Act introduced charter schools in the 2011 Key government. Labour said then that they were a distraction. As well as a range of public schools, often quite varied, we already had partially state integrated schools, and various other educational options like Kura Kaupapa and state supported private schools. Choices abound.
The problem is that charter schools both under the 2012 legislation and the 2024 appear to have been set up as troughs for private companies and organisations to suck up taxpayer funds without having sufficient oversight of the proper and frugal use of those funds. Certainly there appear to have been considerable auditing questions about some of these schools, as well as questions about educational outcomes.
It was opposed by Labour and the Greens in the 2014 and 2017 elections and the extant schools integrated into the state systems after the 2017 election as special character schools along with the required oversight of public funds.
So the question is why Act is pushing for them again without any political consensus to allow them to continue? Labour and the Greens opposed them, will probably campaign on closing them.
My guess is that I guess the short to medium term benefits to Act donors outweigh the probable closures. Because I have only seen assertions about benefits, and legislation that makes it harder to make public complaints about charter school operations. Obviously Act didn't care for the public scrutiny that the charter schools got last time. Makes you wonder what they are hiding....
I haven’t been following the charter school debate closely alas but am puzzled by Labour’s close mindedness on the concept.
In 1974 I was on the staff of Four Avenues an experimental state-funded secondary school in Chch which was set up by the Labour government in order to give parents and students more choice in their education.. We had 5 staff ( called coordinators ) and 76 kids from 13 to 17 who were in groups under a staff member. We had total discretion to arrange the kids’ programmes as they and we wished. It was acknowledged to be an experiment and as such it had successes and failures before it folded some years later.
More choices in education was the point of it and that point remains valid today. The devil is then in the details. Labour argue the detail on a risk basis instead of pigheadedly and predictably doing the reversal dance that plagues NZ politics.
"...Four Avenues an experimental state-funded secondary school..."
So part of the state system, it was part of the audited system? Presumably complaints about the school, teachers and its operation were handled by a responsible body? Teachers had to be trained and registered?
That doesn't sound like a charter school taking tax payers funds, shielded from the Official Information Act, with severe limits on the role of state auditors. Where child, parent or even neighbour complaints are ultimately only managed by a charter school appointed mediator. Not to mention a vagueness about educational outcomes. Looks like a classic way to misuse of taxpayer supplied funds.
Not to mention an extremely large pot of cash ($158 million) filched from the budget for public school teacher aides to help enrich the owners and contractors starting up these schools. Or that 35 public schools (and presumably ownership or control of their property) to be excised from the public system.
What could possibly go wrong with the diversion of public funds to businesses and organisations? Perhaps you should look beyond the educational aspect to the possibilities for corruption and fraud.
Act introduced charter schools in the 2011 Key government. Labour said then that they were a distraction. As well as a range of public schools, often quite varied, we already had partially state integrated schools, and various other educational options like Kura Kaupapa and state supported private schools. Choices abound.
The problem is that charter schools both under the 2012 legislation and the 2024 appear to have been set up as troughs for private companies and organisations to suck up taxpayer funds without having sufficient oversight of the proper and frugal use of those funds. Certainly there appear to have been considerable auditing questions about some of these schools, as well as questions about educational outcomes.
It was opposed by Labour and the Greens in the 2014 and 2017 elections and the extant schools integrated into the state systems after the 2017 election as special character schools along with the required oversight of public funds.
So the question is why Act is pushing for them again without any political consensus to allow them to continue? Labour and the Greens opposed them, will probably campaign on closing them.
My guess is that I guess the short to medium term benefits to Act donors outweigh the probable closures. Because I have only seen assertions about benefits, and legislation that makes it harder to make public complaints about charter school operations. Obviously Act didn't care for the public scrutiny that the charter schools got last time. Makes you wonder what they are hiding....
I haven’t been following the charter school debate closely alas but am puzzled by Labour’s close mindedness on the concept.
In 1974 I was on the staff of Four Avenues an experimental state-funded secondary school in Chch which was set up by the Labour government in order to give parents and students more choice in their education.. We had 5 staff ( called coordinators ) and 76 kids from 13 to 17 who were in groups under a staff member. We had total discretion to arrange the kids’ programmes as they and we wished. It was acknowledged to be an experiment and as such it had successes and failures before it folded some years later.
More choices in education was the point of it and that point remains valid today. The devil is then in the details. Labour argue the detail on a risk basis instead of pigheadedly and predictably doing the reversal dance that plagues NZ politics.
"...Four Avenues an experimental state-funded secondary school..."
So part of the state system, it was part of the audited system? Presumably complaints about the school, teachers and its operation were handled by a responsible body? Teachers had to be trained and registered?
That doesn't sound like a charter school taking tax payers funds, shielded from the Official Information Act, with severe limits on the role of state auditors. Where child, parent or even neighbour complaints are ultimately only managed by a charter school appointed mediator. Not to mention a vagueness about educational outcomes. Looks like a classic way to misuse of taxpayer supplied funds.
Not to mention an extremely large pot of cash ($158 million) filched from the budget for public school teacher aides to help enrich the owners and contractors starting up these schools. Or that 35 public schools (and presumably ownership or control of their property) to be excised from the public system.
What could possibly go wrong with the diversion of public funds to businesses and organisations? Perhaps you should look beyond the educational aspect to the possibilities for corruption and fraud.