Beefcake
What are your guys opinions on them? Good, bad? Personally I would be happy if the whole information act saga was cleared up. The public should be able to see how they are doing.
The simple fact is that there is an enormous amount of research that says it is a waste of money.
The existing school system is underfunded yet govt wants to throw money at what are essentially private enterprises which are without the accountability that public schools have to face. Idealogically driven, not evidence based decisions.
It is ludicrous.
The existing school system is underfunded yet govt wants to throw money at what are essentially private enterprises which are without the accountability that public schools have to face. Idealogically driven, not evidence based decisions.
It is ludicrous.
Xt1ncT
The objections from teachers, their unions and the Labour Party are also ideologically driven.
So much so that Labour has said they'll repeal the legislation regardless of results. And yet you say Charter Schools are ridiculous!! I'd suggest Labour and the Greens are ridiculous - but then again they're funded by the unions aren't they?
Giving people choice is what matters - especially in areas of the country where schools are failing - if under pro sledges kids get to go to a school that will raise standards well that's fine with me. If it also means our kids aren't being indoctrinated by left leaning teachers all the better!
I've seen instances where teachers are using their positions of power over kids to get them to tell their parents Charter Schools are no good - that to me is bang out of order. They are there to teach, not cloud their heads with the teacher's political ideas.
And this one of the many problems and flaws. It is the Charter school that has the choice, not the kid/parent. The school will not have to take anyone they don't want and this then skews the 'results'.
I'm getting really sick of this never-ending claptrap insinuating that teachers, Unions and the Labour party are all one big entity.
I work in a school where at least 25% of staff aren't union members, shitloads are National voters and the teachers themselves range from 50yrs in teaching to first years.
There a massive fluctuations across the thousands in the profession in terms of their politics and it's ill-informed and media created drivel to suggest this 'conspiracy'.
The PPTA is merely a union made up of people who actually teach in classrooms, not some mad, evil organisation like Spectre.
Believe what you want, I find most just believe what they want to hear in this debate while actually ignoring those of us who spend our careers actually doing the job and interacting with the kids.
mrblonde
My problem with them is that if they're publicly funded they should be teaching the public curriculum, whether they like it or not.
If they're privately funded, that's a different matter.
This is all an ACT idea, which National agreed to implement (or at least allow legislation for) to keep ACT happy. Most likely ACT won't be around by late next year so I wonder if National will repeal the legislation (predicated on National getting back in obviously, pretty likely at this point in time going by the polls) if they can govern alone or with United who don't support the legislation?
And I'm partly with Danpatmac. So the unions fund Labour and therefore want some bang for their buck. Name one political party that doesn't do - or at least try to do - what it's funders tell it to?! Those who do the paying do the saying...
If they're privately funded, that's a different matter.
This is all an ACT idea, which National agreed to implement (or at least allow legislation for) to keep ACT happy. Most likely ACT won't be around by late next year so I wonder if National will repeal the legislation (predicated on National getting back in obviously, pretty likely at this point in time going by the polls) if they can govern alone or with United who don't support the legislation?
And I'm partly with Danpatmac. So the unions fund Labour and therefore want some bang for their buck. Name one political party that doesn't do - or at least try to do - what it's funders tell it to?! Those who do the paying do the saying...
gREVUS
Long live the Rainbows and Butterflies
Contributor
No.
It is what's termed a partnership school.
Essentially funded by the taxpayer and run/administered privately with it's own curriculum and allowed to employ untrained teachers.
Rizzah
Stop Being Shit
Contributor
gREVUS
Long live the Rainbows and Butterflies
Contributor
Ok untrained teachers? experimental school - I feel for the kids when its time to leave
fanrrior
Now that I think about it, I have only spent about six months of my time as a school student at a "mainstream" school. Most of the time I was at a bilingual/KKM/DSC school.
aNd I turnd owt fyne.
aNd I turnd owt fyne.
We don't have them, at least not yet anyway.
mt.wellington
Warriors Orange Peeler
No shit!?!
Labour - unions
National - business round table
I think I'll believe a teacher in Danpat...
Lord Gnome of Howick MBE
fanrrior
My understanding of how charter schools work is sketchy at best. In essence, if memory serves, it is a school that is publicly funded but is able to do whatever the hell they want with the money. Other than that, they can range from being terribly strict to care-free hippies. Like Mr Blonde says, if charter schools were privately funded this would be seen as a different matter altogether. You'd think if that was the case the majority would be thinking along the lines of "its their money and their kids, let them do what they like and reap what they sow".
Running off the assumption that New Zealand's version of a charter school will be able to do whatever they want, I'm guessing that organisations like ERO would have little-to-no input as to how it is run?
Maybe a bit off topic but at the very least, why couldn't whoever is wanting charter schools just make a compromise and settle for a designated special character school instead?
Running off the assumption that New Zealand's version of a charter school will be able to do whatever they want, I'm guessing that organisations like ERO would have little-to-no input as to how it is run?
Maybe a bit off topic but at the very least, why couldn't whoever is wanting charter schools just make a compromise and settle for a designated special character school instead?
Mr Frank White
Contributor
It's more complicated than that. It's to do with the clash between labor and capital. It's a complex paradigm that takes more than this page to explain.
