After the 2011 General Election, the National-ACT Confidence and Supply Agreement stated that a new kind of school called a charter school would be set up. Based on models in USA, UK and Sweden, these schools would be funded by the state but be operated by sponsors who may be boards of trustees, community groups or for-profit businesses. Such schools will be set up ‘in areas where educational underachievement is most entrenched’. Details are still not available, but based on what has been released and what characterises such schools elsewhere, it can be expected that such schools will be freed from ministry control and from regular ERO inspection. Instead, they will be founded by means of a contract (charter) between the school and a charter group operator (community based or for-profit). The state provides money identical to that given to state schools and encourages the operators and their schools to seek additional funds. For their part, the charter school operators agree to deliver certain outcomes presumably in terms of NCEA results (secondary) or National Standards (primary). Each charter school is to be held accountable by its sponsor or a special group within the ministry. In principle, schools which fail to deliver will not be paid and, if the default continues, will be closed. The stated purpose of these new schools is to reduce the achievement gap between high-performing and low-performing students. The charter schools are modelled on similar schools in UK, Sweden and USA. The Educational Policy Response Group at Massey University has examined the research on charter schools in each of these countries and come to some tentative conclusions. At the outset, however, it is important to note that: 1. Underachievement is not a matter for schools alone. As the Coalition acknowledges there is need for ‘mutually supportive reforms’ in welfare, primary health, education, youth transition and employment. 2. Achievement data, so important in current government policy, is not in itself an adequate measure of educational success. Such narrowness of focus has potentially distorting effects on educational practices and has the potential to distort optimum learning and teaching relationships. 3. Education does not exist solely for financial or employment success: it serves highly significant social purposes including promoting equality of opportunity and informed citizenship. State schools, in particular, are accountable to the wider community for definite outcomes as specified in the Education Standards Act 2001. Private schools are not so obliged and in this regard the new charter schools look more like private schools than state schools.
It must also be acknowledged that an overriding principle of governance in New Zealand state schools is that each school
is accountable to its local community, which elects the Board of Trustees to represent the parents. In turn, the Board is accountable to the Ministry of Education by means of its charter. Effectively, therefore, all New Zealand state schools are already ‘charter schools’. This proposal for charter schools is a radical departure from the principles of local governance, social democracy and civic participation in state schools because the new schools are not to be accountable to a local community but to their sponsoring organisation, which may have no meaningful connection with the local community. With that background, the following can be reported: The Group has examined research data from countries which have charter schools or other similar schools. It concludes that the research on charter schools, though vast, is inconclusive. Thus, for example, the much-quoted CREDO study claims that across the USA 17 per cent of charter schools perform better than the public schools, 56 per cent perform about the same, and 37 per cent perform worse than the public schools. As discussed later, this study (like all studies) has been strongly criticised. ■■ The inconclusive nature of the research is due to five features: (i) ‘charter school’ is an ill-defined notion: it is not a philosophy of education or a method of teaching; (ii) studies of charter schools in individual American states cannot be generalised to the whole of the USA (much less to other countries with their own traditions and problems); (iii) most studies compare mean performance, which is of little help in determining whether charter schools improve the achievement of the lowest performing students; (iv) it is very difficult to determine whether any improved achievements have been worth the massive upheaval to the system; and (v) few researchers who study charter schools are fully neutral: most already have a clear position on whether such schools are desirable or not. ■■ Nevertheless, the Group believes that some lessons can be learned from the example of other jurisdictions where a form of charter school has been operating for some time. Thus, we look at Sweden, the UK and at three representative case studies in the USA. ■■ In Sweden there are now more than 700 ‘free schools’ enrolling upwards of 100,000 students. Two major studies conclude that although there were some short-term improvements in student achievement, these were not sustained. Children of highly educated parents profited most, while the impact on families and immigrants who had received a low level of education is hardly visible. However, contrary to what some opponents of charter schools have suggested there is no evidence of damage to state schools as a result of competition. ■■ Another major study of the Swedish system, undertaken to promote free schools in Britain argues that there have been
