I stumbled across this on the web, looking for something else. Worth reading.
From the Autumn edition of Education Aotearoa:
The influence of the business lobby, particularly the Business Roundtable and ACT, in pushing New Zealand into the hands of the charter school movement is shown in a timeline of developments put together by NZEI’s Stephanie Mills.
This interesting analysis shows how an observer with an attention span can point to a long trail of manoeuvring and influence peddling (PDF) and the recent irregular-to-say-the-very-least appointment of former ACT president, list candidate and pin-up Catherine Judd-Issacs-Kerr to the (Surprise!) National-ACT coalition agreement generated ‘implementation group for charter schools’.
The Tea Tapes Timeline
aka How We Got To Get Charter Schools
2002?
Education Forum established by Business Round Table and others to lobby for the introduction of competition into public education. BRT Executive Director Roger Kerr was a key member of the Forum, which is very active until 2006-7. (The BRT says Business Roundtable was instrumental in establishing and continues to support the Forum http://www.nzbr.org.nz/Projects/Education+Matters.html)Kerr was close to the ACT party (see obituary http://www.act.org.nz/posts/roger-kerr-1945-2011) and in 2010 married Catherine Isaacs, former ACT President (2001-2006) and ACT list candidate. Isaacs’s company, Awaroa Partners, has acted as communications consultants to the Business Roundtable throughout 2006-2010 at least. A staff member of Awaroa Partners is currently given as the contact address on the Education Forum website.
2005
Education Forum contracts Caroline Hoxby, well-known proponent of charter schools in the US to visit NZ and write a paper on school choice http://educationforum.org.nz/upload/book/60517Hoxby_2006.pdf2007
Nicky Hager’s book, The Hollow Men, alleges that Catherine Isaacs and Awaroa Partners participated in the election of Don Brash to the leadership of the National Party. Judd stated that she was not willing to comment on material based on stolen property. http://salient.org.nz/features/through-a-glass-rightly-bangs-and-whimpers-in-rightearoa2008
November
The National Party is elected Government in November. National Standards are introduced under urgency before Christmas with no parliamentary scrutiny.As part of the National-ACT Confidence and Supply Agreement, an Inter-Party Working Group is set up to ‘examine the concept of trust schools [UK charter-type school] and other models which might facilitate greater self-management and innovation, and the registration and accountability mechanisms for such schools that might accompany the relaxation of detailed controls.’
The membership was Heather Roy, Chester Burrows, Roger Douglas, Te Ururoa Flavell, Hekia Parata, and Jonathan Young. This group was charged with meeting fortnightly and to produce a report by 30 November 2009.2009
The National-led Government amends the Education Act to allow corporates to be appointed as statutory managers of commissioners of schools, and to allow the Minister to appoint one Board of Trustees for two or more newly established schools without any obligation to consult the community.The inter-party working group on school choice releases its report “Step Change”. It recommends radical changes to schooling, including the use of vouchers and private learning “brokers”. The Working Group proposed that a taskforce be established immediately, with the outcomes to be trialled in the 2011 school year. The Minister of Education takes no immediate action on the report.
2010
February – National Standards introduced into primary schoolsApril – The Government appoints Catherine Isaacs to its welfare working group.
August – Roger Kerr argues for charter schools in Christchurch quoting Hoxby on his blog:
http://rogerkerr.wordpress.com/2011/08/30/a-chance-to-choose/Education Minister Anne Tolley attends an OECD Education Ministers meeting, where officials include UK delegate Lesley Longstone.
