Charter schools are all the rage in government circles, so why not open one modelled on the New Zealand government itself? We would take the systems and behaviour of the Beehive and share it with the next generation, because what happens in the Beehive must be the pinnacle of expectations and something we should all aspire to.
- We would advertise for students using promises such as having free school nurses, and then renege on those policies once students are enrolled, citing budgetary reasons.
- We would have a daily meeting with all staff and students where questions can be asked. There is no obligation on anyone to answer sensibly or truthfully or in full unless caught out. These sessions would always be chaired by someone who agrees not to ask their favourite group to answer properly.
- Any larger issues brought up would be dealt with by in internal select committee that already has made a decision and would therefore sit quietly and let the poor submitters ramble so they at least might feel they were heard.
- Management would receive a handsome annual pay rise. Cleaners and support staff will get under 1% per year due to budget restrictions.
- We would have a luxury restaurant for staff, paid for out of the school budget. Under no circumstances will this budget be used to feed students.
- Given staff and restaurant costs, we might choose to sell off most of our buildings in the hope that our budget might get into surplus.
- We would leave it to the market to solve the issue of where to house the children for lessons. If there are no classrooms left after the sell-off, we would berate the classroomless students for their laziness and lack of self control in getting themselves into that position.
- Management will reserve the right to fly themselves and their partners to events first class at the cost of the school during the term of their employment and forever thereafter.
- Our behaviour policy would be:
- people can lie.
- anyone caught out lying can either lie again or laugh off the original lie as not important or accuse the person that caught them out of a smear campaign.
- bullying would be allowed, and in fact we will have staff and a PR firm that helps do it carefully so that no-one gets in trouble for it.
- we will have a dedicated “office” to blame should anything get out of hand
- if people wish to bully anonymously, we would have bloggers that will spread the rumours for them. There will sometimes a fee for this service.
- harassment would be allowed so long as the harasser gives the person they harassed two bottles of fizz when they finally scream at them to STOP (but not before).
- We would spend millions on a new school flag even though the school already has a flag and nobody wants a new one.
- Finally, we would sign a document allowing other, bigger schools to sue us if we ever do anything that might infringe on their right to earn money. Signing this document would be done on the condition that those of us people signing are be given lucrative jobs by one of the bigger schools or their friends once we leave our current positions.
Any questions could be submitted in writing, where we would have along list of ready excuses not to provide a response in a timely manner.
Any complaints could be directed to the Ombudsman, who would explain that we don’t have to tell you anything or explain ourselves in any way.
Have I missed anything?
Very, very insightful, Dianne.
Now, wait for a certain National/ACT loyalist to appear, explaining to us why subsidies for private Charter Schools are not really subsidies…
Do you drive on a road Frank? Have you ever used the health system? Got a grandchild at Kindergarten? Used a printed Govt form? Used a Govt on-line service? Walked on a footpath? You see all of these services utilise private individuals or firms contracting services to the Govt. Just like partnership schools. Now Dianne doesn’t like partnership schools, but they are proving to be remarkably successful, even more so than their public counterparts. Just like all the other private service providers mentioned above. Sticks in the craw for you I guess.
“….. partnership schools, …..are proving to be remarkably successful, even more so than their public counterparts.” Declaring a thing so does not make it fact. Please provide evidence to back up your statement.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/modeledbehavior/2015/01/11/charter-success/
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/education/10716336/Charter-schools-claim-early-success
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/03/17/study-charter-high-schools-have-7-11-higher-graduation-rates-than-their-public-school-peers/
There is ample evidence from overseas where Charter Schools have been operating for some time that thee schools help precisely the demographic they are intended to assist.
The 2009 CREDO study summed up that those charter schools serving poor black students thus: “Black students in poverty who attend charter schools gain an additional 29 days of learning in reading and 36 days in math per year over their [traditional public school] counterparts (see Figure 30). This shows the impact of charter schooling is especially beneficial for black students who in poverty.”
What 29 days of learning in reading look like? Is being one month ahead after 4 years of charter schooling really a success – especially given these are the ones that are deemed to be working? The ones deemed not to be working are deemed to serve students as well or worse than local state schools. Also, the study only counted students that ewre still there at test time – not those that had left along the way. This is unbelievable given charter schools are known to have very high levels of student attrition.
A school cannot deem itself a success if it takes in 100 students, 50 drop out and the remaining 50 are one month ahead of the local public school that not only cannot discount any students even if they leave but which ALSO has to take in the 50 students that left the charter school.
If they worked, I’d be all for them. As it is, they can only be considered to be working overall if you ignore some rather huge factors.
By the way, has Vanguard explained its high levels of attrition yet? Or said what subjects its students got passes in?
Nehemia/Intrinsicvalue – RYCTMe; “http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/education/10716336/Charter-schools-claim-early-success#sthash.dlb9KTI3.dpuf
Of course they *appear* to be doing better. They are getting vastly more sums, per student, thrown at them courtesy of this government.
If Charter Schools are so fantastic, why do they require taxpayer subsidies? This is a point you’ve failed to address each and every time.
You simply have no answer.
But more to the point, if every school was funded to the same extent privately-run Charter Schools are, then perhaps they to would be showing improved results.
You might want to check this out, NW/Intrinsicvalue;
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11203597
So there you have it, National-ACT Supporter Known as Nehemia Wall/Intrinsicvalue; ” these are schools the taxpayer did not need to establish. “
[Nehemia Wall, your multiple postings are bordering on a form of trolling. Most of your comments are repetitive and add nothing to the debate, and have been consigned to Trash. Please do not keep repeating your same comments. – ScarletMod]
To be fair Frank is asking the same question over and over even though he has received answers. Responding to the same question with the same answer is not really trolling. I also note some of my comments are still in moderation despite some others being posted subsequent. This is a tad annoying considering Frank is attempting to use a non response as if his point has more validity (that is trolling in my view).
Gosman; there are no posts from you in the moderation queue that I can see that addresses the issue Frank has raised.
Please re-post your response to his question and I will publish it.
Regards
Nehemia/Intrinsicvalue – RYCTMe; “Do you drive on a road Frank? Have you ever used the health system? Got a grandchild at Kindergarten? Used a printed Govt form? Used a Govt on-line service? Walked on a footpath? You see all of these services utilise private individuals or firms contracting services to the Govt. Just like partnership schools. ”
The fact that there things were originally State-funded and built, and were subsequently priuvatised is no rationale for further privatisation or taxpayer subsidies.
Your reasoning therefore is flawed; your “logic” is circular; and you’re simply repeating the same tripe you’ve posted ad nauseum before.
“The fact that there things were originally State-funded and built, and were subsequently priuvatised is no rationale for further privatisation or taxpayer subsidies. ”
Actually many of these services were NOT built by state built, they were built by the private sector contracting to the Govt. Most major roading links we drive on around Auckland have been built by the private sector. Most schools that have been built in recent decades have been built by the private sector. Most hospitals. All private hospital services. This is a very long list.