significant benefits from Swedish free schools, especially those which are for-profit. It therefore advises the British government to reverse its policy of outlawing for-profit schools. ■■ Swedish free schools have become big business. The schools have become tradable commodities, caught up in a global battle for supremacy among transnational corporations and private investment funds. ■■ In the UK ‘free schools’ known as academies have been operating since the late 1980s. From 2001 the government encouraged secondary schools to become specialist schools and since the election of the coalition government in 2010 ‘free schools’ have been set up. These go beyond the academies in their autonomy from regulation. ■■ Many of the academies have been set up by businesses and they tend to specialise in entrepreneurial education. By and large, academies have not improved equality of access or achievement. ■■ The new ‘free schools’ in the UK have not been operating long enough for thorough evaluation to take place. ■■ Charter schools began in the USA in the 1990s in response to perceived weaknesses in many urban schools. There are now some 4,000 charter schools in 40 states and they enrol more than a million students. ■■ Numerous studies have been funded or conducted by groups that either support or oppose charter schools. Typically, the findings of charter school supporters are vehemently criticised by their opponents, and vice versa. Where study findings are based on the analysis of official databases of student characteristics and achievement outcomes, the statistical methods are invariably criticised as incomplete, misleading or flawed. For example, the Stanford University CREDO study has been widely cited as showing the very limited success of charter schools in the USA. But two other studies have severely criticised the CREDO study for claimed weaknesses in its selection and application of statistical methods. ■■ A lesson for politicians, media, social scientists and teachers in New Zealand is that without a sound base in statistics, none of us is competent even to engage in this debate let alone pronounce on the outcome. ■■ Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) is a network of schools designed to improve the educational opportunities of low income families. Between 80 and 100 per cent of their students are African American or Hispanic, and 60–75 per cent are entitled to Free or Reduced Price Lunches (a measure of poverty). A high degree of commitment is expected from teachers, parents and students. The school day runs from 7.15
Vision Whiteboard Slider Cabinet The whiteboard with heaps of storage! • Available in 2.4m, 3.6m and 4.8m standard modules • 1970mm high x 400mm deep • Writing surfaces come with our Foreva lifetime guarantee • Optional locks for whiteboards • Customised modules and colours available upon request • New Zealand’s leading whiteboard manufacturer
0800 POTTERS | www.potters.co.nz | info@potters.co.nz
am to 5 pm, and sessions are held on Saturdays and in the holidays. A high standard of behaviour is expected. ■■ Students who enter and stay in KIPP schools tend to perform better than similar students in other schools. This does not seem to be due to differential selection policies. ■■ Student attrition, however, is high and skewed: those who leave are those who have performed less well. Forty per cent of African American students leave KIPP schools before year 8. ■■ A third of KIPP year 8 students go on to gain a college degree (more than four times the rate for such students nationwide), but there is a 30 per cent attrition rate from year 6 to year 8, compared with 6 per cent in non-KIPP schools and the correct comparison should probably be year 6 enrolments.
Education does not exist solely for financial or employment success: it serves highly significant social purposes including promoting equality of opportunity and informed citizenship. KIPP schools receive much more money per student than comparable public schools: on average $18,491 per pupil versus $11,991 per pupil in a public school. Yet, the KIPP schools spend only an extra $457 per pupil more than the public school: what happens to the remainder is not known. ■■ Even if the most generous interpretation is placed on the results of KIPP schools, the most they can do is reduce the achievement gap. They cannot eliminate it since, as a spokesperson concedes ‘the gap is fixed by differences in home literacy, years before students enter school’. ■■ The emphasis on parental choice, which is central to charter schools, has been operating in New Zealand since Tomorrow’s Schools; indeed, since 1989 all state schools have been charter schools. It was assumed then, and is assumed now, that greater choice will lead to greater equity in the form of improved achievement by lower achieving pupils. ■■ However, two of the results of the 1989 reforms were (i) schools which cater for lower socio-economic students have suffered roll losses and higher socio-economic schools have increased their rolls, and (ii) Māori and Pacific Island students are under-represented in the higher decile schools and over-represented in the lower decile schools. For obvious reasons, this has been termed ‘white flight’ but it is a feature
of all choice systems: those with more resources benefit disproportionately. Leading researchers in the USA summarise their studies: ‘Increasing parental choice is likely to increase separation of students by race, social class and culture even when the system is specifically designed to remedy inequality.’ (Our emphasis) ■■ It is of concern that the proposed charter schools will depart from the established position on school governance: that local schools should be accountable to the local community. The new schools will instead be accountable only to their sponsors. ■■ Much could be done to improve the governance mechanisms of all state schools rather than subject the system to another major upheaval, the results of which depend more on aspiration than evidence. ■■ Similarly, we believe that there are arguments for a rather different approach to improved achievement: a focus on researchbased approaches to literacy and mathematics, well-targeted teaching strategies, and a CSR (class size reduction) strategy especially for pupils in the first years of primary and secondary schooling. The charter school proposal and other current policies are based on the belief that the way to improved outcomes is to foster choice and competition, and rigorously control teachers (by National Standards, performance pay, inspection and the like). In fact, the example of the highest performing education system (Finland) suggests that this approach is quite misguided: achievement is better pursued by fostering a teaching force which is highly educated and socially esteemed, avoiding high-stakes ‘accountability’ regimes and rejecting streaming and reliance on standardised tests. ■■ Finland also embeds its educational policies in a framework of welfare: all students receive a free two-course meal daily, free health care, transportation, learning materials, and counselling in the schools. ■■ It should be remembered that New Zealand students are, on average, consistently among the highest performers internationally. It is, then, very important that, in the enthusiasm for even better performance, we make sure that we do not destroy the remaining organisational flexibility, curricular breadth, and teacher freedom which, arguably, has led to superior results. ■■ Similarly, given what we know about family background, it is important that the government does not focus narrowly on education but on policies to eradicate child poverty, which has been consistently demonstrated to be the strongest predictor of educational and life chances. The Child Poverty Action Group has pointed out the wider equity issues for children who attend low decile schools. On the basis of research studies that show children who are hungry cannot learn effectively, Wynd argues the case for a national school breakfast programme for children in low decile schools at an annual cost of NZ$25 million (decile 1 and 2 schools) or NZ$36 million (including decile 3 schools). This it should be remembered is in the context of a total annual schools budget of NZ$8,100 million.
The Massey Educational Policy Response Group concludes that while the evidence on charter schools and achievement is inconclusive, they are satisfied from the studies examined that there is little evidence to support the view that charter schools will (i) provide choice for large numbers of low income parents: charter schools will cream off the most motivated and leave the rest to cope as best they can with what is provided; (ii) promote greater equality: it is quite possible that a number of individuals will be rather better off but they will remain relatively poorly served in relation to their more advantaged mates: the ‘rich’
will continue to get ‘richer’; and (iii) eliminate the ‘long tail of underachievement’: individuals will benefit and the tail may be reduced slightly but equality of educational opportunity will elude the majority until such time as economic and social welfare is promoted ahead of educational reform. The Group argues that if the government persists with its policy on charter schools it will need to ensure that: 1. Charter schools do not cream off the most motivated students from existing schools and so impoverish still further those schools which already labour under financial and social handicaps. 2. Charter schools are not captured by business interests, including overseas corporations which will lead to yet another opportunity for our assets to be sold overseas and our children to be indoctrinated with sectional values. 3. Charter schools do not actively recruit the best teachers and leave other schools to cope without their leaders. 4. Charter schools do not make an easy profit by hiring untrained and unsuitable teachers. 5. Charter schools do not siphon money away from existing grants and programmes which target those most in need (e.g. decile funding, AIMHI, Strengthening Education, etc.).
The Group believes that the educational agenda of the past few years is misguided. Finland is a reminder that there is a better model: one which favours high levels of teacher education and ongoing professional development, avoids centralised controls and refuses to focus narrowly on the assessment of student progress. Unless the government proceeds with care, it is quite likely that the charter school experiment, far from improving our education system, will be another costly mistake which will lead to further inequality in educational achievement and leave our most vulnerable children at the mercy of the market. Contact
For copies of the full report, or for further discussion, contact Emeritus Professor Ivan Snook: iasnook@clear.net.nz or Professor John O’Neill: j.g.oneill@massey.ac.nz About the author
Ivan Snook originally trained as a primary teacher and taught in secondary schools before gaining his PhD, specialising in philosophy of education. He lectured at the University of Canterbury for 13 years, and in 1981 became Professor of Education at Massey University. He was Head of the Department of Education 1985–1990 and Dean of the Faculty from 1989 until his retirement at the end of 1993. He is now Emeritus Professor of Education at Massey University. He has authored, edited, or co-authored several books, and has published some 200 papers in academic and professional journals. Ivan received the NZARE McKenzie Award (1994) for his outstanding contribution to educational research. In 1993 he was elected an Honorary Fellow of the NZEI for services to education. Ivan received the NZARE McKenzie Award (1994) for his outstanding contribution to educational research, and in 1995 was elected inaugural Fellow of the Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia to mark its 25th Jubilee. He was also a member of the Tertiary Education Advisory Commission (2001–2003).