Good money after bad into the bottomless pit of charter schools

73 comments on “Good money after bad into the bottomless pit of charter schools ”

• Comments are now closed

1. savenz 1

   29 January 2016 at 11:19 am

   +100 – Don’t worry

   “Inside NZ house of filth”
   ‘Bodies were never dumped at sea’
   Crashed out on side of the motorway
   Has anyone ever heard of a kinkajou?
   Apple recalls NZ wall plug adapters
   Don’t ask Roger Federer stupid questions
   Emirates to fly Auckland-Dubai non-stop
   Introducing the new, realistic Barbie”

   ‘Breaking’ news from our ‘business newspaper’ Granddady Herald….

   Kids education, more bad decisions from Natz, millions of taxpayers dollars wasted,
   MSM not really interested in that news obviously…..
2. Andre 2

   29 January 2016 at 11:24 am

   $400,000 for one quarter of the year for a roll that peaked at less than 40 students? How does that compare to regular state school funding?
   • repateet 2.1

     29 January 2016 at 12:21 pm

     The Minister last year intimated in the House that should the school be closed down (at that stage) the same amount of money spent on those kids until the end of February 2016 would be spent on those pupils in other (state) schools. That was a lie.
   • Molly 2.2

     29 January 2016 at 1:16 pm

     Approx $7,000/yr per student a few years ago, IIRC.

     Don’t think it has changed that much. But definitely not up to the level of approx $40K/year/student.
   • Nick Nack 2.3

     29 January 2016 at 1:50 pm

     You have to compare apples with apples, that is include the establishment costs. For example Rolleston Secondary (http://rollestonsec.school.nz/school-design/) is costing around $53m, and is projected to open in 2015 with 225 students. I could easily create a false impression by comparing their costs per pupil with an established charter school, but that would be dishonest. Some opponents of charter schools are doing precisely that, which doesn’t help the credibility of their position.
     • Andre 2.3.1

       29 January 2016 at 2:00 pm

       Admittedly none of the articles is precisely explicit on whether the $400,000 for the first quarter of this year includes some establishment costs. But since all of them separately mention $1.4 million in establishment costs, it certainly gives the impression the $400,000 is just for ongoing operating expenses.
       • Nick Nack 2.3.1.1

         29 January 2016 at 4:31 pm

         It’s not just about establishment costs, it’s also about amortising total cost over a smaller roll in the early life of a new school. That also is a dishonest way of criticising the charter school model that is frequently deployed.

         Charter schools are controversial, I accept that. And they don’t always work, but then nor do state schools. The difference is charter schools can fail, whereas state schools have money pumped into them so they can’t fail.
         • Andre 2.3.1.1.1

           29 January 2016 at 5:23 pm

           “The school has received $3.2m in operational funding in the last two years and prior to its opening, the trust received $1.6m for establishment costs, which the school used to buy a farm.”

           http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/education/76334545/opposition-mps-call-for-hekia-paratas-resignation-on-back-of-charter-school-closure

           That’s $400,000 per quarter in operational funding for the last two years. Over $40,000 per year per student. Over and above establishment costs, paid by the government. And the assets bought by the charter school operators don’t revert back to the government, they are apparently kept by the failed charter school operators. Please, do explain how this is a dishonest criticism of the charter school model. I so enjoy a defence of the indefensible.
           • Nick Nack 2.3.1.1.1.1

             29 January 2016 at 5:53 pm

             I’m not defending anything, I’m simply pointing out that some opponents of charter schools use misleading comparisons. You’ve actually done exactly that in your comment above. The ‘per student’ method of calculating cost is irrelevant until the school is at or near capacity. Your flawed methodology could be applied to the Rolleston example I gave above to produce an establishment cost of $235,000 per student, yet that would entirely misleading.

             Your comment about the assets and the operators is also questionable, unless you know the details of the trust that operated the school, and of the contract between the trust and the crown.

             I had doubts about the charter school model, but so far most are working well, and the take-up by Maori and Pacifica is particularly encouraging.
             • Macro …

               29 January 2016 at 7:08 pm

               The ‘per student’ method of calculating cost is irrelevant until the school is at or near capacity.

