Everyone has an opinion on education and schooling. Out of all the professions (medical, legal, engineering, architecture etc.) teaching and learning is the most fought over in terms of its content, how that content is to be delivered, and how to measure its success or not, in achieving its overall aims and objectives.

 Confusion exists too, in relation to the concepts of education and schooling. They are quite different. Dewey defined education purpose as a necessity of life; one in which learning was a key social function to create a civil society. Moreover, he argued that the purpose of education is to “liberate the young from reviving and re-traversing the past than to lead to a recapitulation of it” (Dewey, 1916). Taking knowledge, investigating it, changing it, or building upon it, or discarding it, is the point he makes here.

Schools and schooling, unlike education, are institutional entities with institutional processes. Consciously or unconsciously the purpose of education is often subjugated to the competitive nature of the institution and its processes. All schools have a unique culture and tradition. The ascendancy of local cultural history, famous alumni, sporting and cultural achievements can abrogate the purpose of education. This is not to suggest that activities outside of formal academic learning are not relevant or an essential part of education. The point being made is that a balance is required to avoid conflict in a school’s raison d’etre, ensuring that problems and issues don’t undermine its education purpose.

Is education purpose being undermined in New Zealand?  Claims of falling standards, high truancy rates (chronic school refusers were between 7% and 12% annually in 2023[i]), poor social behavior, and the dangers of mobile phones in classrooms and playgrounds, as reported regularly in the media would suggest so.  The result is that people panic, and draw erroneous conclusions suggesting that New Zealand education is in crisis mode.

 The current government, elected in October of 2023, like previously elected governments, has set its sights on the country’s education system, as a way of flexing its muscle and gaining some early ‘wins’ in its first few months of office.

New Zealand’s education system is highly devolved. Individual state and state integrated schools (formerly private and/or faith schools who chose to receive government funding) are financed directly through the Ministry of Education. They operate under their own Boards of Trustees who are responsible for all aspects of financing the schools day-to-day to operations.

Not all schools are required to follow the New Zealand national curriculum.  State and State integrated schools are required to follow the national curriculum. Private schools (more often than not the elite schools of the wealthy and political class) are exempt from the national curriculum, but must have a curriculum of equal measure to the national curriculum. If not their own, some of these schools often buy in expensive international curricula, like the Internal Baccalaureate’s primary, middle year’s programme, and the prestigious International Baccalaureate Diploma programme. Others may buy in Cambridge programs also available at primary and secondary levels. No matter the brand, they are costly and increase fees beyond the scope and resources of the working and middle classes.

Ordinary folk are hard pressed to be able to access any kind of centralized national data which could indicate student achievements across grade (class) levels and subjects in the primary and secondary sectors, throughout state, state integrated and private schools in New Zealand.

There are International assessments which are parachuted into schools, so to speak. Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), provides some insight into how year 5 and year 9 students are achieving in mathematics and science. Then there’s the OECD’s Programme for International Student Assessment, (PISA) providing data on the achievement of 15 year olds in Mathematics, Sciences and Literacy. These assessments are cyclical in nature, TIMSS is every 4 years, while PISA is every 3 years. They are able to show an overall trend in whether a country is leveling up, leveling out or leveling down in its overall teaching and learning outcomes across the subjects indicated above. Recent measurements suggest there’s a leveling down in New Zealand.

New Zealand ditched its National Standards for education in 2018. The then Education Minister, Hipkins claimed they had failed “and parents have lost confidence in National Standards. They were too narrow, neither national nor standard, and did not do what the previous National government claimed they would do and lift the bar”.[ii]  Schools across the country were given more “flexible”[iii] assessment options.

Further, in early 2023 Hipkins announced that the ranked school decile system whereby schools were funded according to their location and social-economic status, (schools in poorer areas received additional funding for a myriad of social programmes), would be phased out and replaced by an Equity Index. The Equity Index is similar in process but different by name.[iv]

Notwithstanding these modifications, there remain significant inequalities across the board in New Zealand’s education system. Of course, these are by no means unique to New Zealand, or of a recent origin. Generally, these inequalities found in educational systems, are decades, and often trans-generational in the making, and reflect a much deeper malaise in social and economic inequalities in societies across the world.

In her seminal paper, Social Class and School Knowledge (Anyon, 1981), the late Jean Anyon contended that the social stratification of knowledge according to socio-economic class structures in schools, perpetuated  wider, national and international socio-economic inequalities.

