Is David Seymour changing the rules for his charter schools?

Is David Seymour changing the rules for charter schools to make it easier for them to meet their contract performance standards?

Seymour’s bizarre press release (9 December 2015) contained the extraordinary statement that “David has reformed the funding formula for the schools and is tweaking the assessment regime.”

What on earth does “tweaking the assessment regime” mean? And why would a politician be involved in a technical matter such as assessment?

The New Zealand Qualifications Authority is the entity responsible for the qualifications framework in this country not David Seymour.

But is Seymour taking action to change the rules for the charter secondary schools, given they appear to have failed to meet the 2014 standard set out in the charter school contract?

This states quite clearly that the standard is “School leavers with NCEA Level 2” with a 2014 target of 66.9% eventually climbing to 85% in 2017. This is the Government’s main target for the school system.

However, the Education Counts database published by the Ministry shows both Vanguard Military School and Te Kura Hourua o Whangarei Terenga Paraoa fell short of that target in their first year of operation. Vanguard had 60.0% and Paraoa 55.6% of their School Leavers leaving with NCEA Level 2 or above.

So, what is Seymour up to?

Followers of the charter school initiative will also laugh at the comment that “David has reformed the funding formula.” While problems with the original funding model were clear from the outset, Seymour denied this was the case. A quote from his op-ed published in the Sunday Star-Times (8 February 2015) states that: “Why do some claim partnership schools are overfunded?”

So, which level of funding is correct Mr Seymour?

The amount produced by the original model or the amount now on offer after you “reformed the funding formula”? The Ministry document presented to cabinet clearly sets out how much less the “reformed” model produces for a new charter school in its early years compared to the original model. But that cannot stop the overfunding that already applies to the first round of schools, as the Ministry is bound by the original contract.

So, are the schools also being held to account for their side of the same contract? Or is the parliamentary under secretary riding to their rescue and “tweaking” the rules?

ENDS

© Scoop Media