2011
Teach First, a fast-track teacher training programme pioneered in the US as “Teacher America” is launched. It is funded by philanthropists and management companies, notably include Sir Julian Robertson, a New Zealand resident US billionaire who has made large contributions to US charter schools, including KIPP:
http://www.kipp.org/about-kipp/the-kipp-foundation/national-partnersJuly – Lesley Longstone appointed as new Secretary of Education. She is described as an “unashamed advocate of the British equivalent of charter schools” in her previous roles in the UK.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10782793November – Tea tapes – Key urges John Banks to make Catherine Isaacs (formerly Judd) the leader of the ACT Party in place of Don Brash: http://thestandard.org.nz/key-and-banks-on-act-snap-elections-coups-isaac/
and
http://www.stuff.co.nz/southland-times/news/5987119/Peters-reveals-tea-tape-detailsACT wins just 1.07 per cent of the vote, with the election of John Banks in Epsom. Leader Don Brash stepped down immediately, saying he underestimated the intensity of dislike for ACT.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/6045538/ACT-needs-to-rebrand-says-IsaacNational forms a Government after general elections.
December 2011 The National-ACT Coalition agreement announces
introduction of charter schools. According to NZ Herald writer John Armstrong, Catherine Isaacs, “long-time watcher of the successes and failures of charter schools overseas” wrote the two-page annex to Act’s support agreement with National which outlines the process by which two state-funded trial charter schools will be established, one in south Auckland and the other in Christchurch.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10782793The Business Roundtable calls the move “a potentially momentous step forward in the battle to break the mould and lift educational achievement in New Zealand”
http://businessroundtable.wordpress.com/2011/12/07/charter-schools -a-dove-among-the-pigeons/20122012
February – Catherine Isaacs is appointed to chair implementation group for charter schoolsBusiness Round Table publishes extensively on charters. Its Education Matters project says “we have actively engaged in the promotion of school choice” http://www.nzbr.org.nz/Projects/Education+Matters.html
Catherine Isaacs and Lesley Longstone are pictured together in the social pages of the Sunday Star Times (February 26, 2012).
March – The Implementation Group is announced, and will set its own terms of reference. The impartiality of the group is questioned by the Green Party, and others. The Green Party calls for an inquiry.
– P
Hmmm.
What does all this mean? Is this another right wing conspiracy, uncovered by the extreme lefty crusaders such as Mr Hager yet again?
Poormastery has noticed that wealthy people tend to care deeply about their children’s education. Is this really such a terrible perspective?
It is almost like the extreme lefty diatribe above is purporting to outline some sort of conspiracy – at the least extremely unsavoury behaviour, or even potentially criminal?
Personally, poormastery does not view caring about your child’s education as the equivalent of goose stepping at a Nuremburg rally, but then again, Mr Hager and his extreme lefty friends have never made much sense to me…
Decentralisation of the governance of schools back to the local community makes considerable sense to me. Implementation of this strategy has challenges, but the principle at least works for me.
But what about the fact that this strategy was advocated by Don Brash, Darth Vader and and the Daleks? Can’t we ust smash the man (or lady) proposing the reform Mr Hager style, talking in hushed tones about terrible conspiracies and goose stepping Nazis?
I suppose you can, but it is essentially a weak argument. Poormastery could listen to criticism about the policies – just abusing these policies based on who proposed them is a little immature.
Of course, school teachers are one of the strongest unions in NZ, and they guard their centralised model of education with a combination of the zeal of ideologues and the greed of insiders.
The policies of the extreme left (Hager / Trotter et al) represent the road to serfdom.
Think independently. Don’t uncritically believe the centralised diktats of the extreme left.
You have nothing to lose but your chains!
Rgds,
*p*
I regret to inform you that you have exhausted your monthly quota of ‘extreme left’ and ‘goose stepping’ in that comment. 🙂
But seriously? Poormastery? What has Charter Schools got to do with ‘caring about your child’s education’? Thats a silly way to try to frame the argument, it seems to me. (So implying the non-rich *don’t* care about their child’s education? That’s a pathetic argument.)
I’m not sure of the provenance of this timeline document or why it’s been produced, but I find it interesting and not diatribe-like at all.