Absolute rubbish. You are making it up. No one can take you seriously; you are either deluded, or taking the piss. Not sure which.
Are you saying motorways are not built by the private sector?
Nehemia/Intrinsicvalue – Motorways used to be built by the State, through it’s own arm, the Ministry of Works. The MoW was privatised and the State now contracts to private companies. That was the privatisation model of the 1980s/90s.
If you are trying to justify further privatisation of the education sector, to implement your ACT policies – then dream on. You’re on the wrong website. Past privatisation is no justification for more of the same, especially when promoted by a lifeless, one-man band political party on terminal life-support.
You want to run a private school? Go for it.
But not with my tax-dollars. Not with a state hand-out through subsidies. Pay for it yourself.
You are deliberately avoiding the question. If you are true to your principles you will refuse to drive on a road built by the private sector. Will you, or are you a hypocrite?
That you can’t see the difference between building road and managing a school where tomorrows citizens are created says more about you Nehemia than it does about Frank. Did we ever work out if you are Intrinsic Value or not? Or do you both work in the ACT Party research department?
Act party research department??? Me thinks you are overestimating the capabilities of the Act Party.
The bigger question is why you and Frank can’t understand the similarities. Both are public/private partnerships. Both deliver public goods via private enterprise.
Because what you are advocating is ACT policy and privatisation by stealth of the education system. It is also subsidisation via a State hand-out for private businesses that are not needed. They are an “add on” based on ideology, not on demand.
In effect you are advocating more privatisation through a back-door. Yet again, this is demonstrably dishonest strategy from a right wing party that last year gained 16,689 Party Votes or 0.69% of overall party support. (http://www.electionresults.govt.nz/electionresults_2014/partystatus.html)
Remind us why we should support crazy policies, imported from the United States, from a fringe party that got less votes than Internet-Mana (34,094 )?!
Because quite simply, those Charter Schools are not needed.
If they were, they wouldn’t requite state subsidies.
Much like current existing private schools in this country.
And you still haven’t answered my question; if we’re going to subsidise Charter Schools, why not subsidise the local corner Dairy?
“Because what you are advocating is ACT policy and privatisation by stealth of the education system.”
How can it be privatisation be stealth when no public schools are being privatised? Also, what is wrong with private sector involvement in education? Private schools are not only very popular but also very succesful. Why should struggling kids not have the same options as wealthier ones?
“It is also subsidisation via a State hand-out for private businesses that are not needed.”
Wrong, no mater how many times you repeat it. Partnership schools receive contract payments for services rendered. And patently they are needed, or they will fail.
Hang on! So you’re saying on the one hand that these are subsidies – but then you admit “And patently they are needed, or they will fail”?!
That, believe it or not, Nehemia/Intrinsicvalue, is a prime definition of a subsidy” a business that cannot stand on it’s own merits without taxpayer support.
So you’ve just admitted that Charter Schools’ subsidies are “patently […] needed, or they will fail”.
It’s taking a while, but the reality of this ideologically-inspired coroporate welfare is slowly being teased out of you ACT members.
“So you’re saying on the one hand that these are subsidies – but then you admit “And patently they are needed, or they will fail”?!”
The ‘they’ is Partnership Schools Frank, not subsidies. Please read more carefully.
Nah, they’re subsidies, Nehemia/Intrinsicvalue. If they weren’t, they’d stand on their on merit. But they can’t because they require taxpayer subsidies. Otherwise they would fail – as you yourself pointed out.
Even your shrill hysteria can’t argue that.
Why would anyone do that when this article is not actually about Charter Schools?
Eh?
So, Gosman, do you support taxpayers money being used to subsidise private businesses such as Charter Schools?
Since when was contracting a service a subsidy? A subsidy is when the Govt pays money to someone for nothing, like the unemployment benefit for example. Charter Schools are like any other private education provider, why should the state education providers and the teacher unions have a monopoly?
Nehemia/IntyrinsicValue – RYCTMe; “Since when was contracting a service a subsidy? A subsidy is when the Govt pays money to someone for nothing, like the unemployment benefit for example. Charter Schools are like any other private education provider, why should the state education providers and the teacher unions have a monopoly?”
As this Herald editorial put it in February 2014;
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11203597
So in other words, we don’t need to contract out education. We already have plenty of schools.
If private providers want to set up alternatives – good luck to them. But not with my money.
Here’s the thing Frank. If there is no need for Charter Schools, they will fail, and the private capital invested will be lost. If they succeed, then a significant number of problem youth will have a lifestyle the public sector has failed to provide. Only a left wing ideologue would fail to support that.
You are remarkably blase about the mis-use of tax-payters dollars.
Let me venture a guess Nehemia/IntrinsicValue; when a Labour-led government gets into power and supports a local industry, which then collapses, your response will be to (once again) change your User-name; log in; and berate governments for subsidising private companies.
Have I missed anything out?
Because for a National/ACT supporter, you seem more keen on subsidising private companies like Charter schools than us Lefties. I thought you neo-libs/free marketeers were against State intervention/subsidisation of the private economy?
Guess not. Not when your own governmwent does it.
It’s quite simple, Nehemia/IntrinsicValue – if it’s such a hot idea and works well overseas (a claim which is spurious to put it mildly), Charter Schools should be successful.
So why do they require taxpayer subsidies?
And you haven’t answered my question: should corner Dairies also expect taxpayer subsidies? If not, why not?
“You are remarkably blase about the mis-use of tax-payters dollars.”
Not at all. Tax payers money is at stake whoever owns the school. The difference is when charter schools fail, the owners equity is lost. When public schools fail, taxpayers money is lost.
“So why do they require taxpayer subsidies?”
They don’t.
“And you haven’t answered my question: should corner Dairies also expect taxpayer subsidies?”
No. I can’t think of any business that should receive a tax payers subsidy.
The issue with the failed ideological experiment of Charter Schools is that they degrade teaching skills and costs. It’s a cheap and nasty way to allow religious groups and military schools to erode the teaching profession. Education is a right, it’s not a product.
You argue education is a right, yet you would seek to deny some of the most needy a right to choice in who educates them. Strange.
Not at all, Nehemia/Intrinsicvalue.
Just pay for it yourself. Don’\t expect taxpayers to subsidise your pet ACT policies.
I trust that is clear enough for you?
What “owners equity”? They are not obliged to put in a red cent.
Come on Dianne, you can’t be serious? Charter School operators invest their own cash, just as do ECE providers etc.
Show me the evidence.
Details please, or you’ve just made it up. You’ve done it before.
“Schools would be operated by private businesses or organisations and would be directly accountable for performance to the organizations running them. The schools would receive state funding and private donations, but have the same freedoms as private schools in matters such as in setting the curriculum, length of the school year and teachers’ pay.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_schools_in_New_Zealand
“The close partnership between the sponsor, the Government and the community will help to create a stronger, more versatile school, better able to meet their students’ and community’s needs.”
http://www.education.govt.nz/ministry-of-education/specific-initiatives/partnership-schools-kura-hourua
There is room for private equity investment in Partnership Schools, just as there is in Private Schools. It astonishes me you don;t know this.
