Against equality

November 8th, 2012 at 1:00 pm by David Farrar

The Herald reports:

The plan to introduce “” changed again yesterday after the policy’s champion, John Banks, said the schools would be under no obligation to accept students in their local areas.

I never thought they would be.

In response to a written question from Ms Delahunty, Act Party leader Mr Banks said charter schools would not have geographic enrolment zones if demand for places exceeded supply. Instead, students would be chosen by a ballot, he said.

The terms of reference for the working group set up to implement the introduction of charter, or partnership schools, says the first schools would serve “areas of significant disadvantage” where the risk of educational underachievement is the greatest.

You don’t need school zones to do that. If charter schools prove so popular that those set up in South Auckland are over-subscribed – then the answer is to set up more charter schools!

“The Government should just come out and admit and say we want to use public money to create schools where students can be cherrypicked at the expense of local communities.”

Quite the opposite. If charter schools are so popular that they are over-subscribed then they use random ballots.

Zoning is a form of cherry picking. Poor families can’t afford to live in zones of some of the more desirable schools. Random ballots will allow poor families to have an equal chance to a wealthy family of gaining a place as a popular charter school.

God knows why the Greens are against this.

Tags:

39 Responses to “Against equality”

  1. dime (9,667 comments) says:

    Can someone explain what the problem with cherry picking students is?

    Why should a nice, smart kid be chucked in with all the turds?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. The Scorned (719 comments) says:

    Cos maybe it gives parents choice and breaks the socialist mind molesters monopoly on education…?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Bob R (1,357 comments) says:

    ***Poor families can’t afford to live in zones of some of the more desirable schools.***

    The schools are more desirable, in part, because they tend to have students who have middle class values and behaviours.

    Although as the blogger “Education Realist” notes, one major advantage for Charter Schools in the US is they are able to boot poorly behaved students.

    “Any public school teachers are nodding vigorously right now, because this is a sore point. Charter schools can suspend, expel, and just make life miserable for any problem students. Public schools can’t. Thus, charter schools, even the ones who don’t deliberately “cream” or “cherry pick”, have far more power to boot misbehaving (or simply high maintenance) students out, back to the public schools, who are legally bound to accept them.

    Then the charter schools and eduformers brag about their wonderful results which aren’t that impressive in the first place and are achieved in no small part by ridding themselves of the low ability/low incentive/high impact students. This nifty little feature is often called “attrition”, which implies that the students leave by choice. Indeed, they often do, since charter schools can also make demands of their students that public schools can’t.”

    http://educationrealist.wordpress.com/2012/01/03/charter-schools-and-suspensions/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Mark Thomson (85 comments) says:

    Ironically, Carroll du Chateau claimed in the Herald yesterday that charter schools are a progressive idea – http://www.nzherald.co.nz/travel/news/article.cfm?c_id=7&objectid=10845296

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Ryan Sproull (7,060 comments) says:

    Why should a nice, smart kid be chucked in with all the turds?

    People aren’t born nice, smart kids or born “turds”, and schooling is often a factor in what kids become.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. lastmanstanding (1,241 comments) says:

    And pray tell why shouldnt every parent have the right to expect the best education for their children. Why should they not expect that children who disrupt and cause problems be excluded from class. Why should their well behaved children who are at school to learn be disadvantaged.
    Can the leftie morons explain. No you cant. In your twisted world the children that cause problems have more rights than those that dont. The little arseholes who deserve a kid in the arse along with their useless waste of oxygen parents/caregivers have far more rights than the well behaved children and their caring parents.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. lastmanstanding (1,241 comments) says:

    Should have read a kick in the arse.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. rg (200 comments) says:

    The greens are against partnership schools because they are ACT policy. If ACT had a policy to give every beneficiary a million dollars they would be against that too for the same reason.
    What ever the policy and whoever the leader ACT gets attacked by all, from the Greens to the mainstream media.
    When Duncan Garner says anything that is not insulting or derogatory to ACT I will fall over in surprise. He’d be with the Greens on this.

    If Mother Teresa was its leader and was giving money to the poor ACT would be attacked by the left wink parties, media and bloggers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Bob R (1,357 comments) says:

    ***Why should they not expect that children who disrupt and cause problems be excluded from class. Why should their well behaved children who are at school to learn be disadvantaged.***

    I totally agree.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. East Wellington Superhero (1,151 comments) says:

    “God knows why the Greens are against this.”

