Tuesday, April 16, 2013
Secret Schools
Perhaps that's a better name for National's Charter Schools, given that they are to be inexplicably exempt from the watchful eye of the Ombudsman. "Open Schools" for the rest, "Secret Schools" for those coming from Banks, Parata and Key.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
You quite happily miss the point.
It doesn't matter that the Ombudsman is not involved. Parents have Choice when it comes to Charter Schools, that is not available in the same way with state schools. Charter schools will be more than mindful of actually achieving results and doing the right thing.
As an example of where Charter Schools will be better, more responsive, have you seen this article from Allyson Gofton: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=10876207
I find it interesting it is the same school we had trouble with our second child from a bullying teacher.
It doesn't matter that the Ombudsman is not available to Secret Schools?
Crumbs, paranormal! So absolutely transparent are these schools, so absolute is the confidence parents and the general public can have in them, that there need be no check-ups by the Ombudsman!
No "interest groups" out there that you think might like to have their own schools, yet might need to be content or quality-controlled, paranormal? Can't envisage any that would benefit from knowing that they were accountable to the same agency the rest of us are?
Odd view, yours.
Not an odd view RG, quite a practical one actually. That you can't understand it says more about your political outlook than anything else. Is the Ombudsman required for private service providers where individuals are there by choice?
You give parents very little credibility when it comes to the schooling of their children. Charter Schools are not government institutions but private providers. Unlike state schools they will be accountable to the parents for results.
And therein lies the answer as to why the unions are so opposed to them. We can't possibly have the potential for showing up just how poorly served new Zealanders are by their unionised State schools.
"Charter Schools are not government institutions but private providers"
They will enjoy State funding. They should enjoy state supervision.
RG does that apply for everyone that enjoys state funding?
Every school, surely!
Nicely avoided - as normal.
Seems your principles are reasonably flexible then? It's only those that you decide need state supervision if they are receiving state funding. Perhaps it is really teachers unions that need state supervision?
But back on to partnership schools. Yet again you fail to give parents any credibility when it comes to the education of their children.
Some state-funded schools should be exempt from oversight from the Ombudsman? Is that your position, paranormal?
No. My position is non government owned schools do not need Ombudsman oversight. They are private entities and similarly do not need OIA involvement either.
In practice the parents will have greater control and input than with state schools. You will not see articles like the one above being written about partnership schools. Their focus will be ensuring individual students achieve and they will understand that publicity like that will kill them.
It's only state schools that are protected by the state and regard parents as unimportant that can be so arrogant.
I'm unclear about something, para. Are Charter (Secret) Schools to receive any State funding? I believed they were to, therefore you'd be supporting me in requiring them to be subject to Ombudsman scrutiny. If I'm wrong (could easily be)and they are not to receive any state funding, the situation is different. I'd still argue that they should be overseen, as the State has a responsibility to maintain oversight of the education of its young people, but my reasoning would change.
And therein lies the difference between us RG. The State won't do anywhere near as good a job of oversight as the parent will.
Yes they will receive state funding, and again I ask my question you appear to have avoided so far - should everyone who receives state funding receive state oversight?
I thought so. With receipt comes responsibility. I don't get your question? Who/what are you referring to?
I am asking if you are consistent in your approach about scrutiny following receipt of state funding - regardless of who/what, or if it applies only to charter schools.
I've been entirely consistent (I think) - all schools that receive state funding should be subject to state accounting. I don't get where you are coming from.
Post a Comment