               🙄
               How big do you think the max roll would be? Not more than 100 tops – if that!
               And yes it is relevant – because that expenditure could have been better spent elsewhere – where the investment in each student is a fraction of the money wasted on this exercise.
               • Nick Nack …

                 29 January 2016 at 7:27 pm

                 “How big do you think the max roll would be? Not more than 100 tops – if that!”

                 How do you know?

                 “where the investment in each student is a fraction of the money wasted on this exercise.”

                 The same could be said of state schools that get extra help…why not just convert them to charter schools?

                 You see that’s the point. You can spin numbers whichever way you want. I could argue that because Rolleston school is costing $10.2m per 200 students (assuming its roll will be full at 1040 by 2020), whereas the first 5 charter schools only cost $1.43m per 200 students, then all schools should be charter schools. You see how absurd the argument becomes when you distort the numbers?
             • Andre …

               29 January 2016 at 8:04 pm

               Maximum capacity roll at Whangaruru 128
               http://www.eduvac.co.nz/news/2014/05/15/nz%E2%80%99s-charter-schools-small-and-expensive Maximum roll achieved 71. If it ever achieved its maximum roll without getting an increase in operational funding, its per student funding would be about $12,500, 65% more than the average state funding for secondary school students.

               It looks to me like you’re the one trying to conflate operating and establishment costs, but anyway, taking your example, the Rolleston School is intended for a roll of 1040, and taking your word for the $53M ( I haven’t gone looking for verification), that’s $51k per student, not $235k.

               The next sentence in the stuff link above from the one quoted: “Parata said in the case of state schools the ministry owns the land and assets, but in this case the ministry would have to go into “commercial negotiations”.” I have the very strong suspicion this translates as “we couldn’t be bothered thinking about what happens if it fails, so we didn’t put anything in the contract so now we’re going to go try to beg some of the money back”. If you have another interpretation, please share.

               Please feel free to link to any credible positive news stories about success stories at charter schools. I haven’t seen any since this thread prompted to look for them. In fact, at 11:24 this morning I was only mildly annoyed about charter schools, now I’m fucking outraged at what a rort they’ve turned out to be.
               • Nick Nack …

                 29 January 2016 at 9:31 pm

                 The data on Whangaruru is not correct. The $3.2m for the two years must have included some establishment funding, because the $1.6m was used to purchase a farm.

                 Re Rolleston, the $235k per student was based on the anticipated opening roll, not the 2020 roll, and precisely illustrates my point about how distorted such a comparison this would be. Overall state schools are costing considerably more per pupil to establish than are charter schools.

                 Re the ‘credible positive news stories’:
                 http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/268702/good-ero-reports-for-two-charter-schools
                 http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11514077
                 http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/288486/charter-school-interest-a-'vote-of-confidence‘

                 As I said earlier, Charter schools are controversial. Some will fail, some will succeed. Just like state schools, the only difference being we pump money into state schools to avoid them failing. At the extremes, both opposition and support for charter schools seems to be more ideological than evidence based. My support for them is tentative but based on what I see as a real possibility of helping kids who have previously slipped through the cracks.
                 • The Other Mike …

                   29 January 2016 at 10:35 pm

                   Thanks. But can anyone explain why they are buying f’n FARM???
                   • Nick Nack …

                     30 January 2016 at 12:09 pm

                     NO! That’s the bit that is just plain silly.
                 • Draco T Bastard …

                   29 January 2016 at 10:57 pm

                   I’d like to know why the government is buying a farm for someone else as well.
                   • tricledrown …

                     30 January 2016 at 1:56 pm

                     the worst thing is the farm will remain the property of the trust after the school closes.
                 • Andre …

                   30 January 2016 at 7:29 am

                   $800,000 was paid for the farm. Which now has an estimated sale value of $750,000. That leaves $800k for other establishment costs.
                   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/northern-advocate/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503450&objectid=11581567
                   It looks to me like you’ve pre-decided things aren’t as bad as reports by reputable news organisations presenting facts are making clear, so you’ve gone out of your way to try to paint a distorted rosy picture.