I didn’t ask for the legislation saying it can happen, I asked you to show me evidence that anyone IS doing it.
Really? And yet you’re arguing till you’re blue-in-the face for preciserly that; subsidies for Charter Schools.
You may not want to call it by the “S” word – but that is precisely what it is.
Without those subsidies, Charter Schools, as a business model, cannot succeed. They have no other support except the State.
They are totally reliant on taxpayers for funding.
They are a business and you are advocating subsidies for the.
You’re just trying to spin it differently, and as a loyal ACT supporter, Nehemia/Intrinsicvalue, you are unable to deal with that.
By the way, only in your fantasy world do “public schools fail”. They are not a business model, and hence cannot fail on that principle.
They can generally only be closed when their rolls fall due to shifting demographics.
I trust that is clearer to you?
“And yet you’re arguing till you’re blue-in-the face for preciserly that; subsidies for Charter Schools. ”
Nope. I’m arguing for a fair price for a contracted service.
“They have no other support except the State.
They are totally reliant on taxpayers for funding.”
Wrong, again. Charter Schools may have a variety of income sources, including private equity, business sponsorship…
“They can generally only be closed when their rolls fall due to shifting demographics.”
Wrong…again. Poorly performing public schools are artificially propped up by ERO and the MOE. They have commissioners appointed. They sack Boards of Trustees. The lengths that are gone to to salvage a public school are way beyond anything a Charter Schools will enjoy.
“Charter Schools may have a variety of income sources, including private equity, business sponsorship”
Show me evidence of any that do.
” The lengths that are gone to to salvage a public school are way beyond anything a Charter Schools will enjoy”
Evidence?
You can do your own research Diane, but here’s a cite just for Northland”
“Schools with limited statutory managers
*Kaikohe Intermediate (since August 2013)
*Omanaia School (September 2013)
Schools with commissioners
*Northland College (since June 2012)
*Kaitaia Abundant Life School (April 2013)
*Kerikeri Primary School (June 2014)
*Ngataki School (October 2013)
*Te Hapua School (September 2013)
*TKKM o Whangaroa (June 2014)
*Pamapuria School (August 2012)
*Poroti School (August 2013)
*Tangowahine School (February 2014)”
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/northern-advocate/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503450&objectid=11273215
Interesting. All of which have happened during National’s tenure. Why is that, I wonder? Under-resourcing? Under-funding?
I wonmder if those schools could have achieved better had National funded them to the same level as your subsidised Charter Schools? What do you think?
On top of which, your claim on April 27, 2015, at 2:33 pm ;
That claim is false. Schools do not fail and taxpayers money is not lost. Only the governance changes. Your list of statutory managers/commissioners indicates a change of governance, not a school failing or loss to taxpayers. As usual, you’ve been caught out bending the truth to suit your ACT agenda.
“If private providers want to set up alternatives – good luck to them. But not with my money.”
You’re decades behind, Frank. Numerous services are provided to Govt this way. Do you really not understand that? It is simply more cost effective and a proven formula for success.
If that is the example you are using, Nehemia/Intrinsicvalue, then please explain why (1) it is that there is no tendering system as with other private providers and (2) the more expensive Charter Schools are being given contracts instead of simply setting up new public schools, which are vastly cheaper?
Your example of public/private partnership (which is what you are alluding to) does not fit with Charter Schools. There is no tendering system (they merely apply) and the pricing is way more expensive than the public system.
So your analogy falls flat.
This is ideological-based, not educational or sound commercially-based.
There are some fundamental errors of fact in your argument Frank.
“the pricing is way more expensive than the public system.”
This is an untruth you have repeated several times now. Partnership schools are funded in the same way as public schools, and here is the evidence:
“The model is based on funding for state schools. Partnership Schools will also
be eligible for entitlements that attach to individual students or schools such
as transport assistance, Māori Language Programme Funding and an
allowance for isolated schools.” http://www.education.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Ministry/Initiatives/Partnership-schools/FundingForPartnershipSchools.pdf
“There is no tendering system”
So? There is no tendering system for new public schools. This is irrelevant, in fact it is an after-thought because your argument breaks down in the face of the numerous private/public partnerships active in our communities.
Your opposition to Partnership Schools is nothing more than ideological. Our discussion has proven that beyond doubt.
The Education Dept document you have linked to is undated and superceded by recent events. As the NZ Herald recently reported;
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11203597
You seem to overlook data when it is presented to you, and you persist in producing information of dubious worth.
As for your patently ridiculous assertion;
Of course not.
It is a State activity. Why should there be? Just because your party, ACT, wanted everything privatised and/or contracted out, does not necessarily make it a good idea.
Sorry, Nehemia/Intrinsicvalue, you have not made a case for subsidising Charter Schools with taxpayers’ money.
“Govt pays money to someone for nothing, like the unemployment benefit”
Not for ‘nothing’. That’s the government’s penalty for mismanagement. An inability to provide the environment for full employment for its citizens (without going to war).
And it also ensures that false hope continues. (It’s just a down turn. Happiness comes. Rock star economy. Fairies in the milk bottle. Wotev’s.)
Otherwise there could be Unpleasant Consequences and Disorder.
Not to mention losing the Treasury benches next time around.
And, should you take the time to think about this – people with money from the government buy things. They do! We know this as both fact and fable. And that keeps your beloved private enterprise in funds. Keeping the wheels of industry and enterprise greased. Good, eh?
Trolling much?
Run out of ideas?
Or is that the extent of your argument?
Pathetic.
“then you’re quoting us something different.”
No, I didn’t. My comment was in response to your comment “And furthermore, Legal Aid is not a grant, it is a loan for those who can afford to repay it.”
You are wrong. Again.
You need to educate yourself, Nehemia/Intrinsicvalue;
http://www.justice.govt.nz/services/legal-help/legal-aid/repayments
Do you think the State should pay private sector lawyers to provide legal services Frank? If so then you also support “subsidies” along the lines of Charter schools. Of course they aren’t subsidies but if it makes you feel better to think they are then knock yourself out.
As usual, you’ve avoided a perfectly clear question put to you Gosman. I take it from that that you cannot answer me?
He has Frank. It is telling you didn’t answer. Legal aid is a massive impost on the Govt, perhaps you think that should stop?
No, he did not answer. Gosman has been silent on my question: does he support state subsidies being paid to other commercial ventures, including the corner Dairy store.
It’s a fairly fucking straight forward question.
And furthermore, Legal Aid is not a grant, it is a loan for those who can afford to repay it. Look it up yourself.
You’re asking a “When did you stop beating your wife?” question which I’m refusing to play in to. If you think the State paying for services from the private sector is a subsidy then that is your problem. Using your own self defined definition then I support corporate subsidies too. However unfortunately for you the definition of subsidies does not include doing this.
Also I’m not talking about legal aid. I’m talking about prosecuting services on behalf of the Crown.
You may not be taling about Legal Aid, but your mate is. You two need to get your stories sorted.
