On Removing a Label
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Removing the decile label: AN INQUIRY ON THE CAUSES, IMPACTS AND POSSIBLE MITIGATION OF THE STIGMATISATION THAT ACCOMPANIES RESOURCING FOR DISADVANTAGE. Allan Vester Prepared for the Ministry of Education, October 2018 Section 1 Table of Contents Section 2 Introduction ................................................................................................... 8 Section 3 Laying the groundwork for the segregation of schools by decile. .................. 11 3.1 Tomorrow’s Schools ................................................................................................... 11 3.2 The Legacy of Tomorrow’s Schools. ............................................................................ 13 Enduring attitudes ...................................................................................................................................... 13 Self-managing governance and school zoning ........................................................................................... 14 Capital Works ............................................................................................................................................. 16 Education Review Office ............................................................................................................................ 16 Decile, the media and real estate. ............................................................................................................. 17 Section 4 Understanding the impact of decile .............................................................. 19 4.1 Decile and roll size ..................................................................................................... 19 4.2 Decile and ethnicity. .................................................................................................. 22 4.3 Decile and student movement .................................................................................... 22 Two communities in more detail ............................................................................................................... 23 4.4 Decile and International Fee-Paying Students ............................................................. 27 4.5 Decile and Principals .................................................................................................. 28 Section 5 How is decile seen by different groups? ........................................................ 29 5.1 Decile is misunderstood ............................................................................................. 29 5.2 Decile as viewed by Principals and Teachers ............................................................... 31 5.3 Decile and parent perceptions .................................................................................... 31 5.4 Decile and its impact on roll ....................................................................................... 32 5.5 Decile and staffing ..................................................................................................... 33 5.6 Decile and students .................................................................................................... 34 Section 6 Support and Challenges ............................................................................... 37 6.1 Support for targeted funding for disadvantage ........................................................... 37 6.2 Potential opposition to change. .................................................................................. 38 Additional resourcing is not needed. ......................................................................................................... 38 Low Decile Schools are already getting the right amount or even too much. ........................................... 40 Mid-decile schools are disadvantaged. ...................................................................................................... 41 The true level of current decile funding is misunderstood and overstated. .............................................. 42 Do schools effectively use any additional resourcing that they receive? .................................................. 43 Absolute and relative funding changes. ..................................................................................................... 45 Section 7 Resourcing while mitigating for stigma. ....................................................... 46 Removing the decile label: An inquiry on the causes, impacts and possible mitigation of the stigmatisation that accompanies resourcing for disadvantage. 7.1 Framing the problem. ................................................................................................ 46 7.2 Avoiding potential stigmatizing effects. ...................................................................... 47 7.3 Support via staffing. ................................................................................................... 49 Training and Qualifications. ....................................................................................................................... 51 Appointment and retention incentives ...................................................................................................... 52 Getting appointments right ....................................................................................................................... 54 How networks are created and sustained. ................................................................................................ 55 International Approaches. ......................................................................................................................... 57 7.4 Provision of Information for parents. .......................................................................... 57 What official information would be most useful? ..................................................................................... 59 Section 8 Portrayal of Equity Index. ............................................................................. 61 8.1 The language used. .................................................................................................... 61 8.2 Anticipating opposition .............................................................................................. 62 8.3 The Ministry on the front foot. ................................................................................... 63 8.4 The Ministry and models of use. ................................................................................. 64 8.5 Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 66 3 Removing the decile label: An inquiry on the causes, impacts and possible mitigation of the stigmatisation that accompanies resourcing for disadvantage. TABLE OF FIGURES Figure 3-1: Total rolls by type and decile 19 Figure 3-2: Average School Roll by Type and Decile 20 Figure 3-3: Changes in numbers of students in schools by decile, 1996 -2014 21 TABLES Table 3-1: North Shore Secondary School Rolls 2000 to 2017 23 Table 3-2: Number and Percentage of Māori and Pasifika Students in North Shore Secondary Schools 24 Table 3-3: Napier secondary schools’ decile and roll 25 Table 3-4: Hastings secondary schools’ decile and roll 26 Table 3-5 : International Students by North Shore Schools 27 Table 3-6: Number of Primary Principals by Decile 28 Table 0-1: Average cost per student across size and decile, full primary schools69 Table 0-2: Average per-student resourcing for secondary schools (7-13 and 9-13) by size and decile 70 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The proposition for this inquiry is that stigmatisation of schools according to decile is a symptom of growing systemic inequity and economic disadvantage. Decile has become a synonym for quality and low decile schools are perceived by many as schools for those who have no choice. Furthermore, despite the absence of ethnicity in the decile calculation, the ‘low decile’ label marks ethnicity, thereby colouring community perceptions about schools. The inquiry examined the literature surrounding resourcing for disadvantage; examined data related to decile; and tested the proposition via informal-style interviews and surveys with principals from primary and secondary schools, board members, teachers, student teachers, and students of schools in Auckland, Hamilton and Hawkes Bay. Interviews were also conducted with officials in the Ministry of Education, Education Council, NZEI, NZPF, Secondary Principals’ Council, and the Education Review Office. Findings: The general conclusion of most research examined in the literature reviewed for this report is that “school choices are made primarily on social rather than educational judgements.” Attitudes around school choice are not easily changed. They impact the way schools and the wider community responds to any change to resourcing formulae. Attitudes to decile are shaped by the history of school choice in New Zealand. The absence for a long time of any central oversight of governance over matters such as zoning has led to imbalanced school rolls and ghettoization of some schools. Decile contributes to infrastructure inequity because capital works policy favours schools with growing rolls or in new housing and wealthier communities. External reviews, while a logical part of a devolution of control to individual schools, ignore community context and therefore have the unintended consequence of intensifying a “cycle of decline”. Decile is now embedded