Why funding is not main cause of NX’s falling educational standards

Press, 22 May 1987, Page 16

Why funding is not main cause of NX’s falling educational standards

In a graduation ceremony this month, the principal of Lincoln College, Professor Bruce Ross, blamed poor funding for falling educational standards. In this article, Dr David Mollett, a freelance writer and educator, argues that the decline may have other causes. Dr Mollett has been a senior lecturer of education in Britain and an associate professor in California.

IT IS HEARTENING to read that the principal of Lincoln College recognises that the educational system in New Zealand is failing large numbers of children. Unlike Professor Ross however, I do not think the main apportionment of blame lies in insufficient funding; most of the solutions are not dependent on existing or additional funding. The real solutions lie within the processes of education itself and how those processes are structured.

We are rapidly reaching the stage where we look upon solutions almost purely in a financial context as Professor Ross has done — “funding is to blame.” Professor Ross is, of course, right to bring to our attention the quite dreadful student retention rate. It should be of very great concern that over 70 per cent of young people who leave school do not become involved again in any further form of education. Professor Ross emphasises that a major factor is financial provision for students and that “we cannot risk moves which could see even more young people drop out of the system.” I would like to know what evidence Professor Ross has for this type of statement.

Let us examine for example the student retention rates and financial provision for university students in say California and New Zealand. About 40 per cent of school leavers in California go on to study in the university system — the majority in the state university system, others in

the University of California system or in a number of private institutions. Another 30 per cent continue some form of education, mostly in community colleges. Approximately 70 per cent of school leavers go on to some form of higher education. Financial support is available, but the vast majority of this financial support is in the form of loans. Very, very few students receive grants or bursaries. In New Zealand only about 30 per cent of school leavers continue with some form of higher education.

The reasons for this discrepancy are; varied, some of them complex. What is clear is that financial provision in the form of grants or bursaries has very little influence on the number of students attending institutes of higher education in California. In one sense, perhaps, a different type of young person lives in California; in another sense the Californian and New Zealander are not dissimilar. Both sets of young people are the children (for the most part) of Caucasian

stock: the United States (and in this instance, California) and New Zealand share a common heritage, their value systems are similar in many respects. Why then does the 15-year-old Californian think almost automatically that he should continue school until he is 18 and then go on to further education fully aware that he is going to pay his way through university? Why do the majority of 15-year-old New Zealanders think otherwise, that they want to leave school as soon as legally they are able to and that they do not want to continue with any form of education?

I believe the above makes fairly grim reading. I say all this not to deny that funding for young people is important — it is. I do believe, however, that more and more we seek answers to our problems purely or mainly in terms of financial provision when the real answers lie elsewhere.

I would like to look at the problem differently, that funding may have very little to do with student retention rates. If that is

the case; and it certainly is in California, we have to start exa-

mining the expectations of the 15-year-old. Confidence and motivation are very great influences on the expectations of the 15-year-old. / /

I do not believe that the “average” 15-year-old New Zealander possesses any less innate intelligence than his Californian counterpart. “Average” Californians aged 15, do, however, have far - more confidence in themselves — their expectations are greater and they are motivated to acquire skills and knowledge to a far greater extent than their New Zealand counterparts. Why? Part of the answer certainly lies with the structure of education.

The New Zealand system emphasises achievement. Roughly translated this relates to the minority who achieve academic success. The majority, however hard they try, fail. After years of schooling during which time they are continually labelled less able, one can hardly blame them for

not being motivated or not showing initiative when they reach 15. The Californian system is structured to encourage motivation and initiative. The end product is a confident student who proceeds into higher education and who would certainly look upon leaving'School at J 5 or 16 as dropping but. %

Similarly, the majority of institutions of higher education ap> predate that most of .their students will be working their; way through university. They show a great deal of flexibility in providing courses to suit the needs of their students. iThe structure exists so that the needs' of any student who wants to continue with some form of; higher education is met.

By comparison, New Zealand universities are “ivory towers remote from the world and unresponsive io society’s needs.” These statements are not meant to be critical of many people in universities who appreciate that radical changes are needed. They are J meant however to indicate that universities work within a harrow and limited framework when compared with institutions in countries such as the United States.

Although there may be little popularity with administrators in drawing attention to these issues, the news media provide a valuable and necessary service to society in doing so; if they can influence administrators to bring about change, their services will be of even greater value.