New Zealand’s homegrown voucher scheme a political casualty

New Zealand ran a pilot voucher programme for four years from 1996. Aimed at children from low-income families, the programme was a success; but in 2000 the Government closed it to new placements.

The Targeted Individual Entitlement (TIE) scheme was introduced for families whose taxable household income was less than NZ $25,000 per annum and who were not asset rich. It gave funding to 160 students a year to choose an independent school from a limited range.

The Ministry of Education paid the participating private schools 110% of the national average cost of education for each TIE student and paid each student’s family a non-tuition expenses allowance of $900-$1100.

The scheme directed schools that TIE selection should give all students an equal chance of being selected, rather than targeting academically able students.

Michael Gaffney and Anne B. Smith from the Children’s Issues Centre at the University of Otago evaluated the scheme in each of its first three years. In a summary of the evaluations, they said the majority of principals and teachers were very positive about its success.

Teachers felt that the scheme provided excellent opportunities for the educational success and personal development of the students and more choice for families on low incomes. In a small number of cases, principals identified real benefits for the school as well as for students, because the students had contributed so much to the schools.

“Overall the students were very positive about their new schools in terms of facilities, resources and activities, their teachers and the other students.”

Gaffney and Smith said that though students were less positive about the level and amount of work required in their new schools, most felt that the level of work was better than at their previous schools.

The TIE families included a similar percentage of Maori to the general population, so targeting of Maori children was successful. The scheme also had success for “ethnically diverse” students. Most parents felt that their children were better off educationally in the private schools than in their previous state schools.

Satisfaction

“The reported satisfaction with the scheme was much stronger than any problem with it. The schools, too, were highly supportive of the scheme, and the TIE students were perceived to have progressed as well as or better than fee-paying students. The schools perceived the scheme to be very beneficial to the students and families. They supported the growth and continuation of the scheme despite concerns over the loss of income the school incurred as a result.

“The findings indicate that the scheme was successful in facilitating access to private schooling for a small number of low-income New Zealand families,” the evaluation summary says.

Since the closure of the scheme in 2000, there have been calls for its reinstatement.

Independent Schools of New Zealand executive director Joy Quigley has said reintroducing TIE to get children from low-income families into private schools would help them “beat the poverty trap”.

“[Choice is] what happens in the pre-school and tertiary sectors. Why should choice be denied to families in the compulsory sector?”

The Gaffney and Smith evaluation summary can be downloaded from the Fraser Institute.

A story on low-income students performing well in private schools is in the October 2002 edition of Subtext.