If Charter Schools are the answer, what’s the question?
I’ve been out and about amongst school leaders a lot and we often spend time talking about the wider issues the sector is facing, as well as what’s going on in their schools and what is dominating their thoughts.
Recently there have been a lot of wonderings about what the impact of Charter Schools might be on the wider education sector and what it might mean for them, their school and their colleagues and their schools.
There’s not a lot of detail around yet, but the plan seems to be to move quite quickly.
This post attempts to capture my own musings on the topic influenced by what I have heard.
What is the problem that charter schools are seeking to address?
In a recent press release, Associate Minister of Education David Seymour stated, “Charter schools provide educators with greater autonomy, create diversity in New Zealand’s education system, free educators from state and union interference, and raise overall educational achievement, especially for students who are underachieving or disengaged from the current system.” Based on this statement it would appear that Seymour believes that the state (government and Ministry of Education) and unions who look after the conditions of those who work for schools are getting in the way of improving the academic outcomes and the level of engagement of students.
The Minister of Education, Erica Stanford has set out on a path of mandated common approaches to the delivery of education within the state school system. She has, among other things, mandated an hour a day each for reading, writing and mathematics, mandated structured literacy and banned cell phones in all schools. She seems to be pushing a one-size-fits-all approach and claims to be guided by the ‘Science of Learning’ in making these decisions. She obviously believes these, singular solutions, are the best approaches for all of our learners.
On the other hand, the Associate Minister of Education, David Seymour is rolling out his Charter School model which totally goes in the opposite direction, where it is all about innovation and choice. These schools, who will receive serious funding, will be able to choose their curriculum and their approach - they can make their own decisions about cell phones, about structured literacy, about how they allocate time. Presumably, he is basing his approach on a body of evidence.
They both can’t be right
One of the main concerns seems to be the environment of mixed messages that the sector is receiving from the Minister and Associate Minister
This poses the question - who is right? If more flexibility and choice is the answer, as Seymour is proposing, then why are state schools having that flexibility and choice restricted? Wouldn’t it make more sense to leverage the flexibility currently within the state system which includes Kura Kaupapa, Kura-a-Iwi, Special Character and other innovative approaches that exist?
If a more uniform, mandated approach is the answer, as Stanford is proposing, then why are we channelling millions of dollars into another model that is free to operate outside this approach?
How will Charter Schools operate within the education ecosystem
Up to 35 existing schools will be able to move to the Charter School model. Currently these schools can access support through the Ministry of Education for a wide range of reasons, including Trauma and Response, financial management, serious behaviour support and RTLBs, Iwi relationships and advice around leadership, school and community relationship issues.
Those schools that move to the fully-funded Charter School model will, presumably, have no free access to these services. This raises the potential concern that school leaders in the Charter School model may find themselves floundering and exposed without such support.
Some of us are wondering if more funding that state schools could be accessing, when schools are financially stretched, may be diverted to similar supports being funded to be available for those in the Charter Schools.
As well, some are wondering what the impact might be on existing Professional Growth Cycle Networks. The assumption is that Charter School principals will not be required to participate in this valuable networking that supports their professional growth. If this is the case they will be missing a development opportunity. And what happens if they wish to participate but colleagues are not wanting to engage in such ways with school leaders who may be seen as undermining the State system?
How will existing staff be impacted
Concern is growing about the impact of radically changed employment conditions on staff employed in schools that shift to the Charter School Model. Those staff are currently employed according to a set of conditions in their current Employment Agreement. It remains unclear as to how these contracts and conditions will be affected if a school chooses to become a Charter School.
Many of those staff will not be in favour of the change and may, therefore, be restructured out of their position. There is a range of compensations available to them when this occurs which may result in a huge financial burden on the State and on boards.
There will also be some staff who may be happy with the move to being a Charter School but will need to maintain, at a minimum, their current conditions of employment.
Talk that the inability to transfer conditions or to be able to access redundancy rights that are within their current Agreements may be included in the legislation is a huge concern as this would signal a trampling of their current employment rights which are enjoyed by employees in most sectors.
These are just my musings which I believe others will also be thinking about. What are your thoughts?
No comments:
Post a Comment