    Because they are either highly cynical and use this issue to get support and votes. Or they are morons blinded by their beliefs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. dime (9,667 comments) says:

    “People aren’t born nice, smart kids or born “turds”, and schooling is often a factor in what kids become.”

    umm people arent born smart? really? IQ is learned now?

    schooling is a factor and if the glorious charter school says – hey, youre a shit head and youre being raised by shit heads, go to public school then its fine by me :)

    lefties, always trying to get the best without applying any effort

    “lets have state housing among the rich housing” “lets have thick kids with behaviour issues learning with the smart ones” etc etc

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. scrubone (3,082 comments) says:

    Bob R: good point. Perhaps it would be good for the goverment to set up a system were kids *can* be kicked out of school and not just sent to the next one down the road.

    Actually, even better. If charter schools become numerous enough, we can close almost all the state schools and have *only* those students who refuse to behave attending state schools.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Rightandleft (656 comments) says:

    Public schooling is by definition socialist. It is a utilitarian system that aims to do what’s best for the greatest number of people, what’s best for society at large. Unlike many other socialist experiments public schooling has been a great success story around the world since it first came into being in the 19th Century. We can debate the rankings of our system against other public systems but by and large we are much better off than we would be if we’d never developed public schooling. Now I understand many here will vehemently disagree with this system but NZ society in general is not about to vote to eliminate public schooling as we know it. Even Americans don’t want to completely do away with public schooling just because it is socialist.

    If public schools had the abilities to expel students the way charters can it would benefit the good students in that school, but would hurt society at large. We’d have far more kids on the streets, more crime and likely more unemployment and thus more cost on the benefit system, not to mention spending on police and prisons. The reason public schools have a zone is to establish a safety net for the worst students to make sure they have a local school that must accept them.

    Creating a totally publicly funded alternative school just down the road, able to cherrypick students and if not then at least more able to expel them, is fundamentally opposed to the purpose of the system and undermines it. It ensures that the local public school has an even higher percentage of behaviour disordered or learning disabled kids than currently. Private options already exist for parents who have the money and motivation to opt out of the system, just the same as private healthcare is available for those with the money and will to avoid the public health system. No one is calling for total public funding of special private health facitilites which would be allowed to choose their own patients and boot out those who failed to meet health criteria they set. So why should we do the equivalent in education?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. YesWeDid (1,044 comments) says:

    dime you seem to miss the point that charter schools are meant to help the ‘long tail of under achievement’, the bottom 20% or from the Herald article; ‘education that is tailored to the needs of those that are disadvantaged in the current system and will therefore be most attractive to students who are not currently doing well’.

    I have no idea how using a ballot system to select who gets to go to the schools is meant to address the ‘disadvantaged in the current system’.

    Maybe DPF can explain, he’s a bit of an expert on education.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. scrubone (3,082 comments) says:

    Creating a totally publicly funded alternative school just down the road, able to cherrypick students and if not then at least more able to expel them, is fundamentally opposed to the purpose of the system and undermines it.

    You jumped there from “it’s good most people like it” to “it’s sacred and must not be undermined in any way”.

    I agree that state schools have their good points, but that doesn’t mean that it’s in any way wrong to undermine them. They are not a means in themselves, they are a means to an end.

    They have also become means to another end that was never their intention but that’s another issue entirely.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Bob R (1,357 comments) says:

    ***So why should we do the equivalent in education?***

    @ Rightandleft,

    I think people see it as a way to address the long tail of underachievement. I think it could be beneficial for some students, but as you say you’ll still have to do something with the disruptive students who get kicked out.

    Also, many people overlook behavioural genetics research as this education writer notes:

    Even though I have a Ph.D. specializing in program evaluation, I’m disproportionately affected by personal experiences. I’ll never forget my friend Miriam Weinstein telling me, “Every mother of two or more kids knows how powerful genetics are. They have distinct, enduring personalities from Day One, or even before. Thirty years later, my kids’ basic personalities have remained the same.” Every time I ask a mother if her experience comports with Miriam’s, she always says yes. That further solidified my belief in the power of behavioral genetics.

    Yet now, at age 60, I am more convinced than ever of the power of genetics. Just as tuning up a VW Beetle will never turn it into a Ferrari, I am now convinced that trying to close the achievement gap by changing only people’s environment will continue to fail, as it has for the past half century, wasting yet more taxpayer trillions on such programs. And indeed we have, in the U.S., spent at least a trillion dollars since the 1960s on such efforts, and the achievement gap remains as wide as ever.

