Charter schools demise needs care
The Labour-led Government has every right to put an end to the charter school system. Labour promised during the election campaign that it would not allow any more charter schools. Now it can carry out its promise.
It would be wise, however, for Labour to carry out its other promise to consider the future of the 11 existing charter schools case by case. It must also negotiate in good faith with the schools, some of which are already crying foul.
The existing charter schools need to show not just that they make a difference to the achievements of their pupils. They also need to show that they make more of a difference than the state system does.
If they can prove that, they deserve to continue. Anything else would be to let down the students and their families. This in fact sets the bar fairly high.
Everybody, however, knows that the state school system is far from perfect. It systematically disadvantages the children of poor families. Ma¯ori in particular have plenty of reasons to feel bad.
This was why Labour MP Kelvin Davis threatened to resign if the two charter schools in his area were closed down. Auckland Ma¯ori leader and now Government minister Willie Jackson was also a supporter of charter schools. Both Davis and Jackson are experienced leaders, and Davis in particular is himself an educator. They know that the state system is not good for Ma¯ori. Their support for charter schools in turn forced Labour to face some uncomfortable political realities.
The charter schools were born out of a backroom deal between National and ACT, a tiny party whose intention with charter schools was to weaken the state education system to which it remains ideologically opposed.The suspect origins and intentions of the charter school movement, however, should not blind liberals to the problems of the state system. Defenders of the system say that it allows the kind of experimentation and freedom needed to meet the needs of all children. Are liberals quite sure that this is always true? And are they sure that each and every charter school deserves to close? If the existing charter schools can prove they are worth having, they can be incorporated into the system under a different name, probably as ‘‘designated character’’ schools. Just what changes the state might require in return must be decided by negotiation. Should charter schools be able to continue with unqualified teachers, for instance, or with bulk-funding?
And once no more charter schools are allowed, the Government needs to prove that the state system really is flexible enough to help the students who currently miss out. That will take some doing.