Regardless of which, as I’ve pointed out before, attempting to justify taxpayer subsidies for private businesses, simply because the State is required to contract out elsewhere, is not an argument per se.
It’s like trying to justify asset sales because it’s been done in the past. Sorry, that is not a rationale for privatisation of our education system for no good reason except it is policy from one tiny party, with one MP, which is in Parliament only because of deal-making between your party (ACT), and National.
You’ll have to come up with something better than that Gosman (and Nehemia/intrinsicvalue). Otherwise you have to explain why the state shouldn’t be subsidising every business in this country – including a return to SMPs for farmers.
As I’ve said, would you encourage subsidies for corner street Dairies, Gosman? Of course not. So why state subsidies for Charter Schools. Let them stand on their on feet.
Otherwise, I’ll set up an airline or coal-mining business and put in a request for some subsidies for myself. You’ll support me on that, right?
*ppffft!* Sheer hypocrisy from a couple of so-called free marketeers willing to dip their hands into our wallets!
I think you’re losing the plot Frank.
“Legal aid is government funding to pay for legal help for people who cannot afford a lawyer.
Legal aid is an important part of New Zealand’s justice system. It helps people to resolve legal problems that may go to court and makes sure that people are not denied justice because they can’t afford a lawyer.
People who get legal aid may have to pay a user charge and repay part or all of their legal aid costs.”
http://www.justice.govt.nz/services/legal-help/legal-aid
No, Nehemia/Intrinsicvalue – I think you’ve lost the plot. Your statement, above, conflicts with your previous comment; at April 27, 2015 at 10:36 am;
So, on the one hand Legal Aid is a massive impost – then you’re quoting us something different.
If you’re not trolling, you’re pretty damn close.
And it still doesn’t address the issue of why you and Gosman expect taxpayers to subsidise Charter Schools.
You’ve created a giant strawman here Frank Noone but you argues that the Government utilising private sector people or businesses to carry out work is subsidizing the private sector. For example I worked for the NZ Police in the IT area as a contractor earlier this year. The Police (i.e.the State) paid me but it wasn’t subsidising me.
And as I pointed out, Gosman, and which you and Nehemia/Intrinsicvalue studiously continue to ignore – many of those same services were carried out by State agencies that were privatised in the 1980s/90s.
As such, the contracting/private work you and your fellow ACT supporter are referring to, use to be a State activity.
You cannot justify more privatisation/contracting out simply because it’s happened in the past. That is circular “logic” and if that’s the best you have to rationalise subsidising Charter Schools with taxpayer’s money, then you’ve failed to make your case.
Set up your own school and call it the Gosman Institute for Rightwing Wackery if you like.
Just don’t expect me to pay for it through my taxes.
I trust that is clear enough?
I don’t. I expect the Govt to contract services to the best providers, public or private. That’s what they do.
You’re contradicting yourself Mr Wall. And putting up arguments that have no bearing on charter schools.
I think I can smell desperation wafting from the Act Party…….
So you’re justifying subsiding a private enterprise by pointing to Legal Aid which is paid for a State activity where citizens have little choice?
Deflecting much?
Try addressing Charter Schools as a stand-alone issue, Gosman. Do you support taxpayer’s money being given out to private companies? And does that extend to other businesses as well, such as the local neighbourhood Dairy?
It’s a simple question, Gosman. Can you answer it?
Let me repeat it: should the State be using taxpayer’s money to subsidise private businesses?
Why are you letting Gossman and Wall idiots take up space,they are just playing games ,and they are boring games.
Ok so opposing opinions are expected,but these two argue for the sake of it.
Never expect a rational explanation from these two ,like most Key supporters they never like to be wrong . Most of this page has been taken up by these two trolls .please Frank cut them lose and stop buying into their time wasting nonsense.I cant even be bothered to give them a negative tick.
You are asking entirely the wrong question. What you should be asking is, should government be paying for four different forms of legal aid to be running concurrently and pitted against each other. That’s more parallel t what we have in our education system at the moment.
How many different legal firms are contracted to provide legal services to the Crown? Is it more than one?
I didn’t say firms, I said forms. As in types of. To my understanding there is one system, unlike schools in NZ which has many systems.
There are many types of law the crown is involved with. Civil, Criminal and family are just some of the different flavours. The principles are the same but approaches differ immensely. Just like education.
There is a world of difference between Legal Aid and education, Gosman. For one thing, parents can be fairly choosy where they educate their children.
Not so much choice if you have to make a Court appearance on criminal or civil matters. Try telling a judge, “Nah, I don’t like your tariff on sentencing. I think I’ll go next door and see what Courts-R-Us will offer instead.”
Try it and see what happens.
So you and your fellow ACT-supporter, Nehemia/Intrinsicvalue are barking up the wrong tree with a strawman argument. Actually, more like deflection.
If someone wants to set up a private school (as there are many in this country), good luck to them. But you and your fellow ACT members are practicing the height of hypocrisy when you demand subsidies for your pet Charter School project. These are the same subsidies farmers stopped receiving in the 1980s – but which you now expect for your buddies in the Charter School business.
In fact, now I understand why you and Nehemia/Intrinsicvalue are obsesssed with this issue – this is core ACT policy. You are both ACT members , and you’re both struggling (vainly, I might add) to make this grubby, hypocritical policy look good.
This is laughable! Two ACT members on a left wing site, desperately trying to prop up your policies! 😀
Frank there is nothing to ‘prop up’. Charter schools have been succesful overseas and will be succesful here. However I will not stand for your deceit. Charter schools receive Govt money for the provision of an education service that the public sector has failed to provide. You claim that is a subsidy. The only way you can sustain that argument is to deny that private companies build roads, as you did above.
If there’s no need to “prop up” Charter Schools, then you shouldn’t be expecting taxpayer handouts and subsidies then?
C’mon, Nehemia/Intrinsicvalue, you can’t have it both ways. You’re trying to defend crass hypocrisy and failing miserably.
“If there’s no need to “prop up” Charter Schools, then you shouldn’t be expecting taxpayer handouts and subsidies then?”
Correct. And I don’t. All I expect is a fair return for a contracted service. Much like this http://www.nzsif.co.nz/News/5-March-2014-Four-new-schools-to-be-built-by-PPPs/
As the NZ Herald stated, we don’t require those “contracted services”. We have a surplus of schools already. Therefore, any commercial rationale for subsidised Charter schools is simply non-existent.
Nehemia Wall, you’re demanding state funded subsidisation of Charter Schjools in one breath and in the next telling us they don’t need to be propped up?? You have a cheek!!
As others have pointed out, if they such a good idea, let them stand ojn their own feet and succeed on their own merits. There is no need for Charter schools so there is no need for the state to be contracting for extra services.
Hullo? *echo, echhhoo, echhhooooo*
In the Beehive Charter school is David Seymour teacher’s pet? Is he the little dweeb who tells the teachers when the other kids have secretly been having fun?