In the end it means people with money dislike organized workers. That's why you see orchestrated campaigns against unions from the ports to teachers and this is happening globally.
This isn't a conspiracy, it's actually a defined function of capitalism, both Marx and Keyes talk about it.
In the end it means people with money dislike organized workers. That's why you see orchestrated campaigns against unions from the ports to teachers and this is happening globally.
This isn't a conspiracy, it's actually a defined function of capitalism, both Marx and Keyes talk about it.
Tyrael
<--- Primary School Teacher for 5 Years
My problem with charter schools is that we the public are just wildly guessing at what charter schools might be. I hear untrained teachers, I hear big corporates owning the schools, I hear that they'll brainwash kids.
Their needs to be clear cut ideals so we know. Example, yes we will have untrained teachers but they are ~20% of the staff. They will be doing things like PE, Shop and music. Clearly thats fine right? Still do criminal background checks and character references etc.
How much say do those big corporates in the running of the school. Is it going to be a lot of propaganda?
So really, my biggest problem is that I think national have no clue at this point and time, and will follow a system where it has failed before. Not all charter schools are bad and fail, but we'll be using a model that does from what I gather.
https://www.ted.com/talks/geoffrey_canada_our_failing_schools_enough_is_enough.html
This video mentions charter schools briefly
My problem with charter schools is that we the public are just wildly guessing at what charter schools might be. I hear untrained teachers, I hear big corporates owning the schools, I hear that they'll brainwash kids.
Their needs to be clear cut ideals so we know. Example, yes we will have untrained teachers but they are ~20% of the staff. They will be doing things like PE, Shop and music. Clearly thats fine right? Still do criminal background checks and character references etc.
How much say do those big corporates in the running of the school. Is it going to be a lot of propaganda?
So really, my biggest problem is that I think national have no clue at this point and time, and will follow a system where it has failed before. Not all charter schools are bad and fail, but we'll be using a model that does from what I gather.
https://www.ted.com/talks/geoffrey_canada_our_failing_schools_enough_is_enough.html
This video mentions charter schools briefly
wallacenz
its bizarre julia gillard is also pushing for them in aus, i have heard exactly what dan has stated. i read an article about a study done in america and there was no educational benefit found.
its like partial privatisation of new schools. meanwhile they set a quota to close throughout nz last year saying we had too many. when the public stood up for themselves perata backed down but then they used christchurchs earthquake as an excuse to close the schools in christchurch. i just dont think this government gives a fuk about new zealanders
Mr Frank White
Contributor
This is what I'm talking about. It is not about small scale educational changes. It's a concerted effort to demolish all unions.
Have a look at the vitriol leveled at teachers in the USA.
Have a look at the vitriol leveled at teachers in the USA.
SomehowStillKeepingFaith
One school of thought (no pun intended) is that charter schools will allow for experts in their particular non-educational field to impart their skills knowledge in the classroom, but won't have much in the way of training or experience in the classroom. As a teacher myself I am open to bringing people in from the wider community to expose our kids to greater knowledge/experience. But this can happen simply by inviting whanau/parents into the classroom to work with the class on a one-off or a series of lessons under the guidance of the teacher. Therefore don't see a need for charter schools. Unfortunately, and I'm not trying to argue politics here, our present government seem to be looking at the USA as a suitable model for our education system. That's kinda like asking Elijah Taylor to show Cam Smith how to play Number 9.
rugged
I must say from an outsider looking in the whole education system does appear to be heavily influenced by the union. The one thing I have never been able to grasp is why teachers pay is not performanced based. Clearly their are good teachers and not so good ones so why wouldn't you reward the good ones.in a lot of cases lazy teachers find ways to get multiple management units so they actually get paid more then those who chose to focus more on their classroom.
I would love to know how you know this?
Of course some teachers are better than others, just like any other profession has varying level of performance across it's members. It's a fact of life.
As for the whole education system being influenced by the union... ?
You do realise that the union is an association made up of teachers right?
The people who actually do the work, the people who actually deal with the kids, who have the experience and the expertise in this area.
I don't understand the problem with getting people who know what they are talking about having an influence over the system.
As for performance based pay for teachers?
What about performance based pay for Doctors?
Nurses?
Cops?
Firemen?
Soldiers?
Why do people seem to have this idea that teachers performance is not already being appraised?
Why do people think teachers are not under professional scrutinisation?
Where do people get this information from, is it through research of facts and personal observations?
No.
It's from political and media rhetoric, not facts.
I am required meet certain criteria and standards EVERY year. If I do not meet these standards I am given professional guidance to improve my performance and I am unable to move up the payscale until I do meet the criteria.
What more do you want?
Do you want to measure my worth based on MY performance or the performance of my students?
Why should my pay be affected by their moods, motivations, family life, health, mental state, relationships, language problems etc... all things that I have minimal or no control over.
If you are going to pay me based on my students performance then I will just teach to the tests, give them total concentration on the tests and forget any actual learning, I will just help them to remember answers and not do any actual thinking.
I am not for performance pay for teachers until you can fairly and consistently measure a teacher's performance.
If we all get exactly the same kids and you can guarantee they turn up and are motivated and have been read
to as a child etc, etc etc... then and only then would I support it.
Please watch this and rethink.
Similar threads
LordGnome_old
warriors_ballboy_CEO_old
MTDBIGDOGG_old