                   The two nzherald items you’ve linked are puff pieces written by vested interests. Which leaves the ERO reports in the radionz as the positive news. At least one of those schools has had serious problems since the ERO reports http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11554125

                   This government isn’t shy about closing state schools.
                   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10886944

                   Education isn’t my field of expertise, or much personal interest beyond the fact that it’s a big part of government and I’ve got kids in education now. So yesterday morning I only had a vague sense that charter schools weren’t the panacea they were made out to be. But now that I’ve spent a bit of time looking into them, I’ve come to the view that they are an utter waste of government money that would be better spent improving the state school system. And I’ll leave it at that.
                   • Nick Nack …

                     30 January 2016 at 12:14 pm

                     The problem with the argument about improving state schools is that state schools don’t work for some kids. Charter schools specifically meet the needs of those kids, as the evidence is showing.

                     As for the links, you asked for positive media coverage, without qualifications. The ERO reviews are definitive. The ‘cultural’ complaints about Middle School are irrelevant to the educational outcomes of the kids. The MSM would not have even been interested in that if it wasn’t a charter school.
                   • Draco T Bastard …

                     30 January 2016 at 2:23 pm

                     Charter schools specifically meet the needs of those kids, as the evidence is showing.

                     [citation needed]

                     Generally speaking, I’d call it bollocks though. To teach people of differing learning methods requires high investment which would cut into the charter schools profit.

                     And, again, it would have been easier and cheaper to just make the investment into the existing state schools.
                 • One Anonymous Bloke …

                   30 January 2016 at 7:40 am

                   What you’re missing is that they’re founded on a lie. Not just the “education in crisis” lie that John Key was pushing in 2007, and was used to introduce the retrograde and self-defeating notional standards, but the entire narrative.

                   The single most influential factor in education outcomes is household income. Not the school you attend. While inequality and poverty increase, the authors of this economic disaster blame teachers for the inevitable result.

                   The only reason any of the above is at all controversial is politics. ‘Centre-right’ education policy has no validity.
                   • Nick Nack …

                     30 January 2016 at 12:15 pm

                     Absolutely household income matters, but it is not the only factor. Some kids don’t take to conventional schooling. That’s where charter schools come into their own.
                   • One Anonymous Bloke …

                     30 January 2016 at 1:41 pm

                     [citation needed]

                     This is what’s happening is it? Kids are being chosen because they “don’t take to conventional schooling”, and it’s just an amazing coincidence that they all happen to come from areas of economic and social deprivation.

                     Personally I think that sounds like bullshit. No doubt you can provide supporting information? Of course you can’t, because right wing education policy has no validity.
     • Draco T Bastard 2.3.2

       29 January 2016 at 2:33 pm

       Sure but there’s one big difference – the charter school didn’t need to be set up at all and so it comes under the economic heading of ‘opportunity cost’. It would have been simpler and better just to spend that money directly into Northland’s existing schools.

       National lost millions of dollars on this one school. If we have a look at other charter schools around the country chances are that we’ll find even more loss. A loss that could have been spent on existing schools and improving them.
       • Molly 2.3.2.1

         29 January 2016 at 5:10 pm

         +100
     • Psycho Milt 2.3.3

       30 January 2016 at 8:01 am

       You have to compare apples with apples, that is include the establishment costs. For example Rolleston Secondary (http://rollestonsec.school.nz/school-design/) is costing around $53m, and is projected to open in 2015 with 225 students.

       Indeed you do have to compare apples with apples. Rolleston Secondary won’t do as a comparison because the government would never establish a public school as small as Whangaruru, for the excellent reason that it’s a wastefully inefficient way to spend taxpayers’ money. Also, the people setting up Rolleston Secondary won’t get to pocket the cash themselves or buy themselves a farm with it.
       • Nick Nack 2.3.3.1

         30 January 2016 at 12:16 pm

         Irrelevant. The issue is whether or not the method of cost comparison is relevant, not the merits of operating a small school. Are you advocating shutting all state schools with a roll of under 200?
         • One Anonymous Bloke 2.3.3.1.1

           30 January 2016 at 1:50 pm

           The issue is that right wing education policy has no validity, and every unsupported “I reckon” comment you leave here just underlines that point.

           Can you imagine what the theory would look like?

           “Educational achievement is proportional to the number of farms owned by the educators”,

           “The success of a school is determined by donations to the National Party”.