I would posit he’s the accountant or local hedge fund executive …
“Fordham university professor and ex-gubernatorial candidate Zephyr Teachout wrote in a paper in December. “In 2014, a tiny group of powerful hedge fund executives, representing an extreme version of this corruption, spent historic amounts of money in order to take over education policy.”
http://www.businessinsider.com.au/walmart-is-helping-hedge-funds-make-money-off-of-charter-schools-2015-3
Nehemia Wall (aka Intrinsicvalue) has an obsession defending Charter schools. He’s obviously an ACT supporter and his lines of defence always involve the same, tired rationales.
In reality, state funding for Charter Schools is a subsidy.
If private schools (which is what Charter schools are) were such a good idea, then they should succeed on their own merit without taxpayer support. In fact, they shouldn’t need taxpayer support because parents would flock to them.
But they can’t succeed because they are a dodgy experiment at best, and corporate welfare at worst.
If taxpayers are going to subsidise Charter Schools, they might as well subsidise the local corner dairy-shop – a point Nehemia/Intrinsicvalue has never addressed.
Too embarrassing.
The highly principled people of Act do not want to say “We believe schools should be private businesses, we are going all out to privatise schools. Charter Schools is the start.”
In fact they have all but said that. There are a few occasions on record where ACT spokespeople have said they want all state schools to be able to become charter schools. They make no bones about the fact they want to privatise the whole system – but only if the people/companies running them get to take tax dollars, of course – so not so much privatising as sucking up the tax dollar with less oversight… So much for the great free market, eh?
As someone involved at a high level with Act I can tell you what the policy is. Act believes in quality universal publically funded education that enables the children who need extra support the ability to receive it. We just aren’t hung up on how this education is provided unlike certain ideologues on the left.
“…Act believes in quality universal publically funded education that enables the children who need extra support the ability to receive it…”
Is that two statements? Why?
1) Act believes in quality universal publically funded education, and…
2) Act believes in quality universal publically funded education that enables the children who need extra support the ability to receive it.
Doesn’t 1) cover it unless the implication is that Charter schools are established to cater for children who need extra support?
If so, how are children who “need extra support” identified? And “extra support” for what?
Hi Pete
These are excellent questions. I have no association with ACT at all, but I have a particular interest in education, specifically for at-risk and under-achieving children. I am heavily involved in sports based initiatives for at-risk kids, mainly at public schools, and so I have a first hand knowledge of just how inadequate public schools are.
The main target of partnership schools are kids that are said to be ‘underachieving’. Underachieving is defined in educational terms, with 1 in 5 said to be ‘underachieving’. I quote from http://www.education.govt.nz/ministry-of-education/specific-initiatives/partnership-schools-kura-hourua:
“These schools have greater freedom and flexibility to innovate and engage with their students in return for stronger accountability for improving educational outcomes. These schools focus on the Government’s priority groups: Māori, Pasifika, learners from low socio-economic backgrounds and learners with special education needs – helping all New Zealand students reach their potential.”
It deeply saddens me that peoples ideological opposition, often spawned from a blind following of teacher unions, could oppose something that has such a noble intent, and a significant chance to succeed.
Finally, it makes me laugh when people claim this same thing could be done within the public system. The teacher unions dominate the public system to the detriment of innovation and performance. My hope is that Partnership Schools will become so popular they are the school of choice for all children who the public system has failed.
Nehemia/Intrinsicvalue –
Evidence for that claim., please? You’ve been making quite a few unsubstantiated claims and assertions – all with very little evidence to back it up.
Your prejudice against unions was amply expressed during your “Intrinsivalue” persona.
That, by itself, is not justification to seek state subsidies for private Charter Schools.
Read back Frank. I substantiate all of my claims.
Unions are a handbrake on progress, and this is particularly the case in the education sector, where they protect poor performers, and resist innovative ways of helping those most in need.
Ok, substantiate the following then;
(By the way, that last one is another fabrication on your part. There are currently 47 private schools in NZ according to Independent Schools of NZ: http://www.isnz.org.nz/about-ISNZ/about-us They are privately funded and are not subsidised by the State. So that is where your Charter Schools should be going.)
I challenge you to provide evidence to back up every one of those assertions you’ve made. No deflecting. No bullshit. No rightwing rhetoric.
Just provide the evidence.
I bet you can’t.
Yes Frank, I remember intrinsicvalue’s teacher-union bashing from last year. It seems that leopard hasn’t changed it’s spots.
“They are privately funded and are not subsidised by the State. So that is where your Charter Schools should be going.) ”
Partnership Schools are not ‘subsidised’ either Frank. And why should education not utilise public/private partnerships, just like so many other sectors? Why not?
You know precisely why, Nehemia/Intrinsicvalue; they are privitisation by stealth. And with each privatisation, you justify new privatisation by pointing to past cases (eg; privatising the old Ministry of Works, which now forces governments to contract out for roading).
Dishonest much?
Partnership schools/charters/whatever have been abject failures in every country they have been tried in, including, on all available evidence, New Zealand. America – disaster. England – disaster. Sweden – so much a disaster they are now moving away from them.
Can we not learn from these countries and admit that education is something the state alone should provision?
I have pointed this out here before, but read Diane Ravitch (http://dianeravitch.net) for all the evidence in the world that these are not any kind of answer, unless the question is “how does big business bolster its bank account”.
Partnership schools/charters/whatever have been abject failures in every country they have been tried in, including, on all available evidence, New Zealand.
Complete and utter bollocks. There is ample peer reviewed material out there to refute that. For goodness sake do your homework.
… which you fail to quote. (And no, right wing, neo-liberal, capitalist websites don’t count. )
Feel free to provide us the “ample peer reviewed material” you insist is “out there”.
You mean like this:
http://dianeravitch.net/2014/07/24/slate-swedens-school-choice-disaster/
Or were you thinking more like this:
http://dianeravitch.net/2013/08/02/pasi-sahlberg-testing-and-choice-dont-work/
So you’re an Act Party official, are you, Gosman. Who would’ve thought?
New Zealand once Had one of the best public education system in the world. Other countries looked to NZ for ideas… Then National got in ( sound of toilet flushing).
I have decided to open a new private school and I will apply for Charter School status. Additional to the mandatory core subjects my school will also be teaching
1. economic theory, Keynesian economics, the trickle-down-theory, Rogernomics, Ruthenasia. etc
2. trade union studies – a division of social studies, how people form collectives to strengthen their cause, as they have done all through history
3. media studies – how the “free” media has been subverted by those that wish to curtail the freedom to know, to study and to think for their own advantage,
4. international relations – how our country’s international relations have changed, particularly over the last half century. Who rules the world and what part do we have in it
5. peace studies – how those who want peace have been silenced by those who want war.
6. social relations – how to recognize a liar, spin doctor and the ethics behind trolling
employment studies – effective training of workers, wage rates and history. How much are people worth? putting it all into money. The elusive quest for the living wage.
7. the politics of sport – the politics of intervention and non-intervention. Sport as protest
Assuming I can get the financial backing, what chance do you think I have in being granted a charter?