    That is why, as I’ve written before, I believe the wisest approach to addressing the persistent racial and social-class achievement gap is to supplement research to identify better environment-changing interventions with research that would enable prospective parents to elect to ensure that their children don’t start out life with a genetic two strikes against them.

    If such research were permitted by the government and especially if subsidized by the government, we would, within a decade or two, find gene clusters responsible for at least components of intelligence, empathy, impulse control, depression, addictions, etc. At that point, prospective parents could be given the option of having gene therapy to ensure their baby is born as–what liberal philosopher John Rawls calls–a “winner in the genetic lottery.”

    As I wrote in a previous blog post on this subject, I want to stress that there is a Grand Canyon of difference between the monstrous Nazi eugenic plan and what I’m proposing. The Nazis wanted to murder people. I merely want to give parents choices, uncoerced choices. And to ensure that it doesn’t exacerbate racial or class differences, I advocate the taxpayer subsidizing outreach and treatment payment for the poor, just as we do with MediCal and other health programs for the poor.”

    http://martynemko.blogspot.co.nz/2011/02/behavioral-genetics-most-important.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Anodos (116 comments) says:

    Rightandleft completely self defeats again. “Private options already exist for parents who have the money and motivation to opt out of the system”……i.e. there is currently little or no choice for the poor or children living in areas where schools are not performing. He has made a very good case for Charter Schools. Given that he is a taxpayer funded teacher….shouldn’t he be teaching, preparing or marking at 2:54pm?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Anodos (116 comments) says:

    Bob R. You don’t have to change to gene pool to address the tail – the eugenic type arguments around this are a red herring. It is about providing environments where the diverse mix of children we have are best able to achieve in a manner conducive to the inherent (and environmentally developed/underdeveloped) abilities they have. For many children the gap between what they are achieving and could achieve is massive and the one size fits all model has run its course. If people are looking for equity – giving everyone the same isn’t it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Anodos (116 comments) says:

    YesWeDid. You can tailor a ballot system to help the disadvantaged. Dilworth Schools do exactly that. They have a set of criteria under which children/the parent apply. This is then verified by an independent admissions board and the schools staff teach whoever comes through the gate.
    On another issue – All schools need an option the exclude dangerous, destructive and disruptive students and this exists for state, private and integrated schools already (i.e. that is will/should exist for Charter Schools in another non-issue).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Bob R (1,357 comments) says:

    ***You don’t have to change to gene pool to address the tail***

    @ Anodos

    Nemko’s full post is worth reading, particularly given his background both with his parents as jewish survivors of WWII and then a career in education and drug counselling. Admittedly, his conclusion that gene therapy is required is a bit fatalistc but it’s interesting seeing how he’s reached that position.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. YesWeDid (1,044 comments) says:

    @Anodos – Dilworth appears to be the exact oppose of DPF’s ‘random ballot’, you apply to them with lots of details about yourself and they decide who to let in based on whatever they deem to be important.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Anodos (116 comments) says:

    Yes – Dilworth may not be the style to use in this case but the point is that it is possible to set a criteria and have an independent admissions group to avoid the “cherry picking”. The first Charter Schools in NZ will be required to demonstrate they will target children who are struggling – that need not be fully correlated with location. As an idea – there may be a entry level criteria and then random ballot beyond that. If admissions are not full no ballot is required.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Rightandleft (656 comments) says:

    Anodos,

    Having a ballot system as you described is the same as cherrypicking. If parents are required to do any work to get their children into a charter school it is already a self-selecting system predisposed to enrol kids who have families that care about their education and are thus far more likely to succeed in any school. The charter schools won’t address the long-tail because they will cater to the kind of students and families already likely to succeed in mainstream schools.

    And as to my posting at 2:54, I haven’t seen you criticising the dozens of others who regularly post on this site during work hours. Or are you assuming everyone else posting here is self-employed, retired or unemployed? As it happens my senior classes are gone for exams and the others are sitting junior exams right now, so I had the free time to take 5 minutes and reply. Yesterday I was managing one of our sports teams until late in the evening. Teaching isn’t a 9 to 3 job, it can vary widely.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Anodos (116 comments) says:

    Rightandleft. A bit self-defeating again. If parents feel the need to apply away from their state school to allow their children a better opportunity then clearly they are not feeling the “world class” mantra and might be defining success a little higher than some organisations are prepared to accept.

    With your acknowledgement of the need to help the long tail – one of the key arguments with Charter Schools is for people to advocate very clearly how they are implemented and to work very hard to let families know of the opportunities and ensure they take advantage of them.