As noted on Saturday morning, I’m actually reading Nicky Hager’s book The Hollow Men at present so perhaps I’m ‘in the zone’ for reading theories about political spin …
—
Can’t one just as legitimately see this ACT Party policy, seeking to direct MORE taxpayer funding to corporate- run schools, as just another extreme right (cough 1.07%) private industry group trying (by stealth, subterfuge and ‘irregular’ cronyistic appointments) to get its snout in the public trough?
The opponents of MMP would decry this as a minority party (you can’t get more minority than one MP) forcing its extremist view into public policy? Boo hiss.
I’m not aware that carrying out scrutiny and criticism of political machinations makes someone an ‘extreme lefty’. Does it?
Your attempted characterisation of Nicky Hager and the teachers’ union as ‘extreme left’ strikes me as reflexive and ludicrously weak mislabeling. (Surely the ‘extreme left’ refers to Marxist revolutionaries plotting the overthrow of the established order by any means possible?)
From the look of things the plotters in this case are the fringe-dwelling hard right schemers whose long march toward privatisation is often kept under cover lest it frighten the ‘mainstream’.
– P
Peter,
Mr Hager is definately a lefty, and he certainly seems rather extreme in his views to me. I suppose we will need to agree to disagree on definitions in this case.
“The opponents of MMP would decry this as a minority party (you can’t get more minority than one MP) forcing its extremist view into public policy?”
Are charter schools really such an extremist idea, only acceptable to 1% of people? Perhaps, if only this straw man case is presented.
If your “investigative journalism” is simply to say it’s the policy favoured by Don Brash / Adolf Hitler / Darth Vader, then you might well get less than the legendary 1% threshold support.
If you point out that it could be about giving local communities more power, decentralising the system and providing some competition to a Statist monopoly, you might get higher than 1% support.
Of course, poormastery himself attended lower socio-economic State schools for my education.
Nonetheless, I personally wouldn’t want to deny youngsters the opportunity to a better system, based on some sort of extreme lefty ideology that the teacher’s union spout.
Rgds,
*p*
Again with the ‘extreme lefty’?
And the ‘deny youngsters’ and empowering ‘local communities’ rhetoric?
I haven’t been radicalized on this Charter School issue, nor on the idea that there’s some evil lurking in the pool.
But judging by the manner in which the policy is being introduced, I have to say it seems less-than-straightforward.
Where was the idea during the election? It must have been regarded as (a) unimportant, (b) a negative.
Yet the policy popped up as one tangible of the ACT support agreement for Mr Key’s coalition government.
Then John Banks appointing Catherine Issacs to head the implementation group attracted my attention, as it looked like cronyism to me — as it did to someone else who took the time to make an Official Information Act request:
http://norightturn.blogspot.co.nz/2012/04/catherine-isaacs-crony-appointment.html
Poormastery, you ask:
Yes, judging by results. Why isn’t it overtly stated National Party policy?
Why the creeping agenda for ‘education choice’ (a truthspeak euphemism if I ever heard one)?
Hmm?
– P
Peter,
“Yet the policy popped up as one tangible of the ACT support agreement for Mr Key’s coalition government.”
In practice, complete rule by the people is impossible, as power has to be delegated to a competent executive.
Democracy, as a theoretical experiment, is never enough. Of course, this is not to say totalitarian regimes (Stalinism, Maoism et al) are anything but repugnant.
Irrespectively, the extreme lefties had a similar disdain for the legendary euphemism of choice in Britain. The policy still went in, and the world still seems to be turning. In fact, reports are that it worked rather well. Curious.
I suppose it doesn’t really surprise me that the extreme lefties oppose any break-up of their centralised model. This is to be expected.
What can be irritating is hypocritical MP’s such as Dianne Abbott, MP for Hackney North:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diane_Abbott
“Abbott’s decision in 2003 to send her son to the private City of London School, which she herself described as “indefensible” and “intellectually incoherent”, caused controversy and criticism.”
You just know that if charter schools do get up and running, the sickly liberal intelligentsia will go strangely silent about the issue, because they will be sending their children there! Ha.
Enuff,
*p*