I applaud your decision to embrace the concept behind School choice. If you do get this school off the ground (a big ask) then you will have my full support.
I love the notion of “gaining additional days of learning.”
The purely mathematical way of looking at a “day of learning” and school, and how it impacts on a learner, has connotations of magic to me. The whole of humanity has been short changed because Einstein missed out on having an extra day of learning. And Michelangelo.
I feel guilty that we did not start our children at school earlier and make them stay longer to gain some extra days.
Numbers are lapped up by the cretins on the Whale Oil and Kiwi Blogs. The simplicity of them they can understand. I missed out on a couple of additional days by bunking school. How fortunate that what I did on those days out of school turned my existence around, set me up for life.
It’s lunacy, isn’t it, Pete?
I hesitate to offer this as I dislike providing The Daily Blog with any opportunity for publicity as I think it reflects the ugly side of the left. This is despite the recent scoop that it achieved (Kudos to Mr Bradbury for that by the way). However if you think the issue of Charter Schools is such an open and shut case I can see if David Seymour would be available to debate the topic with Ms Khan in an appropriate forum.
I’m still witing for a reply from Mr Seymour or Ms Kaye on any of the points I have raised over the past year or so. They, like you, are experts in avoiding answering a straight question.
Act Supporter Nehemia/Intrinsicvalue;
Yes, you’re arguing for a state handout; my taxes for your businerss. Deny it all you like – it’s still a subsidy.
Your spinning of it as something else simply demonstrates that your party, ACT, is frightened of that term being applied to the whole shonky Charter School thing.
Really? They can’t have that much access to private equity and sponsorship, or else they wouldn’t need taxpayer subsidies. So that claim is so much bullshit.
Oh, so you agree that public schools can’t fail (in the business sense, anyway)? A change of governance is not the same as what you suggested above; ” When public schools fail, taxpayers money is lost.”
Because taxpayers money is not lost when governance changes. The schools and it’s staff remain.
You and Gosman are clutching at straws to promote your ACT Party policy.
You’re using every excuse; spin; misrepresentation; and deflection to justify taxpayer subsidies for your business model. Yet, you’ve missed one vital strategy; you’ve supplied no evidence that Charter Schools are indeed any more effective.
The fact that National has to reportedly spend $19,664 a student compared to the average state and integrated school funding of $7000 a student, then not only is that a subsidy – but is also propping up a failed business model.
Look, even you die-hard rightwing fanatics can appreciate that spending $7,000 on a student is cheaper than $19,664 – nearly two and a half times the expense!
Surely, your adherence to your dodgy dogma hasn’t rotted your brains that far?!
Accordin to your logic every time the State employs someone from outside the Public Service to do some work that is a subsidy. Is that correct? If so then you are correct using your own definition. So the question then becomes so what. We all support subsidizing private enterprise it seems. What is your point?
Let me repost what the NZ Herald wrote recently, Gosman;
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11203597
Note: ” The minister may say the difference is in establishment costs but these are schools the taxpayer did not need to establish.”
We simply don’t need those schools.
They are an ideological sop to your pathetically small party, by National, because they need your MP’s vote in the House.
In the final analysis, if we’re going to throw subsidies at private schools – then kindly explain why we don’t pay farmers via the taxpayer as well? Why are SMP subsidies “bad” – and Charter school subsidies “good”?
You and Nehemia/Intrinsicvalue have failed to make a case of any solidity on this issue.
Hold on. You also agree that subsidizing the private sector is okay. We established that earlier. You don’t have a problem if the Government pays private sector people to do a job. Does that mean you also accept that SMP’s were a good idea?
I think you’re putting words in Frank’s mouth, Gosman. He said no such thing and you’re being disengenuous by mis-representing his position.
If you can’t honestly promote your party’s Charter schoolpolicy, then it’s not worthwhile considering.
Tell us what the proven benefits are. Don’t try to justify it with past privatizations because that argument is wasted here. This is not an Act Party mutual support network in case you hadn’t notgiced.
“Yes, you’re arguing for a state handout; my taxes for your businerss. Deny it all you like – it’s still a subsidy.”
Nope. It’s a public private partnership Frank. Just like roading.
“Really? They can’t have that much access to private equity and sponsorship, or else they wouldn’t need taxpayer subsidies.”
Roading companies receive Govt money as payment for building roads, yet they also have private equity. Simple model eh.
“Oh, so you agree that public schools can’t fail (in the business sense, anyway)? ”
When commissioners are appointed, tax payers money is lost. When failed principals are paid out, taxpayers money is lost. When statutory managers are appointed, taxpayers money is lost.
“The fact that National has to reportedly spend $19,664 a student compared to the average state and integrated school funding of $7000 a student, then not only is that a subsidy – but is also propping up a failed business model.”
And at the very heart of your argument is a lie. A deceit. The average cost per student you quote is based on a new Partnership School that is not full. This is a nonsense calculation that I suggest you try applying to the latest public school.
Very little of what you say, Nehemia/Intrinsicvalue, is actually true. You’ve either misrepresented the truth, or simply inserted your own opinions as quasi-“facts”.
Roading is a good example. Roading was once a state activity, done through the Ministry of Works. Then the MoW was privatised in 1996 (http://www.treasury.govt.nz/government/assets/saleshistory) and the building/maintenance was contracted out to the new corporate owners.
No, it’s quite true. The discrepancy between the cost of funding students in Public Schools, as opposed to subsidised Charter Schools is well known. But it is not a fact you want the public to know, they’d be pissed off that taxpayers’ money is being used to prop up a failed American corporate education model.
I repeat; if Charter Schools were so fantastic and better than private – why do they need taxpayer funding? Ie; subsidies?
You can’t answer that, can you?
“Deny it all you like – it’s still a subsidy.”
Repeat it all you like it isn’t. You still haven’t answered the questions about other public private partnerships Frank. Because it collapses your argument.
“Because taxpayers money is not lost when governance changes. The schools and it’s staff remain.”
That is demonstrably false. Who pays for the commissioners? The statutory managers? The ERO and MOE time? The payouts to failed headmasters, teachers and administrators?
“you’ve supplied no evidence that Charter Schools are indeed any more effective. ”
Yes, i have. Read the Forbes cites.
“The fact that National has to reportedly spend $19,664 a student compared to the average state and integrated school funding of $7000 a student”
You know that’s a lie Frank. You know that is not based on a full roll for the Partnership School. You know that if you do the same maths on a new public school…well you know all this, don’t you?
You seem very, very, obsessed with support subsidies for Charter Schools, Nehemia/Intrinsicvalue…
Care to issue a disclosure what your commercial interests are in Charter Schools?
Disclosure…I have no financial interest in any Partnership or any other School.
Disclosure…I have an interest in ensuring the truth about the significant success and potential of Partnership Schools is told.
Disclosure…there has been a lot of lies and deceit in this one thread against Partnership Schools, the funding claims being one. Why do you need to lie if your case is so strong?
