Waatea 5th Estate – the Charter School fight

31
0

Joining us tonight to discuss Charter Schools…
In the studio Teacher’s Union PPTA National executive member – Auesten Pageau
Raewyn Tipene, CEO of Northlands most successful Charter school
Teachers Union NZEI National Executive representative – Lynda Stuart
On skype we have Labour Party Education spokesperson – Chris Hipkins
And on the phone we have John Tamihere who is about to start a new charter school and also on the line we have the architect of charter schools in NZ, Act Party leader, David Seymour

31 COMMENTS

  1. It’s great that you embrace a bit of conflict, this way it’s not just self-aggrandisement. But the multi-format of studio/skype/phone doesn’t work well on such a topic, especially when some guests continue to talk when others have the floor.

    Sadly Willie Jackson’s tone and derision/sarcasm/pointed insinuation from the get-go directed the debate to charged defence between the sides, rather than the civil discussion it could have been with objective argument/response. Take the first question to Auesten Pageau, which he wasn’t allowed to finish, which then set off John Tamihere and so on.

    On the other hand it’s clear that Martin Bradbury isn’t neutral (kind of like the antithesis to Henry/Hosking) but asks great questions and gives restraint/room to let the debate run naturally.

    I want to support this endeavour, however Jackson is a serious turn off. If he can rein in his antagonism it will be good for the program; perhaps he can save that behaviour for RadioLive?

    • I see you like every one else also totally miss the most obvious points, that you education doesn’t start until you actually leave school/Uni.

      There’s that one little catch when leaving school and applying for your first job, job discretion says: applicants must have experience. You may as well say what the fuck have you been training for, spending all those years in school?

      • “I see you like every one else also totally miss the most obvious points, that you education doesn’t start until you actually leave school/Uni.”

        You should’ve stayed in school until you learnt basic grammar. But your comment is completely unrelated to what I said. Never mind that professionals you encounter in life (like doctors, pilots, engineers etc.) certainly learnt most of their trades at an educational institute.

        • While correct, strictly speaking, this is also the challenge that has so far defeated all comers. It’s a Catch-22:

          Making a good educational institution requires high (or at least decent) standards. High/decent standards are constantly undermined by parents (“My Ricky isn’t stupid, so why’s that fat bitch trying to have him repeat form 1?”) and money (bad schools cause the tax base to take flight). High standards also come under fire from the Teachers Union, since firing underperforming teachers is a big no-no.

          A combination of socio-economic fears (“My Rachel, going to a decile #1 school, with the kids of Drug Dealers! My Xanax, quick!”), funding issues*, and competing interests (teachers, parents, kids….all have separate items that have to be served at the expense** of the others).

          *-Auckland Public Schools are lavishly funded (in terms of $ put in at the top of the machine) but famously bad. So funding levels are unimportant whilst funding is not used well.

          **-Teachers don’t want to get fired if they don’t teach. Parents don’t want to be told that their kid will never succeed in academics (i.e. isn’t smart or willing to study), and should take up welding or run for parliament. Kids need teachers who GAS and firm standards to work towards.

          And hey; what about muh grammar.
           

  2. So, charter schools are allocated “0.1%” of the education budget, but they only cater to 0.07% (572) of the students (data here: http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/statistics/schooling/student-numbers/6028).

    Apparently this overfunding of charter schools is is well known:
    http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/287659/charter-schools-'over-funded'-by-$888,000

    Shouldn’t the setup costs be borne out by the organisations who own these schools? The point of state run schools is that they have oversight and input into how they’re run, so it makes perfect sense to fund them.

  3. Credit where credit is due. That was a good debate on Charter Schools. I note that Chris Hipkins has never even visited a Charter school. He tried to argue he has not been invited despite the Principal of one stating they have extended an invite numerous times. However why doesn’t he just ask to visit?

    • How do you know that that principle from the charter school who used racism as a justification for a charter school, was telling the truth? She gets paid unlimited, unaccountable tax payer funding from the National government, (that favours private schools and charter schools), while all state schools get funding cuts, despite the fact that more Kiwi kids attend state schools.

      Business run charter schools should fund themselves, why should the tax payer fund a private business, particularly one that doesn’t show any accountability what so ever? Already one charter school experiment has failed despite National propping it up with tax payer money. Children shouldn’t be made into a business and used for profit.

