Katherine Rich MP
National Party Education Spokeswoman
9 November 2007
Committee agrees to Correspondence School inquiry
National has renewed its call for a halt to the Correspondence School’s fourth restructure in 10 years in light of the
Education and Science Select Committee’s decision to call in ministry officials and representatives of the school board
to discuss the future of the school.
“Last week I wrote to the committee calling for an urgent inquiry into the Correspondence School, citing deep concerns
about the latest round of restructuring which could see 22 staff lose their jobs,” says National’s Education
spokeswoman, Katherine Rich.
“I am delighted the committee agrees that a public hearing, including officials and the board, is worthwhile.
“While a series of ministers and school leaders have lurched from one restructure to another, there has been scant
public debate or discussion about what the role of the Correspondence School can or should be in the 21st century.
“I hope that officials and the board can demonstrate that they do have a vision for the school, because this has not
been clearly communicated with the parents, staff, and the general public.
“Big questions remain unanswered like why after three years there is still not a parent and staff representative on the
board and how the proposed removal of heads of departments in subject areas will affect the quality of courses and
teacher workloads.”
Attached: Letter to Education and Science Select Committee
25 October 2007
Hon Brian Donnelly
Chair
Education and Science Select Committee
Dear Brian
I request that the Education and Science Select Committee undertake an enquiry into the present and future role of the
Correspondence School as a matter of urgency, and seek a briefing from officials on the nature, aim and expectations of
the current restructuring process.
To date there has not been a clear statement from the Minister or officials on the reason for this restructuring – the
fourth restructure of the school in 10 years.
I accept that officials have made a few vague statements that an overhaul is necessary to improve services, pastoral
care and achievement levels for at-risk students.
However, no evidence has been presented to show that new proposals to regionalise the school’s structure will make one
iota of difference to students.
In fact, there are strong arguments that such changes could be to the detriment of students, the quality of education
delivered, staff retention and students’ access to some subjects.
The cumulative negative effect of a series of restructures on the school, the staff, the students and the quality of the
service is of great concern.
As a series of Ministers and leaders of the school have lurched from one restructure to another, there has been scant
public debate or discussion about what the role of the Correspondence School can or should be in the 21st century.
Committee Members might consider two options for an enquiry / briefing:
• An enquiry which calls for public submissions and comment.
• A more limited enquiry which seeks the views of selected groups with knowledge of the school such as the
Ministry of Education, the Chief Executive Officer, the Correspondence School Parents and Supervisors Association and
the PPTA.
I would like this letter to be considered at the next meeting of the Education and Science Select Committee.
Yours sincerely
Katherine Rich MP
katherine.rich@national.org.nz
ENDS