           “The purpose of state education is to smash the unions”.
           • Nick Nack 2.3.3.1.1.1

             30 January 2016 at 2:19 pm

             “Right wing education”? I’m not interested in political ideology. I want to see NZ kids who are currently falling through the cracks helped to succeed. Education is a key to that. I don’t care WHY they are in the position they are in; I don’t care WHO runs the system; I just want what works. For some kids that’s the public system, with it’s many benefits. For others it is private schooling, or the integrated hybrid. And for some, it may well be charter provision. What I find interesting is that Maori and Pacifica groups are charter schools are lining up to set up charter schools. They must see the benefits, even if you don’t.
             • One Anonymous Bloke …

               30 January 2016 at 2:25 pm

               Oh, sorry, I now realise that your version of education policy is:

               “Something must be done! This is something, therefore we must do this!”

               “I want to see NZ kids who are currently falling through the cracks helped to succeed”. However, you don’t want to do a damn thing to tackle the single most influential factor in education achievement, eh. Pretending to be so concerned for the kids, except by recognising the actual problems they face. No wonder you can’t seem to find any validity.
               • Nick Nack …

                 1 February 2016 at 10:59 am

                 “However, you don’t want to do a damn thing to tackle the single most influential factor in education achievement, eh.”

                 How do you know I don’t want to address that? This discussion is about charter schools. Improving educational outcomes is a challenge with more than one solution. Charter schools may well be one of them.
                 • One Anonymous Bloke …

                   1 February 2016 at 11:10 am

                   That’s a piss-poor reason to experiment on children, especially given overseas experience of fraud and failure.

                   If the issue were pedagogical flexibility, then it would have been a lot cheaper to foster it by abandoning retrograde notional standards.

                   Sure that might interfere with plans to smash the teachers’ unions and introduce wholesale privatisation, and so what?
                   • Nick Nack …

                     1 February 2016 at 11:22 am

                     Charter schools have worked extremely well overseas. And so far they are working in NZ.
                   • One Anonymous Bloke …

                     1 February 2016 at 11:30 am

                     Oh dear, are you so stupid you believe right wing lies?

                     Poor you. Please accept my charitable sympathy.
             • Andre …

               30 January 2016 at 2:57 pm

               Or maybe it’s a few predatory arseholes in those Maori and Pacifica communities that see their opportunity and are going for it. You know, the likes of Donna Grant, Brian Tamaki, Donna Awatere Huata…
               • Nick Nack …

                 1 February 2016 at 11:02 am

                 Or Willie Jackson?

                 Not a single operator of any of the charter schools is a ‘for-profit’ enterprise. You’re way off beam here.
                 • Andre …

                   1 February 2016 at 1:37 pm

                   “One school, Vanguard Military School, paid $309,391 for management, over and above what it paid its principal. The money went to the Advanced Training Group. Both entities are owned by the Hyde family.”

                   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11501047

                   It’s possible they are technically a non-profit. But they’re pretty fucking good at lining individual pockets.
                   • Nick Nack …

                     1 February 2016 at 1:49 pm

                     From the same article:

                     “Vanguard chief executive Nick Hyde said the payment was for the day-to-day running of the 93-student school, allowing the principal to focus on staff, students and the curriculum. It went towards a chief executive, his staff, payroll, accounts, administration and the support from directors and board members.

                     He said splitting governance and management had led to success so far, including a 100 per cent NCEA Level 2 pass rate.”

                     You also seem to have a misconception of how charter schools are funded.

                     “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

                     I would recommend you read the entire document, it will dispel your concerns.
             • Stuart Munro …

               30 January 2016 at 11:45 pm

               There’s a reasonably clear distinction between the kind of charter school that succeeds, and those that fail. The successful kind are started by education professionals and tend to use longer hours as well as unconventional strategies on top of their core curricula to ensure success. These are relatively rare – 5-10% of charter schools.

               The unsuccessful kind are started by ‘business’ people to secure a chunk of state funding. They hire marginal or unqualified teachers and have no freaking idea what they’re doing educationally.