Anyon carried out a case study of five elementary schools within two school districts of the state of New Jersey. The methods used to collect her data included formal and informal interviews with students, teachers, principals and district administrative staff, classroom observations and the analysis of curriculum documents and other materials used in classroom instruction.

She placed each school within a social and cultural context and noted its infrastructure, together with the amount of time she spent there as a field worker. The complexities of her findings contrast nicely with the simplicity of her questions. To school personnel she asked: “What knowledge is most appropriate for the children in your classes?” To the students she asked, “What is knowledge?” “What do you think of when I say knowledge” and ‘Where does knowledge come from?” Depending on the responses supplementary questions, designed to elaborate on the main questions were asked; for example “Can you make knowledge?” or “What would you have to do to make knowledge?” (Anyon, 1981)

 By applying the generalized economic concept of social class to knowledge, Anyon argued that in a society where power and wealth are concentrated at the top in a pyramid model, schools in poorer socio-economic areas at the bottom of the social pyramid, may struggle for additional funding and additional resources, beyond what they are allocated. She also contended that the values and principles of the educators within these institutions will reflect their perceptions on what ‘working-class’ children need; i.e. strong literacy skills; practical and technical skills for the work force, and values which reflect those of the teachers and administrators.

For example in schools located in lower socio-economic and poor areas, she suggests that delivering selective knowledge to these children, along with an over emphasis on power and control, could make them more  vulnerable to exhibit anti-social behavior, delinquency in school, and alternative ideas in their late teens and early adult years that are contrary to the society. (Anyon, 1981)

In the middle class school Anyon noted that the preoccupation with “getting ahead” and the commodification of knowledge gave no time for students to reflect and understand what they were learning. Subsequently, knowledge as a commodity is exchanged for status. Yet if the promised reward of a secure job and income is not forthcoming, then cynicism and a critical approach to the socio-economic system will result. Middle class dissatisfaction is dangerous, and could lead to economic uncertainty, and the slow fragmentation of social cohesion. (Anyon, 1981)

Students in the affluent professional schools and the elite schools are she claimed, inculcated with a belief that the power and wealth associated with their position is legitimate. They are the true heirs apparent in a post-industrial, technology driven society.

In these schools, there was much more emphasis on individual achievement, rather than collective goal setting aspirations. Yet, this aspect of their education could undermine their personal goals, as they encountered the collective corporatization and technocratization of the work place.

Anyon, like Dewey (Dewey, 1916), recognized that when students are taught to rely on the ideas of others, they may well become passive learners and forfeit the opportunity to use knowledge as the harbinger of change. (Anyon, 1981) (Dewey, 1916). They both point out that as long as a “nascent empiricism…its uses, categories and explanations are confined to what already exists…as opposed to what could be” education will become a fixed concept in an attempt to censor the acquisition of knowledge. (Anyon, 1981) (Dewey, 1916). The urgency of Anyon and Dewey’s arguments are relevant today

The health of an education system cannot be measured by teaching and learning alone. Schools, as the institutions mandated to deliver education, are an eco-system within their communities and wider societies. Issues such as delinquency, truancy, anti-social behavior, and school based violence are a reflection of the health of a society, not of its education system, and need to be addressed as such.

Nothing irritates teachers, school leaders and students more when decisions are made for them without due diligence and consultation. If groups with a vested interest in education, and teaching and learning, don’t meet regularly to review, discuss achievements, successes and challenges, then mistrust, resentments and arguments will play out on the national stage. What’s the solution?  

Perhaps a round-table of people, including politicians, civil servants, school leaders, school trustees, students and parents would help to answer questions, dispel myths and build a more coherent, cohesive and successful school experience for learners.

Conceivably, the outcomes might dispel myths, disinformation, and include a more informed understanding on some of the current challenges facing the primary and secondary education sector in New Zealand. Who knows? It might be worth a try.

Works Cited:

Anyon, J. (1981). Social Class and School Knowledge. Curriculum Inquiry, No.2, Vol. 2, 3-42.

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and Education. New York: The Free Press.

[i] https://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/statistics/attendance

[ii] https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/national-standards-ended

[iii] https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/national-standards-ended

[iv] https://www.education.govt.nz/school/funding-and-financials/resourcing/operational-funding/school-decile-ratings/