Save the Humans

Charter Schools a Success

The Economist reports how New York's new Charter Schools are proving popular in Harlem.

The desperation of these parents [to get into a Charter School] is hardly surprising. In one Harlem school district, not one public elementary school has more than 55% of its pupils reading at the level expected for their grade. And 75% of 14-year-olds are unable to read at their grade level. So Harlem parents are beginning to leave the public school system in crowds.

But sadly many are on the wrong side on this issue:

Unfortunately, many local politicians oppose charter schools. They have tried to cap their numbers, or refused to let them share buildings with public schools. The legislature in Albany has mandated that if a charter school has more than 250 students before its third year of existence, the teachers must unionise. That spoils everything.

There is nothing like choice to tidy up a slack system. Disasters like the NCEA and the Early Numeracy Project would never have happened in a school system with a bit of competition. Let's hope it can happen here.

A good sign that it must be a good thing (apart from the actual results) is that the Unions are dead against it:

The state's largest school employee union hired a Washington, D.C., consulting firm to craft a public relations strategy for limiting the expansion of charter schools in Delaware.

Earlier this year, two bills that would have created roadblocks for charter schools were drafted with DSEA backing. The first would allow charter schools to apply for conduit bond financing only through the Delaware Economic Development Office when seeking money at low interest rates for capital projects. After Delaware Military Academy was denied conduit bond financing in Delaware last year, it applied through the state of Arizona.

Meece thinks the DSEA-backed legislation would prevent most new charters from opening and current charters from being renewed.

If only the environmentalists could also express a view, we could be certain.

How to Shut Down Private Schools

Socialists (or statists if you like) believe that schooling is a state job. It should be funded by the state (like everything, ideally), but more importantly it must be administered by the state. The state must decide what is taught, who it is taught to and who does the teaching.

In the state education sector, socialists have achieved all three of these aims. The result have been mixed, to say the least.

Related to this is the issue of private schools. Private schools are paid for directly by parents, many of whom struggle enormously with the fees and need to believe and see that it is worth it.Private schools must often follow the curriculum fairly slavishly, even the silly bits, in order to keep on side with the system and still get their taxpayer subsidy (some would say rebate given that the children are not in state schools). Private schools have some independence, and proudly call themselves 'Independent Schools', but they really have very little independence. With a few exceptions, most are just better state schools. The teachers care because their jobs depend on it.

Nonetheless private schools are a threat to socialists. The fact that they are widely recognised as better suggests that the state shouldn't run schools. The fact that teachers at private schools do better than at state schools suggests that it is not the teachers that are the problem, but the 'system'. It would be considerably more convenient for socialists if the private schools all shut down.

I thought it might be useful to list the techniques used to achieve that aim. These are things to watch out for in the debate:

• Since at least half of parents struggle to afford the fees, increasing the fees is one tactic. This was recently done by reducing the private school subsidy. It can also be done by introducing silly regulations which require more work of private schools, such as ministry planning documents, reporting documents and other detritus
• Telling people that private schools are crap is another way. The SST on 25 May (sorry not on web) says on the front page 'Private schools - why they may not pay' and later 'Private fees can't buy uni success'. The government's top tip to how to get a degree: Go to a state school
• Say that private schools are elitist and wrong. Try to get private school students excluded from competitions, events, games and activities. Discourage contact between private and public schools because that might result in understanding, and state school students wanting to go private
• Compare the cost in terms of the end user, never in terms of the true cost. For example, if private school fees are $10,000, but a state school charges only $20 a term for materials, and that sort-of optional, never mention the $10k taxpayer cost of the state schools
• Argue that class sizes don't matter and the bigger the better. Small classes, particularly at mixed sex schools don't allow for many friendships, for example.
• When possibly try to restrict the leeway that private schools have to innovate. For example, try to ensure that the curriculum is so full of crap (which is compulsory and can be checked) that there is no room for anything else. Argue that the building is the same, the teachers are still human so how can it possibly make any difference
• In other countries you can complain about the silly uniforms, but in NZ state schools have those too, so that won't work.

I hope the above helps. Next time you read an article on private schools, you can play 'private school bingo' and see how many of the above lines you can spot.

UPDATE: none is true

UPDATE 2: Here is a great private school

If Education Weren't Free, We Would Try Something Else

Our education system is pretty dodgy at the moment. Almost all the male teachers have left the profession in search of more pay and less suspicion of child molestation. At my son's school at the end of last year in deperation the (female) principal wrote to parents saying that not everyone can have a male teacher, and the female ones are good too. Parents are well aware of the benefits of a male teacher for a different world view every now and then.

Primary teachers are now making as much as secondary teachers despite what many would see as an obvious difference in the required academic rigour.

The government has recently introduced the NCEA, which is meant to stand for National Certificate of Educational Achievement, but in fact is closer to a Noddy Can't Educate Adolescents. Despite obvious flaws and flack from parents, the system is here to stay for the moment. Unit standards, the main failing, have continued with the massive numbers of tick boxes and meaningless marks.

Private school subsidies have been reduced out of spite by clueless ministers with a better background in socialism than education.

Also recently introduced is the Early Numeracy Project. This has been imported from Australia with much excitement because it promises to teach quite thick kids to do sums, and to avoid problems like adding 23 + 56 and getting 38374. The whole technique is aimed at the botom 20% of kids, but of course the average and bright kids have to do it also. The Education Department is Nazi-like in its insistence that every child must follow this new programme. One end result is that maths has slipped backwards 2-3 years so that an 8 year old is still learning to count. Another is that children who might have some chance of actually enjoying maths learn to hate it, because it moves more slowly than Fox Glacier. Of course the slow children hate it anyway so the end result is that everyone hates maths.