               National has chosen to fund the second model.
               • Nick Nack …

                 1 February 2016 at 11:03 am

                 And yet 4 of the 5 schools have received excellent ERO reviews.
                 • One Anonymous Bloke …

                   1 February 2016 at 11:17 am

                   And yet in 2007, the lying opposition leader told lies when he said that 20% of schools were failing, and that meant the sky was falling. A 20% failure rate has already been identified as a massive crisis.

                   Sauce for the goose? Or not?
                   • Nick Nack …

                     1 February 2016 at 11:20 am

                     Relevance?
                   • Nick Nack …

                     1 February 2016 at 11:20 am

                     Relevance?
                   • One Anonymous Bloke …

                     1 February 2016 at 11:27 am

                     Baby steps:

                     4 out of 5 = 80%

                     100% – 80% = 20%

                     The lying opposition leader said 20% was a crisis. Do you grasp the relevance yet?
         • Psycho Milt 2.3.3.1.2

           30 January 2016 at 9:28 pm

           Are you advocating shutting all state schools with a roll of under 200?

           Nope, just pointing out that the goverment wouldn’t create a new public school of that size because it believes it to be a wastefully inefficient use of taxpayers’ money. Any cost comparison of charter schools vs public schools needs to make explicit that the former are of a type regarded by the government as wastefully inefficient.
     • In Vino 2.3.4

       30 January 2016 at 7:42 pm

       Yes, but Rolleston is being established because there is a shortage of classroom space in the area, and the school is actually needed.

       Charter schools are being opened willy-nilly wherever the neo-liberal ideologues think they can make a buck, with no concern as to whether there is actually a shortage of classroom space in the area.

       So the establishment costs of Charter Schools are generally costs that would not have been needed, and far more benefit would have gone to the students if the under-resourced state schools had been given that extra funding. Your argument is rubbish – not apples and oranges, but rotten tomatoes.
       • Nick Nack 2.3.4.1

         1 February 2016 at 11:08 am

         Charter schools are certainly not being opened ‘willy nilly’. They are being opened in very small blocks, any prospective operators are put through a robust assessment, and they are being subject to greater scrutiny than are state schools. 4 out of the first 5 have been successful.

         “and far more benefit would have gone to the students if the under-resourced state schools had been given that extra funding. ”

         And you know this how? From I see charter schools are helping kids who have the state system has failed, despite all the extra assistance it has received.
         • One Anonymous Bloke 2.3.4.1.1

           1 February 2016 at 11:37 am

           Didn’t take you long to start parroting transparent lies. As I said, you won’t do shit about the actual problem: household income – remember that? You pretended to accept it as an influential factor, but perhaps I should have rubbed your face in it a bit harder.

           Why can’t right wingers propose policies without lying? What the fuck is wrong with you people?
           • Nick Nack 2.3.4.1.1.1

             1 February 2016 at 1:40 pm

             Household income is a factor. I don’t know how you could rub my face in anything I’ve said. I’ve stuck with the discussion, which is charter schools. You seem stuck on an ideological bandwagon.
             • One Anonymous Bloke …

               1 February 2016 at 1:48 pm

               the state system has failed, despite all the extra assistance it has received.

               Nothing irrational in disliking tired zombie lies. In light of the fact that household income is the single most important factor, you have no grounds to support the tired zombie lie above, because since 1984, comparing like for like, the number of children living in poverty has doubled.

               You really oughtn’t go believing the things right wing liars tell you. What’s your excuse?
               • Nick Nack …

                 1 February 2016 at 1:56 pm

                 So you should support Charter schools, because they provide free education (that’s right, free!) to families of kids in need! They target precisely the kids of families you are pretending to be concerned about! But I suspect you won’t support them, because your opposition is not based on evidence or experience, just ideology.
                 • One Anonymous Bloke …

                   1 February 2016 at 2:05 pm

                   That’s odd, because according to you yesterday, they teach kids who “don’t take to conventional schooling.”

                   So basically you’ll say anything, while ignoring substantive rebuttal. Why do you tell so many lies? I think it’s because you have zero personal responsibility.

                   Fix the problems (increased inequality and child poverty) liars like you created, and then tackle those (if any) who still “fall through the cracks”.

