Answers for David Seymour
Save Our Schools feels a response to David Seymour’s Questions for Kelvin, Willie and Peeni should include a few
relevant facts. This seems to be something Mr Seymour routinely ignores in his communiques.
First, his comment about Maori educational achievement being so utterly abysmal.
Using the Government’s main system level metric, called School Leavers, Maori achievement has been increasing steadily
for many years. In 2016, 66.5% of Maori students left school with at least NCEA Level 2 or higher, the benchmark used by
the government for the minimum desired level of qualification. This compares to a similar figure of 45.7% in 2009, an
encouraging increase of 20.8 percentage points in 7 years.
In contrast, only 59.7% of charter school leavers left school in 2016 with at least NCEA Level 2 or higher. Furthermore,
it was disappointing to see that no less than 20.2% of 2016 leavers from charter schools left without even attaining
NCEA Level 1.
Second, his comments on charter school funding always require clarification. Charter schools receive much more funding
than the LOCAL schools that they were set up to compete against. This gives them an advantage compared to the mush
bigger, more established schools in places such as South Auckland.
Save Our Schools analysed the 2015 financial statements of South Auckland Middle School and its local counterpart,
Manurewa Intermediate. SAMS received $11,740 of funding per student after paying the rent for its premises. In contrast,
Manurewa Intermediate received funding of $5,907 per student, with its property provided by the Crown.
This simple analysis destroys the myth perpetuated by charter school supporters that there were not serious problems
with the original charter school funding model. Some of these problems were corrected when the funding formula was
revised but the early schools still enjoy the benefit of being locked in to the overly generous original model.
Last, we are always puzzled by the current stance that charter schools are apparently now behaving themselves, and all
teaching the National Curriculum and employing registered teachers etc. etc.
Wasn’t Mr Seymour’s marketing slogan that charter schools were freed from constraints placed on state schools in return
for rigorous accountability against agreed objectives?
Well, if they are not, in fact, using these so-called freedoms, then what is their point of difference?
And, if so, then they will have no problem merging back into the incredibly broad range of school types and structures
that characterise the New Zealand education system.
Won’t they, Mr Seymour?
ENDS