Ogilvy Bernie: Urgent Debates — Education—School Review Programme 
Ogilvy Bernie: Urgent Debates — Education—School Review Programme 
[Volume:615;Page:11235] 
BERNIE OGILVY (United Future) 
: 
 I was also in the walk along the boulevard from the railway station to Parliament this morning and as I was with those parents who were protesting from the schools of the Hutt Valley I was made aware that the Government had definitely made a grievous mistake in pushing matters too far. It was not a question of whether things should be done it was a question of how it was to be done and whether it was being done at all in some places. Mr Mallard started out by saying some months ago that there was a need to save money—among some of the reasons that he gave. As things went on and the reviews were being moved forward he felt that by having fewer larger schools there would be some savings in money that would then go back into those new or consolidated schools. But as some writer mentioned in a newspaper the education vote might save money but other departments may lose money because schools have been made too big. In other words the vote of the Department of Child Youth and Family Services might increase down the line because of the inattention given to students in larger schools. 
I do not know whether that is true but as that person pursued the article I started to wonder. I looked at the research from overseas saying that any education policy that moved toward creating smaller schools—not necessarily small schools but smaller schools—was a good basis to produce better educational outcomes certainly better social outcomes and also better financial outcomes. Surprise surprise! Nobody has taken the debate to talk about staff-student ratios. When I was growing up going to school and also as a parent there was always discussion about staff-student ratios. The lower we could have it— 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Under 50 in those years! 
BERNIE OGILVY 
: Yes. The lower the ratio the better the educational outcome supposedly. But now with small schools being down to even 12 20 or 130 pupils in a school with a number of teachers I would have thought that those very low staff-student ratios make made for better student outcomes and therefore would be a basis for arguing more solidly in that direction. The teachers’ unions as we have them have not brought up that subject and I half wonder why. For many many years in a row they have talked argued and pushed for reducing the number of pupils in their classroom so teachers can make a better job of delivering in the classroom. 
But it is not hard to understand why small schools are good in the sense they are not small small but the teachers know who all the pupils are. They know them by name they quickly realise when a student is having problems which could be at home from the farm or from the local gangs around about. He or she could be misbehaving and that person would be noted very quickly. We know that we have a large problem in New Zealand that we do not seem to be able to deal with—the whole area of truancy. The problem of absentee children from schools becomes very difficult to police if teachers do not know who they are and certainly other students do not know who they are and therefore keep a sort of a buddy system of accountability among themselves. Under-performing kids are noticed much earlier and much more regularly in a smaller school. So United Future would encourage the Minister in his moratorium to strongly reconsider upholding smaller schools and looking at educational outcomes a lot more strongly. 
I was at a meeting last night where the Minister indicated that it is the teacher who makes the greatest impact in any child’s life in the classroom; the quality of teachers their life and everything else is paramount. I believe that the Minister and the ministry will now probably turn their attention from closing schools—this is what I picked up from the meeting that I noticed Mr Donnelly was also at—to focusing on getting quality teachers into the classroom. I believe too that the Minister has noted other matters that have occurred that have come to his notice—not only the angry parents’ and grandparents’ concern for children but issues such as increased travel times for students in the areas where schools are closing down and being amalgamated. I have heard stories already where travel could be up to 2 to 3 hours a day for some children going one way or the other or both ways. This really is very emotionally stressful on kids before they get home and even getting them off to school as early as that. 
So I believe that the Minister has looked at some of the arguments that parents have taken to him. I am not at all convinced about some of the rationale given by the Minister initially either in terms of saving money or looking at school projections. It is an imprecise science to say the least to figure out how many kids will be in the nation in total then to try to divide that up by regions—it is literally a poke in the dark. Over the years it has been almost impossible to predict how many schoolteachers will be needed in every place in every school and in every area of New Zealand. If we cannot predict the number of schoolteachers how do we know how many pupils there will be because the figure changes from year to year? 
I believe that the Minister has realised that the projections he is working on really have such variability that to close schools ad nauseam without reference to local areas and to projections for the future is really quite a hazardous task. I would certainly hope that he has taken that into account. 
In smaller schools there is no question that there is a stronger sense of parental ownership and certainly stronger parent-teacher relationships. I saw this today on the march to Parliament where the teachers the parents and certainly some of the trustees were involved with the children in that march. It is very very clear that they played a very strong role in pushing strengthening and wanting to stand up for their school so that the proposed mergers and closures would be reversed as a result of this march. 
This stronger parent ownership means that they participate at all levels—with working bees they form a great community spirit and it leaves a good feeling in the school. The Minister is aware and we are aware that if one takes some schools out of some communities one actually destroys the entire community. That was well voiced today. I believe that localised schools play an important role in a community and they are even a civil defence focal point in some areas where I have travelled. It is at the school that everything comes together not only with the playing of tennis on the school courts in the weekends but the schools are the civil defence centres for the entire area. Pull away those schools and one undermines something that is very strong and viable and is working at this stage. United Future believes that each school needs to be considered on a case by case basis and I challenge the Minister and the Government to consider that as they look forward in this 5-year moratorium.