To enable choice, the level of public funding for education to which a child is entitled should not depend on the school they attend, said Ms Buckingham (pictured), a Centre for Independent Studies (CIS) researcher on a three-day visit to New Zealand this month. "A recent lead newspaper article indicated that people can spend 10 years in a state school without learning basic skills. If a good education is not guaranteed by a state school, and can be provided by private schools or even at home, it is difficult to justify why the level of public funding to which a child is entitled should be dependent on the school they attend," she said.

Under a child-centred funding system, every child would be entitled to funding that would give them access to the state school of their choice, and which they could supplement if they preferred a fee-charging school.

“Fundamental to school choice are the beliefs that families are primarily responsible for the education of their children, that schools should be directly accountable to the people they serve and that funding mechanisms should make this possible.”

There are 2718 schools in New Zealand, of which 84% are state schools, 12% are integrated schools and less than 4% are private schools. The 733,924 students in these schools are distributed in roughly the same proportion.

“Families who do not want a state education for their children but cannot afford to pay the tuition fees required for a private education have few options. Families who particularly want a secular non-state education for their children have even fewer,” Ms Buckingham said.

Since the re-introduction of zoning, most parents were not even given a choice between state schools.

As Ms Buckingham wrote in an Independent opinion piece this month, “New Zealand has strong demographic clusters. Children of similar socioeconomic status and ethnicity tend to live near each other. This means that certain school zones consist entirely of high-cost housing, driven even higher by families seeking enrolment at the school of their choice, and thus restricting enrolments in those schools to high-income families. Children of low-income families are excluded from these schools because they cannot afford to live near them.”

The benefits of school choice by far outweigh potential concerns, but it must be real school choice, she said.

“Quasi-choice has a much greater chance of failure. Real school choice means that parents have the responsibility, the means and the information to choose a school for their child — state, integrated or private — and schools have the resources, the autonomy to make decisions about the best way to educate the children who come to them and the incentives to respond."

1. School choice increases quality of education across the board.

It is not enough for school choice to be justified in principle, it must also have educational benefits. Evidence of the effect of school choice on educational quality in other countries is in most cases promising and, in some cases, striking.

2. School choice increases parental participation and satisfaction and builds community.

Some families’ indifference towards schooling is frequently offered as confirmation that parents should not be given responsibility for their children’s education. Yet denying parents the opportunity to make choices about their children’s education denies them a significant measure of control over their children’s future, and the result can be learned helplessness. School choice restores control to families.

3. School choice makes schools responsive and accountable to parents.

School choice lends weight to parental opinion and involvement. There is little reason for schools to take note of, or act on, parents’ concerns and ideas if parents do not have the option of exit. As a mechanism to amplify and extend parental “voice”, school choice is invaluable.

4. School choice gives schools and educators the opportunity to innovate and excel.

Under school choice, there would be more and varied employment opportunities for teachers. Conceivably, this would encourage more and better teachers to take up the profession. Where schools diversify and specialise, teachers can also specialise. This enables teachers to promote their particular talents and to use them to achieve the greatest benefit for both themselves and, more importantly, their students.

A survey of government primary school principals in Victoria indicates that principals who have experienced a greater level of parental choice and school autonomy are in favour of it.

5. School choice reduces the risk of indoctrination and the cost of mistakes.

Although governments may endeavour to provide schools that are inclusive, a one-size-fits-all, common education system which tries to be everything to everyone often pleases no one.

When all children are required to attend schools that are part of a centrally-controlled school system whose curriculum and values are dictated by government, there is far more risk of indoctrination than in a diverse school system accountable to the wishes of parents.

6. School choice is efficient.

Student-centred funding would not be prohibitively expensive for New Zealand. And these extra outlays would, at least in part, be offset by the efficiency of directing funding through families and the downward pressure on schooling costs as a result of competition between schools.