They came, they went, and they’re back! After a brief life under the Key Government, Charter Schools were revoked by the Ardern Administration only to be resurrected by the present Government.
Charter Schools are state funded, private businesses. They were a bottom line for David Seymour, the ACT Party leader, in both the 2008 coalition negotiations and again in his deal with the current Coalition Government.
Seventeen Charter Schools opened in 2014. The Charter School concept was promoted on the premise of lifting the academic achievement of ‘priority’ students in a climate of sliding international rankings. They would be the answer to the growing cohort of young people failing in mainstream public schools.
Charter Schools were intended to provide a climate for innovation to thrive, without the encumbrances of Ministry bureaucracy, compulsory curriculum constraints, or requirements to employ registered teachers. They would receive their funding in bulk and use it as they saw fit. They would employ their own teachers and would not be bound by the Official Information Act. Constraints included the requirement to have a sponsor and to sign a contract specifying targets – both financial and academic – to be met.
So how did they perform? A few were successful, some went under, and the rest survived, mostly with low enrolments. They were criticised for the lack of accountability and monitoring standards applied to them, but the Ministry responsible for the monitoring, attested that they had been given an impossible job. Inconsistent standards had been introduced with successive selection rounds resulting in layers of different regimes making contracts unmanageable.
Although the rationale for establishing Charter Schools was to address the needs of priority students and lift their achievement, there was no way of comparing the performance of Charter Schools against mainstream schools on this measure, because no separate data was recorded by Charter Schools for priority students. In general, Charter School reporting of academic results was described as ‘unreliable’. They were also widely criticised by the sector for the per student cost to establish them. Other than satisfying the ACT party’s core value for more choice, most principals viewed Charter Schools as a superfluous and expensive indulgence.
When the Government changed in 2017, they were one of the first casualties, and the current leader of the Opposition promises the same will happen next time the Government changes. As legislation to allow Charter Schools was unwound in 2017, the existing Charter Schools were all converted to special character or integrated public schools. The good ones have survived successfully in the state system and continue to perform well.
This time round, Minister Seymour promises there will be tighter accountability, closer monitoring, and schools will be funded to encourage growth rather than remain small as most were last time. He is also making provision for State Schools to convert to Charter Schools. On comparing the performance of Charter Schools against public schools he says it takes about three years to see trends and we would also analyse what the students do in later life. ‘We are not good at collecting longitudinal data right now,’ he said, ‘It might take a decade to see real results.’
The ‘Charter Schools Opinion Piece’ (p.9) submitted by the Chair of the Charter Schools Establishment Board, Justine Mahon, sets out the rationale for this round of Charter Schools saying:
‘Charter Schools in New Zealand are for educational leaders who want the freedom to focus on education, who thrive on the challenge of meeting, even exceeding, expectations for academic outcomes and who can motivate and reward their staff for taking innovative and effective approaches to get the job done.’
Minister Seymour concurs, emphasising the importance of having more choice of schools available, less bureaucratic red-tape, and enabling principals to have more control in decision making and promoting innovation. His implication is that there is insufficient choice now and that schools do not have autonomy over decision making or promoting innovation. Does the evidence support his position? Let’s look at schooling in Aotearoa New Zealand right now.
Aotearoa New Zealand is one of the most devolved education systems in the world. The level of autonomy afforded each school is far greater than most jurisdictions in the world. For better or worse, the Tomorrow’s Schools policy of 1989, made each school self-managing under a Board of Trustees, elected by and from the school community of parents. Regional Education Boards were abolished and replaced with a much leaner Ministry of Education. This was to divest the system of bureaucratic ‘red tape’ and allow school boards to make their own decisions on all operational matters.
Thirty-five years later, cracks have emerged. The high level of school autonomy has led to a breakdown in the connectedness of schools and the Tomorrows Schools ‘competitive’ model has been found wanting in maintaining healthy school collaboration mechanisms. Schools relish the closer relationships with their community members, however, and value the way community context is reflected in their local curriculum and school values. Charter Schools, with their individual business focus, are unlikely to resolve the connectivity issues that have emerged from Tomorrow’s Schools.