  4. Credit where credit is due. That was an excellent debate on Charter Schools. I note that Chris Hipkins has never even visited one. He tried to argue he has not been invited despite the Principal of one stating they have extended an invite numerous times. However why doesn’t he just ask to visit? Surely it can’t harm to talk to the people involved in them.

    • Do you need to visit a slum to know that slums are undesirable, Gosman?

      As for “why doesn’t he [Hipkins] just ask to visit” – well, your government doesn’t seem very keen on MPs rocking up to ask awkward questions…

      MPs are upset about a letter the Corrections Minister has sent them about prison visit requests.

      Judith Collins has sent a letter to all MPs asking them to go through her office before visiting prisons and to give a reasonable amount of notice – a move which is being described as “heavy-handed”.

      Ms Collins wrote the letter outlining the expectations and protocols MPs should follow when arranging a visit to a prison or raising matters on behalf of offenders.

      Part of the letter said; “requests for visits should be directed via the Corrections Private Secretary in her office.”

      ref: http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/298067/prison-visit-advice-'constitutionally-cack-handed

      There’s your answer.

      • Good point. If you asked Minister of Police Collins where to head to see the impact of policing in action in the community would she send you to Papakura Dairies?

      • Ummm…. rocking up unannounced is not the same as requesting a visit. Interesting you think these Charter Schools are like slums. Do you think Willie Jackson, Raewyn Tipene and John Tamahere would appreciate you using such language about the schools they support?

          • No. They are accountable for the money they spend. Hence why one was closed. If they were unaccountable it wouldn’t have closed would it?

            • Meanwhile the education of the children who were attending that school has been disrupted while this pathetic experiment plays out.
              Gambling with children’s futures by using them like laboratory rats and messing with their heads is about as dumb as you can get and they should have every right to sue this government for wilfully putting their future lively hoods at stake!!

                • But we are forced to subsidise them as tax-payers.

                  You want to set up a Charter School business? Fine. Knock yourself out, Gosman. But don’t expect us to pay for it.

                • “Nobody forces their parents to send them to these schools unlike the State system.”

                  Nobody was forced to go to a mainstream public school before Charter Schools opened either. Parents could choose a private school, a special character school, or homeschooling/ unschooling. The only thing that was ever compulsory was teaching the curriculum, so for example, christian schools and fundamentalist christian homeschoolers had to show the Ministry they were teaching evolution along with their creationist mythology.

                  Charter Schools are profit-making businesses, which don’t have to hire formally trained teachers, and get more funding per student than public schools. This is corporate welfare. Not sure if they are even held to teaching the curriculum. Anyone know?

                • Charter schools is just another way of jumping the line, just so pollies can show a bit of due diligence to voters. Not once have I heard you or many others put the children first.

                • I’d prefer finding out why they are failing. Schools are not businesses, Gosman (well, not in this Reality, anyway). Schools should never even get close to failing because kids are the ones who will suffer.

  5. Frightening stuff: here we have Maori leaders in agreement with ACT, blimey there must be a problem. They are right, there is.

    The accusation from Maori is that the education system (implying “pakeha”) fails Maori, and the figures back it up. So they say give us the money, we will do it ourselves.

    Seems to me that those who support universalism are over a barrel here: unless it is tried we will never know the answer, can Maori do it better for themselves?

    Flip side of the coin: be careful of what you wish for. Listening to the ACT mans binary world view that “choice is king” cleverly plays away from their other mantra of “no / lower taxes and user pays”. Show a little success for Maori charter schools and ACT will say, well they don’t our need help now because they can “attract” pupils now, so they can be self funding. Except the parents have no money (oh but they will make sacrifices say ACT). If ACT voters were really serious they would send their children to Maori charter schools, but no, they buy houses in “Coll” zones throughout the country and try and turn state funded schools into quasi private schools.

    Meanwhile Labour miss the Maori point precisely because they want good schools and universal results for all (as they should). Unfortunately the education system has been extremely good at turning out great results for pakeha for years and have not managed to do the same for Maori. Willie, John and Raewyn said enough is enough, we will try something different ourselves for us, but outside of the system. And rather naively they put failure down to the school system alone.