                   It ought to be possible to do that without buying farms for unregistered teachers.
                   • Nick Nack …

                     1 February 2016 at 2:28 pm

                     “That’s odd, because according to you yesterday, they teach kids who “don’t take to conventional schooling.””

                     What’s odd? My comment is correct, and is consistent with everything else I have posted. BTW, some kids have difficulty in the state system, irrespective of family background. It’s not only poor kids who don’t fit in OAB.

                     “Fix the problems (increased inequality and child poverty) liars like you created, and then tackle those (if any) who still “fall through the cracks”.”

                     There is no absolute fix for these problems. And any progress with not be fast. Meanwhile, you consign thousands of kids to educational failure because of ideological bias. Well done.

                     “It ought to be possible to do that without buying farms for unregistered teachers.”

                     I don’t have any problem with unregistered teachers. Virtually every teacher who has been in the news over the past few years for sexual deviancy has been registered. Teaching is a gift, some people have it, some people don’t. Registration won’t change that.
                   • Nick Nack …

                     1 February 2016 at 2:29 pm

                     BTW, I found this piece. I noticed there is a lot of support for Campbell here, so I thought you might be interested.

                     http://www.newshub.co.nz/tvshows/campbelllive/charter-schools-the-future-of-education-2014091219#axzz3ysDojqZL
                   • lprent []

                     1 February 2016 at 2:35 pm

                     A report from 12 Sep 2014?

                     Have they failed in the mean time like so many other charter schools after sponging up millions from taxpayers like so other charter schools? Is that why you can’t source a more recent analysis about how they have been going. Or was Campbell Live the home of the only kiwi journalists?

                     You are a bit of a idiot aren’t you?
                   • One Anonymous Bloke …

                     1 February 2016 at 2:55 pm

                     And out comes the sick parrot.
                   • Nick Nack …

                     2 February 2016 at 11:25 am

                     I posted the Campbell live clip because Campbell is popular among the left. I’ve already linked to the ERO reports, and to very recent positive media coverage. But then you do know that.
3. Dot 3

   29 January 2016 at 11:34 am

   These are all points that must be remembered in the run up to the next election
   I think that in Education we can point out clear differences between opposition parties and National,
   that hopefully New Zealanders will take note of .
   This gross mis-spending sadly is an example.
   • gsays 3.1

     29 January 2016 at 7:47 pm

     no, no, no, dot.
     you see the nats are good at managing money.

     it’s not mis-spending, it’s an investment.

     reminds me of father ted.
     
4. savenz 4

   29 January 2016 at 11:36 am

   Charter schools are known fraud vehicles for corporates and individuals, it’s not really hard to find out especially in the US… interestingly they never seem to recoup the money???

   “Charter schools are cheating your kids: New report reveals massive fraud, mismanagement, abuse
   Millions of dollars are being vacuumed out of public schools and into the corporate pockets — or fraudulent execs”

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

   “The great charter school rip-off: Finally, the truth catches up to education “reform” phonies
   Fraud, financial mismanagement, lousy results: Reports highlight awful charter schools and people are catching on”

   http://www.salon.com/2014/10/02/the_great_charter_school_rip_off_finally_the_truth_catches_up_to_education_reform_phonies/
5. DFool 5

   29 January 2016 at 11:58 am

   I know some people contracted to teach different activities at the school, and which required a high staff to student ratio. Every week multiple staff would travel three hours return to the school for an hours lesson and most of the time there were less students than they were staffed up and paid for, and most of the time half of those that were in attendance did not participate in the activities even though they were in attendance. I could imagine lots of money being wasted across other subjects in the same manner.
6. reason 6

   29 January 2016 at 12:16 pm

   I wonder if Nacts charter schools are part of the reason we are plummeting backwards down the world education rankings under this government ??? ………..

   Remember they are taking money from normal state schools, or closing them down ……. so they can pump more money into private and charter schools.

   Yet another door the bent Key has opened ……………..
   • Molly 6.1

     29 January 2016 at 1:22 pm

     Was looking up a school closure for someone who has no access to the internet, and printed off the Excel spreadsheet that is located here for them to take.

