David Farrar: Two good schools, but not an argument against choice

The Herald reports:

A stoush has erupted between North Shore sister schools after a surprise bid by the junior high to cater for older students blindsided its senior counterpart, which says it is “disappointed” by the move.

The proposal could reshape the long-standing two-school model between Albany Senior High School and Albany Junior High School, with the Ministry of Education now considering an application.

Albany Junior High submitted the bid last week to extend its cohort up until Year 13. It currently only serves students in Years 7 to 10.

Students then typically attend Albany Senior High, whose principal told the Heraldthe school remained “committed” to the current structure and was not told about the junior school’s bid until Friday.

Both Albany Junior High and Senior High are well regarded schools. They have high academic achievement, good ERO reports. So why would Albany Junior High upset the status quo?

To me the answer is about what is best for all kids, not just 80% of even 90% of kids.

As I understand it Albany Junior is a more traditional school, and Albany Senior more liberal. Now again both schools do very well, and most students manage the transition well. But some students probably don’t. Any transition can be challenging, let alone one between two quite different schools.

For the same reason I think any primary school that stops at Year 6 should be able to expand to Year 8, without needing Ministry permission. The Ministry seems to think it is more important to prevent a possible empty classroom at an intermediate school, than have students and parents able to decide whether an extra transition is in their best interest.

The Albany Senior Principal, Claire Amos (who I regard well) has written on this issue:

One of the most unhelpful habits we have in education is our tendency to turn false binaries into structures.

Traditional or progressive. Knowledge or skills. Academic or vocational. Teacher-led or student-centred. Rigour or wellbeing. Structure or agency. Explicit teaching or inquiry. And eventually, one kind of school or another.

I have been thinking a lot about pluralism lately. Not pluralism as simply having lots of different schools to choose from, but pluralism as the idea that our public education system should be capable of holding difference within it. Because our young people are different.

They have different strengths, different interests, different aspirations, different cultures, different identities, different learning needs and different ideas about what success might look like.

The answer to that diversity shouldn’t be to keep designing different schools for different imagined categories of children.

The answer should be to design every school well enough to meet them all.

That doesn’t mean every school should look the same. Quite the opposite. Schools should absolutely reflect their communities, their histories, their learners and their context. But I am increasingly uncomfortable with the idea that within one local community we might need an “academic” school over here, a “progressive” school over there, perhaps a “traditional” school down the road and a “trades” school somewhere else – that isn’t pluralism, that, my friends, is a freakin’ sorting hat.

I think this is an example of perfect being the enemy of good. Yes in an ideal world it would be nice if every single school is NZ was right for every single type of student. But quite simply, that is a detached from reality.

Almost every parent goes through a huge amount of time and effort to work out what school will be best for their kids. It is the biggest or second biggest factor in choosing a house location (which means only wealthier families get this option). It is why some kids get sent to integrated or private schools. It is why you get out of zone applications. It is why parents and kids go to multiple open days.

For example, single sex schools and co-ed schools are both great types of schools. Again 80% or even 90% of kids might prosper in either. But some kids are better suited to one, than another. They should not be denied that choice.

Claire writes:

Every school should be THE school for:

• Rainbow students.
• Neurodiverse students.
• Athletes.
• Artists.
• Scientists.
• Entrepreneurs.
• Introverts.
• Extroverts.
• Young people who want certainty and young people who want possibility.

That is what a public school should be. Not a school for a particular kind of kid. An effective school capable of responding to all kinds of kids.

Again this is a commendable aspiration, but it is not reality. And do you force thousands of kids into a school that isn’t great for them, as a sacrifice to an ideal that will probably never be met?

I can 100% understand Albany Senior High being upset by the Albany Junior application. I think it would have been courteous to have discussed it with them in advance. I think it is important to note that both schools are well regarded high performing schools.

But if Albany Junior High thinks it will be beneficial to some of their students to have the option to remain at their school until Year 13 instead of Year 10, I think they should be able to. Just as I think all primary schools should be able to choose to go to year 8 instead of Year 6. The focus has to be on what will be best for students, not what will be best for schools.

David Farrar runs Curia Market Research, a specialist opinion polling and research agency, and the popular Kiwiblog where this article was sourced. He previously worked in the Parliament for eight years, serving two National Party Prime Ministers and three Opposition Leaders