    And that is where we start to fall apart, united we stand, divided we fall. Willie had a go at the teachers union, he did not reflect that unions have done more for Maori than ACT or National ever would…dance with the devil Willie. John is a good man who has done great things for all sorts of people out “West”, he has worked across several communities, why did nobody ask the obvious question,, “Is he going to fit those non Maori into this, those Pasifika and Indians etc from his community?”

    And the real problem for Willie, John and Raewyn is very straight forward. If you create a parallel system it tends to entrench camps. Both will accuse each other of privilege, funding drops and before you know it you have an institutionalized for of educational “apartheid”. Which then gets reinforced socially.

    Bomber could see the problem, but like Chris he seems hamstrung by straight political correctness to actually state a socialist or universalist perspective. What a sad commentary, the Left are unable to face race based questions without “guilt”. I could feel the ACT guy laughing at Chris, “Hey I can sound nice and Maori friendly here (no they cant come to my mansion for tea)”, whilst Chris seemed straitjacketed by some PC guilt trap so addressed the issue by avoiding the racial aspect of the debate, and sticking to the educational. Hell, Raewyn said that they were not going to vote for Labour, stop being so nice.

    I don’t have an answer, only deep disquiet. I was brought up under a universalist system which did well for me. It has not done so for Maori. I can see the wolve packs of the Right slavering on the corpse of one of the few institutions of state that attempted to get “fair” outcomes for all, and Maori trading a few votes and dollars for charter schools that will take them nowhere.

      • Gosh you need to scratch up on metaphorics and stereotyping. Let you into a little secret. Most people who don’t live in Epsom quite rightly regard it as a place of very superior housing stock. And it may not all be mansions but for the sake of metaphorics. …get the point. And listening to Seymours toff accent, looking at his white grey suited appearance the metaphorical Maori iso nowhere in appearance. Genes may be otherwise, truth is stranger than fiction often. I can however see and hear his tribal allegiance.

    • There’s nothing wrong with kura kaupapa and other special character schools like Discover 1 and Unlimited in Ōtautahi. People who think Charters Schools are about “mainsteam” vs. “alternatives” are totally missing the point.

      Kura kaupapa and special character schools are not-for-profit, they receive the same amount of funding as other schools (relative to the income levels of the families of their students), and they have to meet the same standards for teacher qualifications and accountability as any other public school, including answering to a parent-elected Board of Trustees (when it hasn’t been removed by the government and replace with their stooges eg Rangiora High). Charter schools are for-profit businesses, they receive more funding than public schools in the same decile, they can hire pretty much anyone they want as a teacher, and as they are only accountable to the almighty dollar, the only way these private blacks holes for public money can be held accountable is to close them, or turn them into special character schools. So let’s do that. To all of them, ASAP, and let this ideologically-driven experiment in McEducation end.

      Lange’s original Tomorrow’s Schools, before it was cannibalized by Bolger’s National government, was a much less neo-liberal model than anything that’s existed since.

  6. Had to stop at the nauseating dribble from Seymour so could bear to watch past that, but feel the real issues and risks of Charter schools were not talked about in the segment I watched.

    Chris Hipkins came across well but was dominated by Willy and co going on about Maori failure, instead of the issues of Charter schools.

    Yes Maori are failing but giving public funding to private hands in charter schools with untrained teachers, not teaching the curriculum, and with zero accountability. Yep, does not sound good.

    Chris Hipkins came across well.

    Charter schools are a joke. They have been used extensively in the US and there is plenty of evidence of every problem in the book. It is the transfer of public money for kids into private non accountable hands.

    Of course the charter school principals love it, they get loads of money and don’t have to justify where it goes.

    And yes Maori are failing for many reasons, the National government is using Maori agenda to push it through and Maori need to realise the poison that is going to come with that.

