Education policies short on innovation?

Press, 18 November 1981, Page 17

Education policies short on innovation?

By

ROBERT CROSS

Comparing the education policies of National, Labour, and Social Credit is like comparing three different maintenance manuals for the same car.

The car is the State education system. Each party says how the car should be maintained; and they offer hints on how it could be made to run more efficiently. But their brief is confined to this year’s model. None is interested, it seems, in trading the old girl in — or even in reconditioning her. Six people from the five biggest State-funded education services agree that the three parties’ policies have a lot in common. The similarity which struck them all, however, is the lack of originality and innovation. If the politicians expect society to change quickly in the next three years, they say they air obviously not intending the education system to change with it. If not innovative, Social Credit’s approach is at least swashbuckling. It promises to make education its highest priority in government spending. ' Supposing that means more would be spent on education than on anything else, then, if Social Credit became the government, about twice as much would be spent next year on education as this year.

What makes that bouquet smell like an election bribe is that Social Credit does not say what it would do with the extra money. As befits a party that may become the government, Labour is more cautious in what it offers. Certainly, it does not promise to pour

more money into education. Instead, it promises to plough the money saved from falling school rolls back into the system. However, Labour also promises to use falling rolls to increase teacher-pupil ratios. If that was done, there would be no money saved to plough. Labour’s policies contain phrases such as “encourage discussion,” “explore the possibility,” and “will initiate a review.” Labour seldom commits itself.

Labour’s priority is free and open access to the system; Social Credit’s is community — involvement; National’s is “growth.” National’s policy is contained in a glossy, singleleafed brochure that looks like a letterbox give-away and contains about as much information. It confines itself to a broad description of National’s approach, boasts about its record, but has few figures to back up the boasts. The biggest boast is that more has been spent on education every year since 1975. “That hasn’t just meant a little increase to keep pace with inflation, either,” says the brochure.

Quite right, it hasn’t. In two of the last three years the education vote has risen less than the inflation rate.

Over that period the average increase was 12.03 per cent, while inflation averaged out at 16.7 per cent.

Universities

All three parties pay lip service to promoting intercultural understanding in schools, and to the need to

recruit and train more Maori and Polynesian \ teachers. None say how they would do it.

Now for the opinions of six educationists, six travellers in the car.

First, a consensus: while agreeing that the parties could each produce a maintenance manual, they doubt that any know where the car should be driven.

“All three parties commit themselves to maintaining an autonomous university system, and our independence is the most important thing to us,” says the chairman of the New Zealand Vice-Chancel-lor’s Committee, Profesor J. D. Stewart.

That autonomy, based on financial independence via the quinquennial grant system, puts universities beyond the reach of most policy. Student bursaries are in the Government’s grasp, however, and Professor Stewart, says that that is his other biggest concern. Students, university councils, and his own committee had complained about National’s system. “The basic bursary is inadequate,” he adds “and the hardship grant system administratively unwieldy.”

National hinted it would change the system according to his committee’s recommendations, but there are no guarantees.

Labour offers a three-tier system close to what the committee suggests: a $35 basic grant, a sls grant for students living away from home, and $lO more for hardship.

Comparing that with National’s 1982 basic of $27, with another S2O for hardship, it is not hard to see why the New Zealand Students’ Association supports Labour’s policy.

Social Credit offers $5O as a basic rate, but its policy is not detailed. Professsor Stewart describes Socred’s policy as incoherent. “It does not look like they have come to grips with the system.” Polytechnics “There is nothing controversial in the policies,” says the Christchurch Polytechnic

Polytechnics

“There is nothing controversial in the policies,” says the Christchurch Polytechnic associate director, Miss Jean Herbison. Many of the policies offered by Labour and Social Credit were taken from re-

commendations made by conferences, commissions, and inquiries over the last decade. National’s brochure devotes only half a sentence to polytechnics, and, Miss Herbison says, judging by its record it is short on policy. She criticises National for touting “new technology” courses, and yet not providing the money to set them up. “If they are going to implement ‘Think Big,’ we will have to train the people for it, and they are not moving towards polytechnics doing it.” Both Labour and Social Credit’s policies are comprehensive enough, but she criticises them for not naming priorities, offering timetables, or giving costings. She supports the review of continuing education and apprenticeship programmes that Labour proposes. She likes its policy to give study leave to teachers. She thinks Socred’s best is its plan to set up “education shops” to promote courses offered by polytechnics and universities.

Teacher training

National’s policy on teacher training was made clear by the halving of next year’s teacher trainee intake quotas. “It is a policy of retrenchment,” says the principal of Christchurch Teachers’ College, Dr J. F. Mann. “National does not intend using falling rolls to de-

crease the teacher-pupil ratios in schools,” he adds. The Minister of Education (Mr Wellington) has said that teachers’ colleges will be used more as education centres for qualified teachers. Fewer teachers will be trained. Dr Mann admits that is necessary, but he says the recent cuts were too drastic and did not allow a long enough adjustment period.

Labour has said it would restore the training quota level and lower teacher-pupil ratios. Dr. Mann believes this is going too far the other way. . .

Policies on trainee allowances are his other main concern.

National’s grant system has proved inadequate, he says, and both Labour and Social Credit are offering the “living wage” teacher trainees wanted. They would have to be given it if the

right people were to be attracted to teaching.

Secondary schools

Only the Labour Party offers a distinct secondary schools policy. National’s had to be interpreted from what it had done, says the regional chairman of the Post Primary Teachers’ Association, Mr Frank O’Connell.

Social Credit promises “everything to every man” but its policy is general, superficial, and difficult to comment on. he adds.

National had treated secondary schools fairly well, but Mr Wellington had buried the Johnson report, and the Foley report on libraries. He had dragged his feet on reducing teacherpupil ratios, and had closed the South Island’s only residential in-service training centre.

Mr O’Connell dislikes Social Credit’s emphasis on community control of schools. “Small groups would take over and distort schooling to achieve their own ends. It would be dangerous.”

Primary schools

Teacher salaries and teacher-pupil ratios are what matter to primary schoolteachers. They are not happy with National's policy on either, says the Christchurch branch president of the New Zealand Educational Institute, Mr A. G. Teale.

“National has adopted an economic approach,” he adds. “Our disillusionment with the Government was shown by 80 per cent voting for a strike over our pay claim.”

Labour offers to redress both grievances. In fact, Mr Teale says that most of Labour’s policy bears a starting resemblance to N.Z.E.I. policy.

Social Credit holds out the same carrots as Labour, although its policy is vague and disjointed, he adds. Its only original idea is the stress on community control, which he dislikes.

Early childhood

Pressure group lobbying and publicity given the theory that early childhood is man’s crucial learning period have led to the parties offering policies here where once there were few or none.

More important to Mrs Beverley Gormley, president of the Christchurch Kindergarten Teachers’ Association, is that Labour and Social Credit single out early childhood as their highest priority.

They both offer what kindergarten teachers want:

more money, more staff, and better staff training. National makes no promises, but Mrs Gormley says her only criticism is over its administration’s slowness to provide more staff. “They are ail treating us as an important part of the education system, which, is a leap forward,” she says.