In reply to NEHEMIA WALL says:
APRIL 27, 2015 AT 7:40 PM
Thank you for the answer and clearly demonstrating some of the nonsense around charter schools.
The “target” stuff you quote is political garbage, fancy words and propaganda.
Nominating a target as a political cliche does not mean it happens. If the schools are for the “underachieving” are the most needy identified? How? By whom?
I respectfully suggest that anyone blindly accepting the generalisation ” … 1 in 5 said to be ‘underachieving’ … “ and then go on to use it as justification for privatising NZ schools has been brainwashed or is simply lacking in knowledge. Which advertising agency came up with that?
Quoting “These schools have greater freedom and flexibility to innovate and engage” shows how the advertising has worked and been accepted without critical analysis and knowledge. More advertising with clear political motivation.
The Dishonourable John Banks used this expression. He was in Parliament and a Minister, with Ms Parata, heading a system which was consistently taking freedom away from schools and communities, introducing strictures which denied them flexibility and encouragement to be innovative.
There is no way at all that Parata should mention the notion of “freedom” as a positive attribute of schools when she has been the epitome of a harridan in taking freedom off schools and the professionals in education.
Parata and Banks lacked the intellect and vision to come up with solutions to attend to kids struggling with schooling. They certainly lacked common sense. But those things were not needed because the prime motivation was, is, to privatise schools and continue with . All a cosy part of Act with Rodney Hide, the Banks cup of tea pay-off and David Seymour, the whole festering sore of Epsom.
It all dovetailed nicely into the Tolley/Parata educationally illiterate views of kids and learning which were to be subjugated in their cretinous world of fierce control.
It is easy to repeat the clichés and rhetoric about unions and teachers controlling the system and rabbit on about “ideological opposition.” The Prime Minister at times has attacked teachers as having a ‘vested interest” and so their views are to be disregarded. He doesn’t have a vested interest? He (and you) are not on some sort of ideological campaign?
For over a hundred years teachers in New Zealand worked so well we were regarded as having an excellent public education system. They worked hard, effectively, with creativity and were at the fore in innovative practice. The vast majority belonged to their unions. What dynamic has come into play to change that? Or is the change not within, but outside? Could it be that the difference is that teachers don’t like educational cretins organising and run schooling for their political purposes?
Hi Pete
Regrettably, the moderators have deleted my original post you were responding to. There seems to be a serious attempt to stifle debate here, but I’ll do my best to reply.
“If the schools are for the “underachieving” are the most needy identified? How? By whom?”
Asked and answered. Underachieving is defined as failing to meet the educational standards.
“Which advertising agency came up with that?”
I provided the cite, it was from the MOE.
“Quoting “These schools have greater freedom and flexibility to innovate and engage” shows how the advertising has worked and been accepted without critical analysis and knowledge. ”
Have you ever visited a Partnership School? I suggest if you did you would see immediately the freedoms and flexibility quoted are very real and very effective.
“What dynamic has come into play to change that?”
The dynamic that unions have moved from being instruments of progress to instruments of mediocrity. They have lost their way, and with it their membership numbers.
Charter schools being for the ‘underachieving’ is only in glib Act material and Government bunkum where they try to suck people (like you) into believing something is happening which is not. The Charter schools do not scour the districts finding underachieving kids, make sure they’ve got the right ones, and then enrol them. Use the word “target” and people think that means that the target is being sought and being reached. Then when the criticism comes about some different result we get the facile, “The target is aspirational.”
Your naivety (feigned?) about how things work are illustrated in the remark about citing the MOE. Which advertising agency did the Ministry use to come up the material worded in the most subtle ways to present the propoganda? Of course I suppose they actually have a Goebbels on their staff so that makes it MOE official stuff from an MOE staffer which makes it “the truth.”
The comments about greater freedom and flexibility to innovate and engage were not about Charter Schools. They were about state schools, their community boards of trustees and the professionals who work in them being straitjacketed with greatly increased constraints and compliance focuses.
You may see some logic in saying we need charter schools with “greater freedom and flexibility to innovate and engage” while stomping all over state schools denying them the same. You attack “ideological opposition” while supporting this sort of “idiotology.”
Your simplistic view, knowledge and political perspectives are particularly demonstrated to me by a couple of phrases in your reply.
“Underachieving is defined as failing to meet educational standards.” I won’t comment on the limitless nuances of that but people like Dianne Khan, Kelvin Smythe and Ivan Snook would probably smile about the notion and the context in which you use it and love to debate it. (I know none of those people.)
The other is the tosh at the end. “The dynamic that unions have moved from being instruments of progress to instruments of mediocrity.” Feel free to use the words ideological and idiotology.
Nehemia Wall, there’s an old saying which you probably know.If it sounds like a duck…..
In this case, if it sounds like a subsidy…..
Do I really need to complete the sentence?
I have nothing against private schools as long as you don’t expect me, the taxpayer to foot the bill. The State already extracts enough money from my wallet without people like you wanting more for your pet projects.
I don’t care what you call it or how you frame it, the end result is you want ME to pay for YOU to run a business.
Let me put it as gently as I can. Go to blazes.
“In this case, if it sounds like a subsidy…..”
Or, if it sounds like a public/private partnership…
Oh, is that what you’d call the SMPs paid to farmers in the 1970s,a “public/private partnership”?
Or is it on a “subsidy” when the Left does it, but a “public/private partnership” when the Right dips into the taxpayers’ wallet to fund private enterprise?
Honestly, some of you ACT-types are Muldoonists-in-neoliberal-drag… 😀
Gosman and Nehemia, I remain spectacularly unimpressed with your arguments for Charter Schools. Having read the points, it seems predicated on past privatizations and contracting out. Is that it? Is that the sum total of your case?
Because if it is, you’ve not made a case for Charter schools and the critics are right in that it seems to be subsidization and privatization by stealth.
As others have said, if you want it, fine. But don’t expect us taxpayers to foot the bill.
Fund it yoursellves.
“Having read the points, it seems predicated on past privatizations and contracting out. Is that it? Is that the sum total of your case?”
No. Partnership Schools deliver results to needy children that the public sector has failed to deliver. That’s my interest in them. I have no financial interest in Partnership Schools.
“you’ve not made a case for Charter schools and the critics are right in that it seems to be subsidization and privatization by stealth.”
The case for Partnership Schools is in the data and research already posted. I’m not citing it again, because the mods don;t like that, but it is earlier the the thread.
“As others have said, if you want it, fine. But don’t expect us taxpayers to foot the bill.”
The bill for what? For educating kids, needy kids? We fund that now via the state system, which is failing these kids! Why should the Govt not contract services to the private sector who can do a better job? Just like they do in health, for example? Are you suggesting we don;t educate these kids?
“Partnership Schools deliver results to needy children that the public sector has failed to deliver.”
Show me your evidence for that, please.
[Nehemia Wall, the increasing number of your posts is verging on spamming levels and is becoming problematic. I have copy-and-pasted the rest of your comments on to this one, single post.
In future, please refrain from multiple postings unless you are presenting new information. You do not need to repeatedly state that you do not believe subsidies apply to charter schools. You have made that point umpteen times.
