Charter for Failure

Give me strength. Charter schools. There is a discussion on The Standard in which posters such as "Leary" do a much better job of dismantling the non-arguments of the Right than I can so I'll stick to what I know.

The thing is that if New Zealanders want an example of how National Standards and Charter schools will fail our kids they need look no further than Government funded tertiary education.

When National took over the reigns of Foundation Focused Training Opportunities (FFTO), Youth Guarantees and Youth Training they immediately made changes - changes which reflect their punitive approach to education.

FFTO is training for adults designed to assist them into employment. The National government identified that there were some people who "course-hopped" - went from one government funded course to another without seeming to get any closer to actually getting a job. So the first change they made was to restrict the number of funded programmes a person can attend to two. Trainees now get two "lives". Now, while there is no doubt there was the odd malingerer who used the system to avoid work, most people moved very quickly through that system. The people who did linger and course-hop were generally people who needed the extra help. Perhaps they were coming out of mental illness, had an extended stay in prison or - as in the case of one person I taught who had spent his first twenty-five years on an isolated commune in Golden Bay and couldn't read or write or cope well with modern society - found it difficult to find their feet. While those people moved from one course to another, most progressed - albeit slowly - toward being in a position to begin work. The courses they attended helped them develop life skills, work skills and the confidence to move on. Sometimes that took a while.

But the Tories changed that. Two courses, no more, then you're on your own. They reduced course lengths to 26 weeks. And they increased the educational and employment outcomes required from the providers. The result? FFTO courses no longer accept referrals who they know won't make the grade. If the provider identifies that a person has severe literacy issues or is struggling with drug addiction or that they will have difficulty holding a job after 26 weeks - the provider won't accept them. And there is no where else for those people to go. They will stay on the dole without assistance. The people who most need help, won't get it. Not under the Tory education system.

Now the same thing is happening to Youth Training/Guarantees. These are the courses for 16 & 17 year olds who have left school without enough NCEA qualifications. Traditionally students spent a year or two working toward completing Level 2 NCEA and looking for further training or a job. The government has now doubled the number of credits that each student is required to achieve. Providers' funding is dependent on this outcome. So kids with learning difficulties, young people with difficult lives, people who providers know will not achieve the credit limits during the course, simply won't be accepted.

The shame of it is that those kids who fail the new National Standards/Charter Schools regime are the same kids who will be refused help on Youth Guarantees and the same adults who will be locked out of FFTO. In the Tory education system those in most need will miss out.

A Move to the Centre?

Been away. Now I'm back.

Post election. A bit grumpy but also encouraged.

I've been reading the analysis and wondering if we're missing something.
Mostly I've been interested in this idea that the Green Party have moved to the centre resulting in their excellent numbers.

I'm not entirely convinced. Apart from Norman's ridiculous flirt with the Tories early on in the campaign - and I notice it was never mentioned again - Green policy hasn't changed much.

I wonder if the perception that the Greens are moving to the centre is actually a case of the centre moving to the Greens. In other words that much of what used to be "fringe" environmentalism is now "mainstream". I look at the young, educated Green candidates who are qualified in professions that simply didn't exist 20 years ago. They have studied subjects that one couldn't even study at universities until recently. Much of what used to be considered the realm of slightly nutty, home-knits and back-to-the-landers is now accepted wisdom. Indeed ideas such as sustainable management have become part of the mainstream conversation, part of the economy. Bright young things make their careers in areas once the reserve of crusty, Whole Earth Catalogue reading hippies. Those bright young things are mainstream professionals. Their areas of expertise are mainstream professions. Those bright young things are now candidates and voters.

I further wonder if the move away from Labour is a similar process.

Post 1987 the Right populated the accepted centre, neo-liberals infected the Left and the accepted wisdom of globalisation, the free market and every-man-for-himself became the mainstream norm.

I wonder if the same crop of bright young things know better. History has shown us the error of most of neo-liberal puffery and they teach history at universities. There is a generation that adopted the new-right philosophy wholesale. There is another that has been educated in the evidence that Don Brash, Bill English and Phil Goff continue to ignore.

Perhaps those same bright young things are part of the Occupy crowd. Perhaps ideas such as: the rich shouldn't benefit at the expense of the poor; Te Tiriti should be properly honoured; workers shopuld have basic rights and power in the system; a redistribution of wealth is sensible in a civilised society; a level of intervention is essential to ensure the safety and prosperity of citizens; collaboration is better than competition are becoming part of (yes, and returning to) the mainstream.

Yes - I do notice the surge to Peters and the Conservatives. But maybe that is the natural reaction of a society afraid of change in the face of the wave of fresh ideas - and idealism. I also note the crop of fresh faced nutters at ACT functions. Exceptions proving the rule?

Anyway. Just a thought.