SUBMISSION TO THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE EDUCATION AMENDMENT BILL FROM: Guy Gifford This submission covers funding arrangements described in the Private Schools Conditional Integration Act (PSCIA). It is my contention that the Ministry of Education has been asleep at the wheel. The intentions of the act were clear, but the Ministry has chosen to interpret them in such a way that they now represent the opposite of what was intended. As a result, there is no even playing field, and the state schools have been severely disadvantaged. In the words of Professor Martin Thrupp, our state system has been undermined `through apathy and stealth`. I support the subsuming of the Integration Act into the Education Act, but it represents the ideal opportunity, (perhaps the only opportunity) to correct the problems. What is the point of transferring the old Act if it was in dire need of upgrading? As Jonathan Hunt (regarded as the architect of the PSCIA) said to me recently; If we had foreseen how the act would be interpreted, the mood of the house was such that the members would have moved to prevent it. Most of the suggestions below are not my own; they are largely taken from the Ministry`s own booklet `An Education with a Special Character`*. I have no idea why the Ministry would present these suggestions for public discussion, and then summarily withdraw the paper. Nor do I have any idea why the suggestions made are at complete variance with the policies the Ministry presently pursues. BACKGROUND The Act describes a simple division of responsibilities. The church/proprietor supplies The buildings The taxpayer provides The teachers So, the proprietor assumes the role of the government in a state school while the Board of Trustees `manages` the school exactly as in a state school. There is a condition; `If the proprietor accepts government funding, he cannot charge FEES as well. He may seek donations, just as in a state school, but there must be NO COMPULSORY FEES`. There are four areas causing problems; * An Education with a Special Character - a public discussion paper on the consolidation of the PSCI Act into the Education Act (2003).
1 ATTENDANCE DUES * There were no Attendance Dues in the original draft of the Act...these were a late addition. There was just #451, `voluntary contributions`. This indicates that `donations` were always paramount. * The intention was that if a school took out a loan to bring their buildings up to a standard suitable for integration, they should be allowed to charge a FEE to cover interest/costs of a mortgage, and to repay borrowings. That is why the wording is dominated by terms associated with mortgages, debts, liens, etc. The expectation was that when the loan was repaid, the Attendance Dues would vanish, and all subsequent upgrades and replacement of buildings would be done from `voluntary contributions`. * But the Ministry have allowed the Attendance Dues to morph into a permanent FEE, even though #451 seems perfectly clear----there are to be NO FEES for buildings. The Attendance Dues have become permanent, even though schools that integrated many years ago should now be debt free. * When the Act was written only minor maintenance was provided by the taxpayer (the `operational grant`, same as for state schools), but now Proprietors receive funding for capital works and major maintenance (at 85% of the rate of state schools). They also receive depreciation grants, and grants for equipment and furniture. If the taxpayer is now offering all this extra capital funding, money that was not available at the inception of the Act, why do we need these Attendance Dues at all? * High Attendance Dues encourage an Integrated School to overcapitalise, to `empire build`, to provide a show of extravagant buildings that state schools can not hope to match. It`s the best advertising they could get. * `The level of Attendance Dues acts as a gate-keeping device and limits parents choice` (Minedu discussion paper), but then they allow A-List integrated schools to charge astronomic Dues! It`s hard to fathom why they say one thing in a discussion paper yet allow the opposite out in the world of the well-heeled. The Ministry speaks with forked tongue! The ultimate irony is that the country`s most expensive IS, Waikato Diocesan, exists on a paltry $420 as Attendance Dues. while Wanganui Collegiate is allowed to charge a whopping $2,700. Why the difference? * Attendance Dues actually represent a poor investment for parents. Because it is a FEE (not a donation) GST must be paid at 15%. And again, because it is not a donation, parents are denied the opportunity for 33% tax-credit on personal taxation. If the Ministry were looking after the best interests of parents, exorbitant Attendance Dues would not be sanctioned.
