Implementation Issues Associated with the Finish Education SystemPolitical Feasibility
The children in New Zealand are the main stakeholders of education together with parents, government, and taxpayers. The Finnish system of education offers complete free education, learning material, and food for the children at basic levels. If implemented in New Zealand, parents would support it because low-income children will benefit. Moreover, the New Zealand’s government spends about 13.5 billion NZD on education, which is almost equivalent to the Finish amount. However, the 13.5 billion NZD is not enough to cover food, health, transportation, and learning material together with free education. For it to cover all the necessities, the New Zealand government needs to increase taxation to facilitate greater revenue collection. Unfortunately, the availability of funds reduces the political feasibility of implementing the Finnish system in New Zealand.

You're lucky! Use promo "samples20"
and get a custom paper on
"The Policy Implementation Analysis and Recommendation Draft"
with 20% discount!
Order Now

Administrative Feasibility
Administratively, the New Zealand government can deliver an education system similar to that of Finland. Firstly, although it has a lower taxation rate of 33 percent compared to 51 percent from Finland, the government of New Zealand can raise almost the same amount of money for the decile education system (TRADING ECONOMICS, 2016). If it were to raise its taxation, New Zealand government increases the ability to supply training material, offer free primary school, and provide meals for school children from low-income families.

Economic Feasibility
The New Zealand government together with other stakeholders can afford the Finnish system. First, with only 6.4 percent of the GDP, the New Zealand government raises almost the same amount that is equivalent to 7.2 percent of Finnish GDP (CIA, 2016). Therefore, if the New Zealand government increases its expenditure on education to a percentage similar to that of Finland’s system, it can afford the new system.

Implementation Issues Associated with the Existing Decile System in New Zealand
Political Feasibility
Although children aged 0-17 years are the primary stakeholders of education in New Zealand, about 29 percent of them live in poverty (Otago University, 2016). The current decile system only targets the lower 20 percent, which leaves about 10 percent unable to afford education. Therefore, the political feasibility of the current decile system is below expectation and stakeholders need an overhaul.

Administrative Feasibility
While it can deliver the current decile system, the government still does not meet the training need of the more than 300,000 children who live in poverty. Additionally, the current decile system has problems with practical implementation because schools in the same mesh block sometimes have different proportions of students from the high and middle socioeconomic incomes.

Economic Feasibility
Because the current decile system is economically feasible, stakeholders in New Zealand are less likely to implement a new regime. However, it does not meet the need of children from poor socioeconomic children. Equally, it does not deliver the expected results because the 58 percent rate of completion is below the OECD mean.

Policy Recommendation and Summary Statement
From the analysis of feasibility, effectiveness, and equity, the best option for the New Zealand government is to implement the Finnish education system. First, its economic burden is affordable if the government increases its taxation. Secondly, it caters for the needs of poor children through the provision of food, free education, transportation, and learning the material. Furthermore, according to Finnish records, it has a high completion rate, of 93 percent, which is above the OECD mean of 69 percent (Scott, 2009). The Finnish education system is superior to the decile mode because it provides high feasibility, effectiveness, and equity for the children living in poverty.

    References
  • CIA. (2016). The World Factbook — Central Intelligence Agency. Retrieved September 29, 2016, from https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/fi.html
  • Otago University. (2016). Child Poverty Monitor. Retrieved September 29, 2016, from http://www.childpoverty.co.nz/
  • Scott, D. J. (2009). A closer look at completion in higher education in New Zealand. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 31(2), 101–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600800902825819
  • TRADING ECONOMICS. (2016). New Zealand Personal Income Tax Rate | 2004-2016 | Data | Chart | Calendar. Retrieved September 29, 2016, from http://www.tradingeconomics.com/new-zealand/personal-income-tax-rate