    Nice work on the co-curricula activities – and good bite. Keep up the hard work.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. krazykiwi (9,189 comments) says:

    Having a ballot system as you described is the same as cherrypicking. If parents are required to do any work to get their children into a charter school it is already a self-selecting system predisposed to enrol kids who have families that care about their education and are thus far more likely to succeed in any school

    Translation: Parents who already care about their children’s education shouldn’t be given any opportunitiues to demonstrate that because it’s unfair on those who don’t give a rats ass.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. YesWeDid (1,044 comments) says:

    @krazykiwi – I’ll translate it for you, the attitude a child’s parents is the most important thing in a child’s educational success, everything else is a distant second place.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Bob R (1,357 comments) says:

    ***the attitude a child’s parents is the most important thing in a child’s educational success, everything else is a distant second place.***

    Well, it’s the most important thing you can control. There is an interesting discussion of the impact “Tiger Mum’s” can have in the context of behavioural genetics research from twin and adoption studies.

    http://infoproc.blogspot.co.nz/2011/01/tiger-mothers-and-behavior-genetics.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. wat dabney (3,721 comments) says:

    Public schooling is by definition socialist. It is a utilitarian system that aims to do what’s best for the greatest number of people, what’s best for society at large.

    It’s not even that: it’s simply a rent-seeking opportunity for unionised teachers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. mpledger (429 comments) says:

    wat dabney (2,047) Says:

    “Public schooling is by definition socialist. It is a utilitarian system that aims to do what’s best for the greatest number of people, what’s best for society at large.”

    It’s not even that: it’s simply a rent-seeking opportunity for unionised teachers.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    ]If that definition applies to unionised teachers then it applies to every worker.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. mpledger (429 comments) says:

    I wouldn’t have thought this group wouldn’t be for charter schools because they descriminate so markedly against males. A 50/50 ratio of the sexes entering an American charter school tends to get narrowed down to 75/25 in favour of girls after two or three years.

    There are all sorts of sneaky ways to rig the enrollment/ballot process especially since there is no way anyone can check if it is fair e.g. whether each student’s name was in the ballot or just those who scored over 80 in the entrance test. There is this hilarious case in the US where the enrollment form for a charter school is only available on one day a year, at a country club, some distance from the school where there is no access by public transport. It’s essentially a way to segregate schooling.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. wat dabney (3,721 comments) says:

    If that definition applies to unionised teachers then it applies to every worker.

    Clearly it doesn’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. krazykiwi (9,189 comments) says:

    YWD –

    @krazykiwi – I’ll translate it for you, the attitude a child’s parents is the most important thing in a child’s educational success, everything else is a distant second place.

    I agree.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Griff (6,997 comments) says:

    “It’s essentially a way to segregate schooling”

    When the white man does it to advantage their children in the modern world it’s called segregation. (apartheid word)
    When Maori do it to reaffirm their stone age cultural identity in maori immersion schools it’s called Cultural. (inclusive word)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. SPC (5,473 comments) says:

    In Georgia, there was white flight to charter schools from schools with a black majority.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. SPC (5,473 comments) says:

    Dime, it is Housing Corporation policy, under its current Minister, to spread out the public housing amongst privately owned and occupied housing. This means a future where they will be in the school zones across society – unless Labour changes the policy to enable an increase in stock by buying up private housing for public use in low cost areas.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Mark (1,432 comments) says:

    ” The schools are more desirable, in part, because they tend to have students who have middle class values and behaviours” .

    Yep some of those wee cherubs live up the road from us. The middle class kids sure are little saints NOT!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    Charter schools are a nice distraction for the government to promote as a useful reform while knowing that it means damn all and will only affect (probably adversely) people that it doesn’t care about. The best method for ‘promoting equality’, if that is something our blog host cares about, would include widespread, sensible reforms, such as ending state support to integrated and ‘independent’ schools and redirecting those wasted dollars so that the quality of education (already very good overall) is more equitably directed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Anodos (116 comments) says:

    At a quick and conservative calculation – having 4% of the school population taught in independent schools saves the government/taxpayer approximately $230million per annum (even taking into account the subsidy). How do you “redirect” that?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Monique Watson (1,062 comments) says:

    Okay Mikenmild. You’re obviously not the sharpest knife due to the brainwashing, so here it the argument for private education:

    1. Those lucky rich pricks pay both tax for public schools and fees for private schools.

    2. No fucking government is going to tell me what the best way of educating my children are. What they can fucking do is provide a wide range of choice, public, private, charter and integrated being some examples.

    Look at that – the system is working nicely.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.