Decile Ranking

Decile ranking was initially designed as an administrative system to categorise schools according to socio economic groupings and to allocate financial resources to schools in relation to their perceived need. It was believed that this method of resource allocation would reduce socio-economic disparity by enabling schools in lower socio-economic areas to address learning needs. Schools would then choose how to best cater for pupil needs using their allocated funds consistent with self-managemenL principles-It would be surprising if the bureaucrats who designed this system could have foreseen the impact that the decile label would have on schools and New Zealand society.

 It is arguable that, this labelling of schools has had a negative impact on schools and indeed children's learning. A school's decile level is often as important to a school as is its name. It has become a label that is the dominant influence on people's perceptions of individual schools. This is most evident at the extreme ends of the scale. As a principal who has recently moved from a decile 2 to a decile 10 school, the different natures and needs of both types of school are all too apparent. From a decile 10 perspective parents have high expectations of staffing, resourcing and delivery of the curriculum. They are usually knowledgeable and are prepared to debate and critique issues more openly. As a decile 2 school principal, the extra funding was greatly appreciated. Most went into extra staffing to provide smaller classes and small group teaching for the high pcrcenlage of children with learning and/or behavioural needs.

There is no doubt that children in lower decile schools can make excellent progress with high-gualily targeted and small group teaching. It was exciting to see the growth in children's learning and improved behaviour as a consequence, The question "What decile is your school?" is asked repeatedly by parents, colleagues and increasingly even by community members with no direct conlaci with schools. For principals and teachers in low decile schools who have worked hard to raise achievement, success takes a back seat in many eyes to the decile label. Low decile schools are often perceived as being nol as 'good' as higher decile schools. This has meant that many families who can afford to, travel to or buy a house near a high decile school- This is all too evident from Ihe declining rolls of many low decile schools.

The Education Review Office (1 99B, Pii) comments that many decile 1 schools are small schools with less than 100 pupils and suggests that "in urban areas where schools are relatively close together low decile schools are seen as less desirable than high decile schools and therefore attract fewer students". Furthermore, it is generally the high decile schools that have had to implement enrolment schemes. The highest and lowest decile schools consequently have a narrower range of socio/cconomic/ethmc mix than ten years ago. This limits children's cultural and real world experiences that are so important in their preparation for the global world we live in.

It has also been suggested that the performance of children from lower socio-economic groups is enhanced when there is a mix of socio economic groups in the school. Thrupp (1 997, 74) quote's Lauder and Hughes who report that "because of their cultural capita] middle class students will not 'lose' by being schooled in a working class setting to the same extent as working class students will 'gain' by being schooled in a middle class setting". Recent trends appear to lessen such opportunities. It is a common complaint from high decile schools that they are financially disadvantaged.

In September 2001, it was announced that there would be a parliamentary inquiry into the decile financing system to be based only on a Ministerial briefing rather than Involving submissions. The wide differentiation in funding has created ill feeling amongst schools. High decile schools view themselves as the new poor whilst low decile schools often struggle to maintain their rolls and to cater for the varied needs of their pupils, Financial shortfalls have meant that high decile schools have been obliged to extract more money from their local communities, often as donations. High decile parents are thus paying a great deal more for their children's education and this, coupled with the public perception that the high decile label corresponds to the best educational environment for children to learn in, has greatly increased the stress on high decile schools.

 Parents from high socio-economic areas have traditionally been more confident and forthright in their expectations of schools but in recent limes, there has been tar greater scrutiny by parents of classroom teaching and higher parental expectations for their own children's academic success. Whilst all children deserve to have opportunities to perform at their optimal level, community stress on schools and teachers can however, have a negative impact on innovation and risk taking. It is somewhat ironic that on one hand main streaming has promoted a move away from labelling as not being in the best interests of children and their learning, whilst the decile system has introduced another sorL of labelling with negative social and educational consequences.

It could he said that the decile label has fuelled prejudice by highlighting difference and exacerbating increased polarisation within New Zealand schools to the detriment of children's learning. References Education Review Office Good Schools - Poor Schools Number 4, Autumn 1998. Thrupp, M "How School Mix Shapes School Processes: A Comparative Study of New Zealand Schools" New Zealand journal of Educational Studies Vol.32, No. 1,1997 This article is from "NZ Principal March 2002".