is universal: all students will be State-funded, with schools held to account through an objective and transparent assessment system for students' success. There'll be choice: parents could choose a school that fits their children's needs - public or private. ACT will allow diversity in education, encouraging different kinds of schools and new kinds of teaching.

Funding will be in two parts: firstly, a base amount, which would be higher for secondary school than primary school students; secondly top-ups for students genuinely disadvantaged by income, distance and other difficulties. Funding would be equal across all types of schools - public, private, religious, secular, etc - and would follow the student to the school they choose.

We will abolish the excessively bureaucratic system of classifying and funding schools according to their character and who owns them. We'll fund all schools on the same formula and give them greater freedom to develop special characteristics. We believe in diversity, not 'one-size-fits-all' - Auckland Grammar is not for every child, nor is Scots College.

Our critics prefer State monopoly and State control over parental choice and diversity, and will label ACT policy as 'vouchers' or 'the McDonald's approach to education'.

With five kids I've spent my share of time at McDonald's - but it's only one option. We can also choose Subway, Thai, Japanese, French or Chinese. All must perform, otherwise they'd go broke. The need to compete ensures good and reliable service. Choice works with restaurants; shouldn't it be the norm for something as crucial as our children's education?

ACT's policy isn't radical - what's radical is demanding that our children be schooled in Government institutions, and forcing parents who save the Government the job of educating their kids to pay for it anyway in their taxes while paying independent school fees on top.

Scholarships make each child special and important, empower parents, and create opportunities for excellent teachers and teaching systems. Our aim is great schools - not State schools - whoever owns them; it's what's best for the child, not ideology and politics.

Every child is different, and we need to celebrate that - not constantly force them and their parents to conform with second rate solutions. The greatest gift we can give our children is a quality education to prepare them for the life ahead.