Ongoing repetition will simply be deleted from now on. Your ‘right’ to post here is not absolute, not until you start paying the server fees. (Oh, and a Living Wage for me might be nice as well. Oh well, one can dream.)- ScarletMod
[Last point Nehemia Wall. I am not “protecting” Frank. I am protecting the comments board from become a voice for whatever agenda you are pushing. For the record, I have deleted comments from left-wing posters as well, and on a certain issue, I banned a left-wing member for trying to circumvent Court protection orders, which threatened the viability of this blogsite.
If you continue to engage in multiple posts, I will limit you to a certain number of posts-per-pay.Do not test me Nehemia Wall. You will come of second best. – ScarletMod]
If I read your reasoning accurately NehemiaWall, you are justifying subsidies for Charter Scjools based on contracting out services to private companies?
But many of those services used to be carried out by the State and were privatised in the 19890s/90s.
So you’re basing more privatisation based on past privatisation?
If that’s your argument then it’s not much of a basis. It’s like me saying other people have stolen cars so it’s ok for me to steal a car as well, based on past instances.
It’s a ludicrous suggestion and is not a sound basis for Charter school subsidies.
Enough is enough. I have asked you on more than one occassion not to make multiple postings which have become spam. You have ignored that request.
No further comments from you, Nehemia Wall, will be accepted on this blogpost. If you attempt to return under a different username to this page, you will be banned permanently. – ScarletMod
Here is a reasoned analysis of Charter schools which highlight both the positives and negatives. If you wish to debate the points made then I am willing to respond.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2013/07/charter-schools
That ‘Economist’ report you link to says, in part;
More importantly, not this, Gosman;
Leaving aside the other aspect, one could safely assume that increased one-on-one tutoring would be beneficial under any circumstance, including State schools.
However, our esteemed Dear Leader has stated on several occassions that classroom sizes have no bearing on educational outcomes (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10810207). And of course, it is nigh on impossible to have one-on-one tutoring when classroom sizes are 30+.
Can you address that salient point, Gosman?
Plus pay Charter schools two and a half times more than State schools, and you can see why State schools start way behind in this game.
And lastly,
An “interesting experiment” indeed. Subsidised by the taxpayer, no less.
If that report was meant by you to promote Charter schools and their sunsidisation by the taxpayers, then it fails miserably. I can only assume you expected no-one to read it.
Nailed it Frank.
Gossy and Wall are having us on trying to justify their subsidies for what are reall private businesses. I run a business as well and wouldn’t it be nice if the government handed over a cool $500,000 so I could have set it up in the first place??
Like hell.
There’s a lot of spin (ie, bullshit) being written here by those two monkeys and not one bit of it persuades me that the cause is in anyway fair.
I’m not stating public schools can’t do what Charter Schools can. In fact State schools in NZ are generally very good. However the public sector model is still very bureaucratic and centrally controlled on many levels. That is where Charter Schools have the advantage. I will also agree with you that if Charter Schools receive more funding per pupil from the Stare on an ongoing basis that is not a level playing field. In the US they receive less funding and still perform as good or better than public schools.
Gosman, your assertion that “the public sector model is still very bureaucratic and centrally controlled on many levels” is a subjective opinion at best, and are no more “centrally controlled” that fast food outlet, hardware, or retail chains.
As for your claim that ” In the US they receive less funding and still perform as good or better than public schools”, the 2009 CREDO assessment actually found opposite; that most Charter schools were either the same, or worse than public schools. In which case, their raison d’être disappears.
However, be that as it may, whilst I don’t necessarily agree with your 8:51 post, it was one of your more rational comments and deserves a considered reply. Keep it up and people will engage with you.
That same organisation you cite as evidence of the failure of Charter schools released a more recent report. This is what Dr. Margaret Raymond, director of CREDO at Stanford University had to state about the results:
“This research shows that many urban charter schools are providing superior academic learning for their students, in many cases quite dramatically better. These findings offer important examples of school organization and operation that can serve as models to other schools, including both public charter schools and traditional public schools.”
http://urbancharters.stanford.edu/news.php
Considering you use a 2009 study from the same organisation as evidence they don’t work how do you explain the more recent study and do myou acknowledge that there is evidence supporting that Charter Schools can lift student performance in many cases?
I do not want to repeat the many many articles that show that charter schools do not operate on a level playing field with the public schools they are compared to, in terms of funding, in terms of student retention rates and in terms of the amounts of special needs and english second language learners in the schools.
And this study looks only at urban charter schools in certain areas (in fact compares urban charter schools against other charter schools), and certainly does not contradict the findings of the 2013 CREDO study that clearly show that some charters are as good as public schools, most are slightly worse, and the worst charter schools a damn sight worse.
You say “do you acknowledge that there is evidence supporting that Charter Schools can lift student performance in many cases?”
No there isn’t. It’s comparing apples and oranges, like saying everyone could just drive faster if they had a ferrari, the evidence being that ferraris are faster than other cars.
The price paid to lift that student performance is far in excess of that paid to public schools who must teach EVERYONE that comes through their doors, the students who didn’t have breakfast, the ones with autism, the ones living in cars, alongside the kids who come from middle class families. If you simply pay public schools the same amount, hey presto! you see the same lift in performance.
This is where the charter model falls down. It is an answer… to what exactly??
I don’t have to wonder why American research and data is used. Is a charter school, a charter school is a charter school wherever they are? So US stuff is directly applicable here?
Is a US public school in itself the same as a state school here? Is a public school in the US in all of its cultural, societal, historical financial and economic contexts the same as a state school here?
Are the US urban circumstances and cultural contexts from which formal education and schooling have evolved the same or similar to New Zealand environments? How similar, how dissimilar?
In which case you should support the trial of Charter schools here rather than simply ruling them out altogether.
Why? To see if they cater for “underachieving” kids?
To see what happens if a community has the freedom to organise it’s own schooling?
To see what happens if schooling is privatised?
I have suggested there be a trial in a district where the state schools become charter schools but the MP won’t have it. And he is the biggest advocate for charter schools in Parliament!
I am still trying to come to terms with the complexities of a Government’s position. Coming to terms with wanting to have a say in schooling to the extent of wanting total control of what happens, having a set up of pretending to have no say while actually doing so, being totally hands off and selling the whole lot off or any other permutations, are probably notions which have perplexed some at the helm.
The line of least resistance at the moment is charter schools. The sophistry around National Standards and “underachievement”, the evolving neo-liberal society and the coincidence of Act, was perfect for the Government of the day.
Who is the biggest advocate of Charter Schools in Parliament?
Your party, ACT.
So that would mean David Seymore. However I know for a fact that David Seymore dies advocate turning Public schools in to Charter schools (or at least having the option if they so desire).
There is plenty of criticism of CREDO for its research methods and therefore unsubstantiated conclusions. This might be a good place to start: http://nepc.colorado.edu/newsletter/2015/04/review-urban-charter-school
Comments are closed.