Reactionary Luddite Petulance

A Submission Opposing The Termination of Charter Schools in NZ

I wish to convey my concerns about the proposal of the Education Amendment Bill to:

Remove the Partnership Model

When I was a young man I was told that it was wrong to steal because the State did not like competition.  This was, of course, a sardonic jibe.  But it has embedded within it an element of truth.

As I have observed the animus of the Teacher Unions to charter schools in New Zealand I have become increasingly concerned that a lot of the antipathy and criticism has come from a State education system that fears competition.  The idea that some creative and enterprising individuals might construct and offer a special needs education programme (which is how charter schools in New Zealand have been framed from the outset) and succeed, is for some reason obnoxious to the education “establishment”.

I have followed carefully the reasons put forward as to why the Partnership Model must be terminated and not once have I seen it argued that it was due to the failure of these schools to educate.  That being the case, one is left with the a likely alternative: Partnership Schools are being terminated because they have been successful.

I am aware  this is could be seen as an extreme interpretation.
  But what other conclusion is apt, given the circumstances?  I have read the pleas of parents and students involved in Partnership schooling for the Government not to proceed with the draconian and extreme course of shutting them down.  I have read the testimonies of the good—educational good—achieved by these schools.

No politician (including the present Minister of Education), nor education union, nor Ministry of Education bureaucrat has mounted an argument that Partnership Schools have failed to educate, teach, train, and inspire young students—often from very difficult backgrounds.  Since this is the case, why on earth would the present government want to shut Partnership Schools down?  Is it because we have a perfectly functioning state education system?  Is it because Partnership Schools are redundant and whatever good they have done is readily and actually being replicated in government schools?  If so, then, why have numerous parents and students voted with their feet and deliberately chosen a particular Partnership School?  Why have they testified to dramatic changes and progress in their children's lives? Why have they publicly protested the looming extirpation of the “Partnership Model”?

What the present Government and the teacher unions are proposing would appear to confirm the old jibe: they want Partnership Schools shut down because they do not like the competition.  And that would make this a very, very sad day.

The phrase, “First, do no harm” has influenced medical ethics for centuries.  It is an aphorism which has been adopted more and more widely in various professional disciplines.  Sadly, these days it does not seem to guide nor constrain legislators.  Nevertheless, I appeal to each MP considering this “Remove the Partnership Model” amendment:  you have a bounden obligation to the people of this country first of all, to do no harm.

I am certain, removing Partnership Schools will do a great deal of harm and damage, which is bad enough.  But to harm those parents, students and schools for no reason apart from a myopic, reactionary loyalty to the failed policies of the past is unconscionable.  To cling to anachronistic models which have wrought much damage to so many over the years would add insult to grievous injury.  And all because the present Government does not like competition?

We urge the Select Committee to be stronger and wiser than the reactionary Luddite petulance this Amendment displays. 

[Reprinted with permission]