    As it becomes accepted, Maori will be pushed out and the US and money will be diverted to those Charter schools not Maori.

    http://www.salon.com/2014/05/07/CHARTER_SCHOOLS_ARE_CHEATING_YOUR_KIDS_NEW_REPORT_REVEALS_MASSIVE_FRAUD_MISMANAGEMENT_ABUSE/

    http://www.salon.com/2014/10/02/the_great_charter_school_rip_off_finally_the_truth_catches_up_to_education_reform_phonies/

  7. How the wealthy traders can further line their pockets by inequality?

    http://www.alternet.org/education/who-profiting-charters-big-bucks-behind-charter-school-secrecy-financial-scandal-and

    “Hedge Fund Managers and Real Estate Developers

    As AlterNet has previously reported, two little-understood policies helped pave the way for the kind of charter growth we are seeing today. One, called the New Markets Tax Credit (NMTC), began in 2000 at the end of President Bill Clinton’s administration. According to the Treasury Department, the credit combines:

    …the private sector and the federal government—to bring economic and community development to low-income communities. From job creation to increased access to essential educational, health, and retail services, and from the rehabilitation of blighted communities to the development of renewable energy sources, NMTC projects have benefited neighborhoods throughout the country.

    And what precisely is the NMTC doing to restore these so-called “blighted communities”? It’s providing hedge fund managers and wealthy real estate investors with opportunities to cash in on the charter school boom. The government frames it as a useful tool that builds communities up, operating on the assumption that charter schools provide some sort of de facto restoration. But as Part I demonstrated, they don’t.

    But they do provide wealthy investors with a 39 percent tax credit that more than doubles returns on these investments within just seven years. As NY Daily News reporter Juan Gonzalez reported for Democracy Now!, “this is a tax credit on money that they’re lending, so they’re collecting interest on the loans, as well as getting the 39 percent tax credit.” And that’s not all. As Gonzalez explained, the federal government “piggyback[s] the tax credit on other kinds of federal tax credits, like historic preservation or job creation or Brownfield’s credits. The result is, you can put in $10 million and in seven years double your money.” So, if you put in a couple million dollars, you’ll have double that amount within just seven years.

    Until recently, most of this money has been filtered through large non-profit organizations like the Gates Foundation, but it can also be done through for-profit companies. In order for donors to be eligible for the tax breaks, they must give to something classified as a Community Development Entity. The federal website explains this can be either a “domestic corporation or partnership.” And it must have “a primary mission of serving LICs [Low Income Communities].”

    Maybe this helps explain why, in 2011, former tennis champion Andre Agassi helped set up a $500 million startup fund for his Canyon-Agassi Charter School Facilities Fund, the first for-profit organization of its kind. In addition to any profits to be made from this for-profit CDE, how much did Agassi himself contribute? How much will he see doubled on the taxpayers’ dime within about seven years? He’s never said. The credit may also explain why Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg donated $500 million in stocks to a variety of organizations that distribute charter school funding in 2012, or why he opened his own foundation, called Startup: Education, to build new charter schools.”

    • The challenge is to come up with a vision for 21st century education that combines the best of the public school system we have inherited with the new opportunities created by the internet, without letting the whole thing get corporatized by the like of Gates and Zuckerberg;
      * redirecting money away from software corporations to other school needs by adopting free code/ open source software (like Warrington School in Ōtepoti)
      * supporting open source development of Open Educational Resources under CreativeCommons license, so teachers can share their work across the whole education system, locally, regionally, nationally, and globally, using platforms like WikiEducator and Pond
      * access to a wide range of teachers through online chat and Massively Open Online Courses (MOOC) for homeschoolers and extramural students
      * collaborative projects like Hive Dunedin that bring community groups into collaboration with the education system: http://www.hivedunedin.nz/?page_id=5173

      None of this requires replacing the community-led, not-for-profit school system established by Tomorrow’s Schools with owner-controlled, for-profit businesses, subsidized by public education funding. It definitely doesn’t require setting up the teachers unions as some kind of bogeyman figure that cares more about “jobs for the boys” than educational outcomes, as Willie, John, Raewyn, and David all claimed. I challenge any defender of the Charter Schools scheme to present credible evidence that it provides better educational outcomes per dollar of public/ parent funding than public schools do. I should add that I support parents’ freedom to choose kura kaupapa, special character schools, bilingual education, or homeschooling/ unschooling, so long as they cover the curriculum. For me the issue is one of organisation structure, not educational style, and unfortunately is a lot of speaking at cross purposes in the Charter Schools debate, as shown in this program.

Comments are closed.