SUGGESTIONS 1 Set a date by which all Attendance Dues must have reduced to zero` (Ministry suggestion). Perhaps 10 yrs from the taking out the loan? 2 `Introduce a national per-student price ceiling a proprietor can charge` (Ministry suggestion). 2 FUNDRAISING The PSCI Act is predicated on a clear division of roles; The Proprietor provides the Buildings The Board of Trustees the staff and the day-to-day running of the school The Act provides for each party to raise funds for their own use. #451 states that a proprietor `may conduct fund-raising activities within the school`. To most people, this means that the proprietor can run a gala or raffle, with the proceeds going to improving the school buildings, because THAT IS THE ROLE OF A PROPRIETOR. But the Ministry declares that these funds can also be used FOR EXTRA STAFFING, which is NOT the role of a proprietor, and this is the point of contention. (My independent legal advice claims the Ministry is wrong; politicians of the time such as Jonathan Hunt and Sir Kerry Burke claim this was never intended; the Office of the Auditor General states this `reduces transparency...it makes it difficult for parents to satisfy themselves that funds have been used as intended`; the Association of Integrated Schools says this is not what was intended, and assure me that catholic schools do not do this). The Ministry website written many years ago also confirms, The Proprietor can raise funds for his interests, and the Board of Trustees can raise funds for his interests just as state schools do, but each entity is to administer his own. That is, no donations between related parties. Section 451 must be clarified so that it is clear a Proprietor can raise funds for his BUILDINGS (but not teachers) and that he must administer his own funds, not `donate` them to the Board of Trustees. Suggestion; amend #451 to read A proprietor may a) conduct fundraising activities within the school for the development, maintaining, and upgrading of school premises,
That should stop the Proprietor raising funds for extra staff, and then it can be done the way the Act intended----through the Board of Trustees. However, #454 makes it clear that such fundraising is to be similar to that in comparable state schools. At present integrated schools are asking two or three thousand dollars per student. State schools can never compete with that, and a cap needs to be put on the amounts raised. Suggestion; #454 should be amended to read; Or, `The Board (of Trustees), the principal, staff members, and students of an integrated school may take part in fund-raising activities in the same manner, for the same purposes, and for similar amounts for the benefit of the students as are permitted in the case of state schools. `The Board of Trustees in an Integrated Schools may seek donations from parents for the same purposes as are permitted in state schools, but in no case shall the amount sought be greater than the maximum amount sought in any state school` (currently $1050 at Auckland Grammar School). 3. GOVERNMENT FUNDING OF PRIVATE SCHOOL ASSETS The taxpayer would be surprised to learn the extent of taxpayer investment in the physical assets of private schools. The understanding of the public is that the government provides maintenance funding for private schools, but the upgrading, and replacement of buildings is up to the owners of the school. That all changed with a court decision that `a new roof is maintenance not capital works, and if a new roof is maintenance, so are new windows, new walls, and the new furnace. Extensive lobbying by the catholic church has seen virtually all replacement costs met by the taxpayer. It is known as POLICY 1 FUNDING, and seems in complete conflict with a central pillar of the act expressed in #456 (d). ` A proprietor must plan, implement, and PAY FOR the capital works that are approved or required by the Minister, with a view to replacing, improving, or enlarging the school, its buildings and its associated facilities at the minimum standard set`. We have in effect a `grandad`s axe` scenario. But wait, there is more! POLICY 2 FUNDING states that whole new schools can be built for private owners if there is an advantage to the taxpayer. In growth areas where there is a clear need for more classroom capacity, the government will meet 85% of the cost and the funding is written off after 10 years! There is nothing in the PSCI Act that envisaged anything like this taxpayer donation to church schools. In fact, parliament was determined that no taxpayer money ended
up in the hands of any church. We are faced with a creeping acceptance of more state funding for church schools. Suggestion; #461 Assistance to Proprietors (about granting of loans to IS and writing them off) Remove the whole section.! Suggestion; Why not ask the taxpayers, `Would you prefer to pay a little more and have the schools in state hands, or are you happy for the government to give the money to the catholic church and be written off after 10 years all for a saving of about 15%? 4 PARITY In 1975 the catholic schools were in a terrible condition. The buildings were dilapidated, many of the teachers were untrained, and they were not able to offer much in the way of technical courses. Science labs were poorly equipped. A strong desire in the act was to see these schools raised to the level of the state schools...no child should be left behind just because they were in a religious school. But parity was the aim, not superiority. And now that situation is, reversed. The catholic schools are well equipped, well-funded, well-maintained, and they have become the `school of choice ` for large numbers who are not at all religious. By any criterion...published exam rates, decile rating, community perception, these schools are outstripping the state schools, This graph by an Australian researcher shows an alarming trend; The percentage of students in each decile who attended schools with no affiliation in 1996 & 2013.
Of course there were checks and balances built into the act. #421 Integration Agreements, was intended to ensure teachers in integrated schools had the same teaching conditions as those in the state schools. But as with the fundraising issues above, the Ministry has shown no interest in enforcing these. One school claims 17 teachers above state code! Every teacher knows that having supplementary staff like that has an enormous bearing on teaching conditions. Some schools guarantee in their prospectus a maximum class size of 24. Suggestion; Amend #421 to read; No person employed at the school; a) may be paid by the proprietor any remuneration additional to that provided by this act, and b) may be granted or permitted any condition of service more favourable than that permitted in the case of a person employed in a similar state school, including contact time, class sizes and student ratio. In conclusion, I urge members to look at the big picture, see where we are headed on this state/private schooling issue. The `Executive Summary` tells us of the demand for places in religious school at decile 6 and over. 73% of students in integrated schools are at decile 6 or above, compared with 55% in state schools. I did my own bit of not-very-scientific research recently. I took 10 provincial centres with roughly similar make-up of schools, and checked the decile ratings. I chose high schools only, and did not include any centres that had a large protestant school which might have skewed the results. I found the catholic schools rated the top decile in 7 of the 10, and were second in another two. The notable exception was Palmerston Nth where Girls High and Boys High have decile ratings of 9, very high for state schools. But even there the catholic school rated 3rd, well ahead of suburban high schools. The trend is clear; the taxpayer is funding a network of schools in direct competition with state schools, and the state schools are losing ground. Soon, parents will be in a position where they cannot afford not to send their kids to private or integrated schools. We are heading the way of Australia, where there are private schools and `residuals`, schools for the left-overs.