Public schools also value the freedom to pursue innovative approaches to pedagogy and learning and there are numerous examples. Some include ‘democratic’ approaches, where all children participate in decision making from the classroom level to decisions about the whole school (NZ Principal, 2015, v.30,(1)) Teaching as Inquiry, for sustained teacher improvement and improved student learning (NZ Principal, 2010, v.25, (3))Māori succeeding as Māori (NZ Principal, 2014, v.29, (3)), ‘Play-based learning’ and ‘Garden- to-Table’ (NZ Principal, 2021, v.36,(2)),Sports Academies (NZ Principal, 2022, v.37, (2)). These are a very few examples reported in this publication over the past years but there are hundreds more.
Innovation is the aspiration of all principals in Aotearoa New Zealand public schools. More than that, it is the reality for most. Principals are leading their staff to be innovative, and learner centred. It is what schools in New Zealand are most recognised for elsewhere in the world. New Zealand schools lead the way in individualised learning.
On school choice, New Zealand has always celebrated its fee paying private or independent schools that make a valuable contribution to the overall education system. They offer a particular sector of the population the opportunity of smaller classes, and a wide variety of extra-curricular options such as horse riding, music, arts and sporting options not available to all in mainstream schools. Within the public school system there are also many different school choices, including two excellent options showing outstanding results for Māori, who are too often found amongst the underachieving group of New Zealand students. These are the Kura Kaupapa Māori and Kura a-Iwi schools. We also have special character schools and integrated schools, all with their distinctive focus and values. Relative to most, New Zealand has a wide variety when it comes to school choice.
The question is, given the ambiguous results last time, and the lack of evidence that priority students made any gains under the former Charter School model, do we need a re-introduction of Charter Schools when the best of the last have survived perfectly well as public schools? In these fiscally constrained times, is it sensible to be spending $153 million on another Charter School trial?
Whilst most principals are telling us there are far more important things on which to spend the education budget, there are some exceptions. Private Montessori schools, for example, may see benefits in converting to the Charter School model. Some are operating as separate classes or units in state schools, which do not necessarily align with the Montessori philosophy and curriculum. This can create difficulties for the Montessori units. Further, depending on the provisions in the MoU between the Montessori Unit and the host school, the Montessori Unit may have no more than a term’s notice to vacate, should the host school require space for roll growth.
Other schools may also see advantage in the bulk funded option and some groups may see Charter Schools as an opportunity to promote their special brand of religious or moral beliefs. It is no secret, for example, that the Destiny Church has shown support for the Charter School model. Others have noted the rise in parents who have been radicalised on issues such as gender and sexuality and fear that Charter Schools could become a divisive mechanism for society. The publication of the Report of the Royal Commision on Abuse in Care was followed by survivors calling for a halt to plans for military style boot camps which would have Charter School status.
By and large, however, principals report that they do not support the Charter School model and do not think it is a good use of money. Bruce Jepsen, Te Akatea Māori Principals’ President says, ‘Charter Schools are not a by Māori, for Māori option, which is the best approach to lifting Māori achievement.’ He referred to the Kura Kaupapa and Kura a-Iwi success stories adding that while these options are working well, the majority of tamariki Māori remain in the public school system. ‘Charter Schools are not a panacea for achieving Māori aspirations,’ he said.
Regional presidents of principals’ groups reported that they would prefer education funding was spent on addressing equity; expanding the school lunches programme; employing a Learning Support Coordinator (LSC) in every school; employing more specialists, such as more Educational Psychologists, so that tamariki can be diagnosed more quickly; increasing the number of teacher aides available to schools, especially for high needs students; establishing an Alternative Education option for those under-thirteen, in the primary and intermediate sector; increasing staffing – given the widespread shortage of relievers; funding smaller class sizes; providing more teacher support and offering more PLD. They would also like additional funds allocated for property upgrades; and to see teacher and principal wellbeing addressed, since those priorities have the greatest impact on student achievement.
Other comments have included concerns about the Minister’s right to direct public ‘failing’ schools to become Charter Schools. The school board does not have to be consulted nor does the school community. Some see this as a ‘strong-arm’ tactic which does not consider those families who do not wish their children to attend a Charter School, or teachers who do not choose to work in a ‘for profit’ Charter School model. Parents value the relationship and their role in developing the shape of their school’s values and culture and do not want to lose it. Teachers in turn value the relationships they have with the parent community which enables meaningful engagement and better outcomes for children’s learning.
In summary, there is little school or public support for re-establishing Charter Schools and a good deal of opposition. When public schools have been starved of learning support services for decades, through lack of funding, it is difficult for principals to accept seeing millions of dollars invested in another Charter Schools round – especially when the Government’s Opposition Party leader says, when his party is back in Government, they will be gone – again.