     Interesting spreadsheet for those who want to have a look at the number of communities who have been affected.
7. Tricledrown 7

   29 January 2016 at 1:37 pm

   The worst thing about this is the land that was purchased by this charter school is not being taken back but left in this trusts hands
   Scandalous.
   Who’s on the board of this trust friends of the National Party.
   • savenz 7.1

     29 January 2016 at 3:51 pm

     Don’t worry Tricledrown – the herald has their new finger on the news pulse because

     Emirates to fly Auckland-Dubai non-stop
     Introducing the new, realistic Barbie

     It’s called cross promotion and advertorials – you pay to get your company into the news! Fabulous.

     We don’t need to know who authorised IWI to get 5.2 million from the National party and gets to keep the land….. I mean you get paid to keep that stuff out of the news, right?

     If Parata keeps this up with Charter Schools she might get to be as good at negotiating as Grosser!
   • repateet 7.2

     29 January 2016 at 7:45 pm

     The Minister was specifically asked about this in the House last year well before the writing was on the wall for the school. Of course the usual fudging happened with the answers.
8. Macro 8

   29 January 2016 at 1:40 pm

   They were told right from the get go that these “Dames Schools” were going to be a disaster. Everyone with any knowledge of educational history would have told them that – I certainly did. But they were never going to listen and now, a few years later, a few people are a lot richer, and the kids a lot poorer.
   • savenz 8.1

     29 January 2016 at 4:08 pm

     The first step to billionaire taking over education as they are trying to in the US…

     “9 Billionaires Are About to Remake New York’s Public Schools—Here’s Their Story
     A Nation investigation reveals how a group of hedge funders are about to get exactly what they paid for.”

     http://www.thenation.com/article/9-billionaires-are-about-remake-new-yorks-public-schools-heres-their-story/

     Against what they do in Finland which has one of the highest educational standards in the world.

     http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/03/finnish-education-chief-we-created-a-school-system-based-on-equality/284427/

     http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/10/the-joyful-illiterate-kindergartners-of-finland/408325/
9. ianmac 9

   29 January 2016 at 3:14 pm

   Paul Goulter points to another real risk Education + TPPA. Set up a private school then demand taxpayer funding. Horrible thought!
   “Imagine an education system where multi-national corporations could set up a school alongside your local public school, and then demand equal access to the taxpayer purse to fund that school.

   It’s a likely scenario because global businesses are on the hunt for new ways of getting their fingers into nations’ multi-billion dollar public education purses. And here in New Zealand, the TPPA could provide that opportunity.”
   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11581754
   • Descendant Of Sssmith 9.1

     29 January 2016 at 5:59 pm

     Well there’s a whole lot of religious schools in New Zealand that have already done that.

     They also lie, and encourage the parents to lie, about their children’s religious status in order to breach the operating conditions of the schools.

     Got a grandmother who was Catholic – sign up here!

     Don’t know why you are using overseas examples.
     • savenz 9.1.1

       29 January 2016 at 7:56 pm

       I’m using overseas examples because our MSM doesn’t report what is happening here and also because Charter schools have been going for 20 years in the USA and are openly used fraudulently and to transfer money meant for kids from the State into business and individual pockets for profit. Charter schools are lobbied by billionaire hedge funds managers who want to meddle in education as a business opportunity for their pals and to impose their ideology on kids and communities.

       The Natz and Maori party stealing from Kids in NZ is not OK!
       • Descendant Of Sssmith 9.1.1.1

         29 January 2016 at 8:10 pm

         The last part of the comment was tongue in cheek. It was pretty obvious why you were using overseas examples. I’m just pointing out our non-tax paying religious citizens are more than happy to take tax-payers funds and commit fraud as well.

         And it is my view that it is fraud to knowingly encourage people to lie about their religious status in order to (pretend) to meet their legal requirements.

         The hypocrisy of the religious.

         Personally it’s my view that if they want tax payers money for their schools they should no longer have tax exemptions. Still paying no tax no doubt helped the brethren have plenty of money to pay for political advertising didn’t it.
         • Craig H 9.1.1.1.1

           31 January 2016 at 12:04 am

           While the tax exemption for charities includes advancement of religion, hence churches etc being exempt from income tax, the tax exemption for charities also includes advancement of education, so they would qualify for the income tax exemption anyway.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS