Some injustice in scheme to integrate schools

Press, Volume CXV, Issue 33819, 16 April 1975, Page 27

Some injustice in scheme to integrate schools

Under the proposals for integrating State and independent schools, the owners of integrated schools would be liable to some unjust and impracticable impositions.

They would have to service loans, improve facilities, provide for depreciation and take some , responsibility for maintenance out of voluntary 'contributions.

In the calculations of one school, parents would need to contribute an average $l5O per annum if the I owners are to meet their i present financial commitments for capital outlay alone (i.e. if all salary commitments are met).

The proposals excuse from this contribution not merely those unable to comply, but the unwilling also, thus imposing a heavier financial load upon those who are prepared to pay. We wonder where trust boards will find suitable people to serve on boards with such limited and thankless functions as are left them in the working paper. We need some evidence of understanding and goodwill. A sudden access of understanding would be surprising in view of the general ignorance of the nature of our schools shown in these proposals, the State aid conference itself and in other contexts. PATTERNS The Currie Commission tossed off a chapter on the private schools on the authority of four visits to schools not very representative of independent school education. The E.D.C. brought in specialists from all over the world without even glancing at the evidence in New Zealand of schooling patterns which are in some cases very different from the State system. The proposals assume that church schools are basically State schools with a little religious icing in the form of special observances and instruction. Tolerate these and the church school has all it could want. This ignores a basic difference.

The State system asks: “What does society want of its schools?” We ask: “What does our faith require of us, of the children in our care,

and of our relationships with them?” This difference could be a potent cause of tension between owners and governors in any dual control system. To make our kind Of school work we require from our teachers that absolute commitment beyond the call of duty which one easily associates with religion in Catholic schools and with many men and women in other professions, including our own. A teaching appointment at an independent school means the willing acceptance of a way of life. OBLIGATION It goes far beyond accepting an obligation to give instruction in various forms between certain hours.

This commonplace feature o.‘ our schools is not understood or accepted by the State teacher bodies. They point to the work of dedicated teachers in the State service and claim that there is therefore no real difference between the systems. The same appointment procedures will do for both.

This lack of understanding may not be as wilful as it appears. But the fact that it exists would not help an integration settlement. The proposals ignore a basic fact about our boarding schools: they are not in general day schools with a boarding hostel or hostels attached. The house system goes to the very roots of our school life and organisation. It would be palpable nonsense to have the boarding “side” run (as proposed) by one board and the day “side” run by another. There is no counterpart in the State system for a type of school common among us; a high-powered academy of between 120 and 300 pupils offering wide range of subjects at all levels (perhaps even from pre-school) through to the seventh form. The only counterpart in size in the State system is the small district high school with a narrow range of subjects, little extra-curricular activity, and few pupils beyond the fifth form. SCHEDULES The proposals do not acknowledge that if integrated schools are to adopt State staffing schedules there is a problem of translation to be worked out here, and a problem that would affect a high proportion of our schools if they were to integrate. We take the proposals themselves as an earnest that good will exists. But we wonder at the strength of it when the State teacher bodies turn the working paper invitation into a threat as to what will follow if we decline to integrate. Threats are not a good basis for partnership. Neither is the language of abuse which we have long had to suffer from these same bodies, directed with particular venom toward the special character of our schools. Yet we are to return this special character if we integrate, and we are to receive 100 per cent aid to help us in this, regardless of whether we desire or need this aid. It is a situation that strains credulity. If good will is the only sure basis of partnership perhaps we shall learn what we need to know from the attitude of the State teacher bodies towards schools which do not choose to. integrate., Real good will is not conditional upon getting one’s own way.

Then there is the good will of the Government? A question is made of it when our negotiators are still obliged to press for information on the 50 per cent aid oromised our schools under certain conditions in the last Labour Party manifesto. Why is this information still denied? With the thought that schools could be forced to integrate through despair of an alternative? This would not be a very ahppy sign of the treatment our schools could egpect once they had agreed to integration.

Our teachers have been under penalty far too long. It is still impossible for a teachers’ college graduate to be certificated- if he is “mistaken” enough to go directly to an independent school: yet our schools are needed

and gratefully used by, teachers’ colleges to train' their students. An independent school! teacher is denied the status of a classified teacher as long as he remains in an independent school. A State; school teacher forfeits his, classification two years after entering an independent [school. These are examples [of discrimination against [professional men and women unparalleled in any other profession and impossible to justify. ' The proposals add insult Ito the injury from which we [already smart. They offer i full professional recognition | to teachers in integrated | schools for as long as they i remain in such schools for transfer to the State system. But a teacher would forfeit this status if he moved from an integrated Church school to one that had not integrated. TRAINING A teacher’s status, then, depends not upon his qualifications and training, but upon the nature of his employing authority, and upon the decision made by his employers on the question of integration. There is a strong feeling among all our schools that integration cannot take place while there is discrimination against any of our teachers.

The proposals bear all the marks of haste. We ask what research has been done into integration and other possible alternatives in overseas countries. Solutions are more agreeable than problems, but no one is finally grateful for a solution that creates far more problems than it solves. The working paper would have this effect. In all this we note a strange anomaly. The argument goes like this: “State aid diverts money from the schools that need it most. The present level of aid “costs” State schools $lO million per annum (or so it is argued). If we cut off ail aid some schools would be forced to integrate. This might involve extra expenditure of $3O million per annum, but the money would no longer be diverted from the State system because these schools could be described as State schools. “And if all independent schools chose, to integrate, we could say the same thing. It might well cost over $5O million per annum, but the money would not really be lost to State schools because all schools would be part of the same system. Expensive? Perhaps, but anything to do away with co-existence and force schools into a single system.” VICTORY Are we really to understand that the State teacher bodies would cheerfully see tens of millions of dollars invested in maintaining the special character of our

schools? This for the satisfaction of proclaiming that we have been changed out [of our present likeness and are in many respects no different from State schools? If politics is the business of [getting one’s own way. it I would seem that the wish i for a political victory can ■ drive people far out of the [reach of common sense. The proposals state: "Both iintegrated and State schools ’would be concerned with the [full educational needs of the [developing child and increased understanding and [co-operation between the 'two sorts of schools would ibe fostered.” We ask why .this statement cannot be made with equal force of the relationship between State and non-integrated schools. We believe that only when this relationship develops as it should does integration become a real possibility (along with other possible solutions) for independent schools. As an association of schools our reaction to the proposals can be summed up in a few statements: (a) Till teachers in independent schools are granted a status equal to that with the State teachers, there can be no decision on integration. (b) The certification of teachers’ college graduates who choose to teach in independent schools should be the first step in any negotiations on status. (c) The 50 per cent bid question should be determined at once by the Government, as full details of all proposals must be known before any decision on integration can be made. (d) There must be thorough examination of all possible conflicts of interest and definite guide lines as to how they would be resolved.