Today United Future became the first of the political parties that I know of to comment about the closure of our schools. Murray Smith, their Hutt representative, was quoted in this morning's Dominion Post as saying that the closure of the schools was "money driven". Trevor Mallard, the minister driving the closure denied this (of course). He claimed that "Any savings will be returned to the remaining schools".

This begs the question: Will there be any money saved? And if so, how long is it going to take to recoup the money from the costs of closing the schools? And even more importantly, is the money that is saved going to cover the costs to society that the large schools bring? All the evidence that I have read to date indicates that this will not be the case. Dollars and Sense lays out the cost of large schools to society very clearly. I also (perhaps cynically) wonder if any money realised from the sale of the closed schools will be "returned" to the newly formed schools?

And if the intent is to truly uplift the students a study by Craig Howley makes interesting reading. In his article "The Academic Effectiveness of Small-Scale Schooling" he notes that studies based on "outcomes" (e.g.: achievement, completion rates and attendance) recommend schools far smaller than studies based on "inputs" (e.g.: Teacher salaries, instructional materials, specialised staffing). It is clear that by abandoning small schools in favour of large schools Trevor Mallard considers education to be about inputs!

And what about the communities affected? Mary Anne Raywid finds that if you truly care about fostering community spirit, then you will try to create even smaller schools than the "outcomes" based recommendations. I find it bizarre that we have a Labour government actively working to destroy existing communities. Murray Smith reports "Trevor Mallard has advised people that a schools culture is irrelevant to the consideration of mergers, because cultures can always be recreated". Shocking if true!