OPINION: Recently I attended a massive rally of teachers and school support staff protesting at the Government's proposal to institute "Global Budgeting".

It was sobering to reflect that 20 years ago I travelled the country supporting teachers in fighting similar proposals. It might seem odd that this sort of scheme ("bulk funding") has surfaced again after being so roundly rejected in the 1990s. But it is not surprising; rather it is to be expected. Despite the disclaimers of David Lange, whose government instituted the educational "reforms" in the 1980's, bulk funding has been a central plank in the campaign to turn schools into businesses competing for "customers" in an open market.

The ideology insists that the state should not provide education (as it had in New Zealand for more than 100 years) but merely subsidise it. Bulk funding is the best way to bring about this change. As a result, institutions are expected to supplement their incomes from parents and business and to spend their energy on balancing books rather than educating people. Bulk funding was forced on the early childhood and tertiary sectors and, as a result, these sectors have struggled ever since. They have found that they have to manage tight budgets, off-loading more and more expense on to students and parents and struggling for support from business (which in turn demands more influence in the institutions). They have also faced the de-professionalising of teachers and deteriorating staff-student ratios. (It is also instructive that the current proposals also involved increased funding to private schools).

Within the compulsory school sector, other ideological innovations have wreaked havoc in what was once a reasonably sound (though far from perfect) educational system. The growth of competition has led to the polarisation of schools.

"White flight" and "class flight" have meant that the poor and the rich attend separate schools, to the detriment of all. Teachers have been de-professionalised: instead of educational leaders they have become "deliverers of curriculum." So-called "national standards" (primary) and "standards based assessment" (secondary) have reduced creativity (for teachers) and critical thought (for students). The curriculum has been narrowed to minimise all that is most important for our national life: literature, science and the arts. Assessment has been transformed towards mindless repetitions and accumulation of "credits." (Ask your children or grandchildren how assessment seems to them).

Thus, while "national standards" and NCEA results continue to rise, our comparative international results plummet. Global budgets or bulk funding would install another plank in the ideological revolution known as "Tomorrow's Schools".

To those who think that these are vague fears, they might note the effects of bulk funding on the tertiary sector over the years since the "reforms".

Students have faced each year massive increase in fees as institutions have battled under-funding, advertising costs (competition) and bloated senior salaries.

Staff-student ratios have deteriorated greatly with students being taught in larger classes (or on-line) and rarely coming in contact with a senior staff member

Staff have been deprived of the opportunities to be involved in decision-making and competition has led to the decline of the collegiality essential to education.

Salary gaps have widened between senior management and ordinary staff members. Many "chief executives" now are paid obscene salaries which further isolate them from the staff for whom they should care.

Standards have been relaxed (or sometimes almost abolished) to make sure that "customers" get what they pay for, and unscrupulous practices have been employed to attract and retain students from developing countries. Some institutions (but probably not enough) have come under scrutiny, censure and even closure.

Courses which have traditionally been central to universities (such as history, philosophy, literature and the social sciences) have been driven out or down-graded while courses which seem relevant to employment or the economy (even when so often they are not) are privileged. Our national life is the poorer.

As an example of how far this nonsense can go, Victoria University has recently offered its general staff two options:

Under the first, the staff members would have to agree never again to negotiate their pay, leaving it "to the market." (What kind of a market is it when one party is not allowed to be involved in the transaction?)

Under the second, some staff would stay on salaries $10,000 below those offered to new staff with similar qualifications.

Even more incredibly, the university recently advertised a position for which those in a union were to be given a starting salary $16,000 less than a non-union person. (What madness leads to a situation in which people are paid not for their qualifications, competence and experience but according to the organisation to which they belong?)

Teachers in schools are absolutely right to resist this new attempt at bulk funding. It will not be in their interests: they will have to fight even harder for professional recognition, and good pay and conditions. It will not be in the interests of parents (who have already voted against increased class sizes and higher "donations", both of which will follow). And it will certainly not be in the interests of students who for more than 20 years have been grossly short-changed by so called "education reform".

They deserve a broad and innovative curriculum provided by educated teachers who have the flexibility to challenge their students without fear of government interference. Global budgets will further operate against such teaching.

Ivan Snook is Emeritus Professor of Education, Massey University. Among his publications are The Ethical Teacher and The Assessment of Teacher Quality.