My take on the Network Review process

Based on the our experiences in Upper Hutt

To start with, no educational needs assessment is done in an area selected for network review. So here we are, about to change the topology of the network, and yet we haven't even looked at what is there, and what should be there.

ERO have stated that this is a major failing in the process. Yet as far as I know this needs assessment has not yet been done in any area subject to a network review. It was certainly absent here in Upper Hutt.

The initial model presented to an area subjected to a network review is very simple. There is no supporting evidence showing how it was arrived at. There is no evidence showing how educational outcomes are going to be improved by it. There are no educational goals and aims provided with it.

The model presented to us was along these lines: "School rolls in your area are predicted to fall. So we are going to close your school, and build lots of new classrooms at this other school site, disrupting their pupils while the building is in progress, so that when the predicted roll drop occurs these new classrooms can stand empty".

Am I the only person who finds this a bizarre? If you believe in the role drop, why build new classrooms that are going to, in time stand empty? I have heard Trevor Mallard boasting about how he had ensured that the new classrooms placed in Wainuiomata were special prefabricated ones, chosen so that they could be moved off site when the roll drop occurred. But at that time why would all the other empty schools need the empty classrooms?

But wait, it gets more weird: In a network review high schools are also consolidated. High school rolls are climbing. They are predicted to only peak in about 2006/2007. So we are going to take many high schools with empty classrooms and replace them with a single mega-high school that is going to require extra classrooms to be built over the next few years. And then those extra classrooms are going to stand empty. In Wainuiomata I am told both colleges had a roll of about 400 and a capacity of 800. Thus the new mega-high initially needed no new classrooms. But their roll has climbed as predicted, and they have just had to spend an extra $1 000 000 on new classrooms. That are predicted to eventually be empty. Where is the sense in this?

The initial network review model is also presented with a financial carrot: the extra funding that goes only to those schools that are consolidated. So it appears that all the extra saving that is going to be put back into education is only going to go to those schools that have consolidated. Not exactly fair, and again not exactly great with regard to educational outcomes. Also note that this extra funding is only going to run for four to five years, and then stop. Where do the savings go after that, I cynically wonder?

That the formula's used to calculate these payments are arcane and poorly explained. I am told that areas that have undergone a network review find that the promised cash requires quite a lot of effort on their part to get their hands on - the Ministry of Education (MOE) has to approve a lot of the spending.

We approached the MOE to try and get the information that would help us understand and and evaluate their initial model for us. But the MOE were not what I would call forthcoming. Given our experiences I would say that they simply threw the model out and let the affected communities to do the research.

But we are lucky – we live in a 'high decile' area. So we had well qualified people who were able to work out and show that in our area of Upper Hutt the proposed model was not a good fit. Hence the large change in the second round.

But what would have happened if we had lived in a 'low' decile area? I don't think that we would have the time or the skills needed to show that the presented models were faulty. And so we would have been stuck with a school network that didn't meet the needs of the community. Way to go – the rich get richer, and poor, well the poor just get shafted. Again. By Labour of all parties.

Now, understand that the initial model presented favours some communities by granting them bigger schools with dollops of extra cash, and deprives others by removing their schools from them.

So it's not surprising that some of communities involved in the reviews fight with each other. They do not work together for the betterment of the educational network. They try to get whatever they can out of the process for their own communities. So areas that used to get on are suddenly at each other's throats. Their submissions become petty and vindictive. They highlight every negative point about rival communities and flatter their own.

But communities not only fight with each other – some land up fighting internally. Here in Pinehaven the message that our board received from the Minister was that "schools will close – there is no choice". Just how is this compatible with good educational outcomes? What happens if the present network is just what is needed for this area? But given this message our board did what they thought was best for the school. And in so doing they went against the express wishes of their community. This does not make for a pleasant neighbourhood.

Some of that extra funding I spoke about earlier is placed into a trust fund for use when the review is finished. Did I mention that Network reviews leave communities with lingering resentment? Now add the joint control of a trust fund to the mix.

And then there is this fact: Children in areas subjected to network reviews suffer. They suffer when the communities fight. My five and six year old daughters have been very aware of the process. They have asked questions like: "If Mum is on the PTA and you are on the PPA, does that mean you are enemies?" And the children suffer in their new 'consolidated' schools. ERO has found that the educational delivery in Wainuiomata has not yet returned to its pre-consolidation levels.

And of course we are hard on Trevor "I don't want to be a property manager" Mallard (damn, you know, education would be so much better without those pesky buildings.). What do you expect: He was the face of the reviews. He was the person who tried to rationalise them. The one who seemed to pride himself on fronting up to the communities.

Except he didn't when it really mattered. People came from all over New Zealand to be at the protest on Tuesday. But Trevor didn't have the decency to come out and meet them. The man who always fronts up didn't show. When he had the opportunity to explain to these people why he was killing their schools but leaving the rest of New Zealand's intact, he sent Paul Swain out to do the talking.

And finally there is a damn good reason why we have so many small rural schools: should children really spend up to two hours a day sitting on a bus? I don't think so.