Recently the Education and Science Committee reported on its Inquiry into engaging parents in the education of their children. Reading through its myriad recommendations, it becomes clear all are on the supply side. They all involve the action flowing one way: from education sector, to parents.  

But it misses a crucial explanation for why parents may not be as engaged as they could be. The other side of the equation is the demand side.

The more choice that parents have over their child’s school, the more power they have. Schools receive base funding and funding per student. Most educators feel a deep sense of responsibility for progressing student learning, but this funding arrangement puts a slightly sharper edge of accountability in place to ensure schools are responsive to the needs of students and their parents. If they are not satisfied, they can vote with their feet.

That is, if parents have a choice over which school their child goes to. 

School choice is actually fairly good in New Zealand. The New Zealand Council for Education Research (NZCER) has been carrying out regular surveys of schools since 1989, including a parent survey. In 2012, only 9 percent of secondary school parents and 6 percent of primary did not get their first school of choice.

The story at low decile schools, however, is quite different. Double the proportion of parents with children at decile 1-2 secondary schools (18 percent), and primary schools (13 percent), said they did not get their first school of choice. 

The interaction between school choice, zoning, and the decile system, is wrought with complexity. However the NZCER research indicates a pattern that poorer parents may have less choice.

There is another issue. The Ministry of Education has a network of schools to manage, capacity wise. The last thing they want is some schools bursting at the seams and others with empty classrooms and tumbleweed rolling through the playground.  As such, ERO reports do not explicitly point out schools not doing so well. Parents who have lower levels of education themselves may be less able to read between the lines in these reports. So even if they do get their first choice, it may not be based on good information.  

Family background predicts school success to a greater extent in New Zealand than it does in other top-performing countries. The typical response is to devise supply-driven initiatives like those recommended by the Select Committee.

These initiatives are well meaning but always assume the action goes from system to family, rather than the other way around. It is worth considering whether policies that put the power (informed choice) into the hands of the most disadvantaged New Zealand families could lift student achievement.