This is useful because many primary school teachers hate maths and can't do it, let alone teach it. Even if they can, they don't enjoy it. This is an attempt to ensure that eventually no primary school child ever learns maths (as distinct from counting). This will be one less thing the government will have to worry about in the future (citizens actually examining and understanding the budget).

An 8 year old will therefore find himself doing a very difficult reading comprehension on Global Warming or some other nonsense, and then in maths adding 18+24. There is a disconnect between the levels in English and Maths that is very hard on a child's brain :-) Many of the more interesting or applied maths (such as tessalations, different types of graphing, spreadsheets or surveys) are lost due to lack of time.

It is getting to the point in New Zealand where parents have to look seriously at the benefits of entrusting their child's education to outside forces. Private schools are bursting at the seams despite the cost increases as desperate parents try to place their frustrated and consequently unmanageable children into a better environment. Sadly most private schools follow the New Zealand curriculum to the letter.

I wonder whether things are now so bad that the New Zealand Education Department cannot be trusted to maintain a curriculum. Perhaps it is time for New Zealand to just follow along with the Australian system, or perhaps the Cambridge exams. We could toss in a bit of Maori and local geography every now and then for parents who think it important.

It would be a major loss of cultural indoctrination, but we are raising a generation of losers. Something needs to give in NZ education, and smartly.

The Case for Private School Subsidy

Liz Gordon describes private school subsidies, shamefully reduced by the government, as funding the privileged.

She makes the following points, which I deal with one at a time:

• Yes private school parents save taxpayer funds, but they do this by choice, so stuff them

From a moral point of view this is wrong. If parents are willing to take a load of the system, then the government should refund at least part of this cost, from a moral obligation point of view.

From an economics point of view this is also wrong. Giving a $7000 subsidy to save $8000 makes economic sense for any government [these numbers are made up]. In fact, put this way, the government should try to get all children into private school, and cut taxes by $1000 per child.

From an access / fairness point of view it is also wrong. As private schools are becoming unaffordable, only the rich can gain access to the best schools in the country. A subsidy would help redress the balance.

• Private school parents have no disability, so shouldn't be funded. Gordon herself was funded as a child, but her parents were nutters so that's ok

It depends on your definition of disability. Many children have learning problems. Money is no guarantee of a child's ability. I have seen no study which shows that rich people are clever and poor people are stupid. Many people with children in private schools end up there because it is the only place their children can get the help they need, despite the financial hardship this causes.

• There are no subsidies to send 'needy' children to private schools

This is false. Many private schools offer scholarships and bursaries aimed at poor people's children.

• Some state schools have boarding options, so no excuse just because you live in the sticks

I didn't know that. I'm sure it will help in a few cases and I'm please to hear about state schools offering this.

• Private schools are not better. If they get better results it is just because their children are privileged

That depends on the school. In my experience, private schools which are not in the 'very good' category are not popular, and suffer a declining role. Fee-paying parents can be pretty demanding, a bit like fee-paying university students, actually.

From an economic point of view it is clear that private schools must offer something. Who would pay $10k a year to send a child there if there were no benefit?

• People seek out private schools because they seek wealth, power and exclusivity

I'm sure some do. I'm not sure what the point is here. Are we trying to keep people poor, week and common?

• Yes private school parents save taxpayer funds, but they do this by choice, so stuff them

(this point repeated for some reason, I dealt with it above)

• We should instead try to educate the disabled ,refugees, etc.

I think we already do that. Or is Liz Gordon suggesting we send them to private schools?

I would also make the point that we need special help for children at both ends of the scale. Very clever children often have problems which prevent them from learning to their ability. Economically speaking these children give us the best bang for our buck, as they may be the next Angus Tait or Theresa Gattung, if only they learn to read and write.

 

Liz Gordon would be on much firmer ground if she developed her theme around educating the disabled and needy. It is a shame that only 4% of children attend a private school (her figures, which I haven't checked). The number should be much higher, and we need a much more diverse school sector so parents get a lot more choice.

Every child is different and one state-provided size does not fit all. The crazy thing about Liz's article is that she says:

[about her private school attendance instead of going off to a children's home] It was, I am sure, a life-changing decision for us

Good on you Liz, lucky you. Now how about giving a few more people a chance. Let's lift the private school subsidy to 100% of state sector cost.

Canterbury Uni's Super-cool Supercomputer

Went to see this tonight thanks to the NZCS. The Uni has a great website about the beast also.

Now listen, this is genuinely cool. If i had $5m floating about and could afford the $20/hour power bill, I'd have one in my living room. This is exactly the sort of thing our universities should be doing.

One of the things that is so depressing about NZ Unis is their crappy out of date equipment. A typical department has 500 staff and an annual capital budget of $9.25. They can't even buy a USB stick without a 23 page justification. Sure staff are good, but the balance is not right in my view. We need more money spend on keeping the equipment up to date, and (if need be) less on staff.

Prince George: Ah, Buxomly! Roaringly splendid to have you here. How are you, sir?

Sir Talbot Buxomly: Heartily well, Your Highness. I dined hugely off of servants before I come into town.

Prince George: Um, you eat your servants?

Sir Talbot Buxomly: No, sir -- I eat *off* them. Why should I spend good money on tables when I have men standing idle?

This was from a time of massive over-supply of labour...II do like Black Adder,

Anyway, I release this doesn't apply so much to the Maori department, or Commerce. But surely it does apply to Physics, Music and Engineering. Update!