The Deeply Flawed Charter School Situation

I am a huge advocate for the Charter School policy and appreciate the intent of Associate Minister Seymour to bring it back. My new Charitable Company has four applications in so I understand the risk of criticising what is happening. I have to though as the process so far has been incredibly poor and for this good policy idea to work things must change immediately.

The Charter Schools application process has been BIZARRE to say the least. E.g. my organisation has 4 applications in, within budget, with remarkable people, very high quality support and significant demand from families. We have not been asked a single question by the Charter School Agency or the Authorisation Board. The CSA funded application assistant – a very well known educator – consiered out applications to be of a very high standard. I can only assume we will be awarded four contracts but have laid a formal complaint with the Associate Minister about the process (see below).

1. ACT are, in theory, about saving taxpayer money. I was therefore simply astounded to see this on SEEK:

“The Head of Performance and Monitoring is an Executive Leadership role within the Charter School Agency.

Salary range: $175,616 – $263,424 per annum total remuneration (base salary plus employer superannuation contribution).https://www.seek.co.nz/Ministry-of-Education-jobs?page=2&jobId=80050071&type=standout

Each year I do a data process for the 460 high schools in NZ on a full range of their data. It is a big and complex job and I set four weeks aside to do it. 

I have read the job description for above and I am absolutely certain it would be two weeks work … for $263K.  It is close to half of what the Secretary for Education earns.

Unfortunately it is in keeping with the efficiency of the Charter School Agency at present that is not yet notifying schools that are to start in Term 1 2025 … and it is mid-November. Plus the secrecy involved has been off the planet.

2. I sent the following Offical Complaint in on Monday. I have heard nothing back from his office or the CSA.

Dear Mr Seymour – as Associate Minister of Education

Myself and the Board of Directors of Education 710+ have very significant concerns about the Charter School application process – including the behaviour of some of the officials involved.

We currently have four applications that we are told are “live”. Two are in central Auckland (a Year 0 – 8, and a Year 11 – 13 UE focussed and ideal for bringing Maori and Pasifika students in). One is in Epsom (a Year 7 – 10 primarily designed for neuro-diverse learners). One in Warkworth (Year 7 – 10 that already has 100 families waiting).

We have an outstanding Board of 9 highly capable people. We have support from educators like John Hattie, Dame Wendy Pye and others. We have inspirational people like Hamish Kerr putting his name in to be involved. We have inner city support from Simon Bridges and Viv Beck.

We also have 100s of families and many teachers who have been in wait mode for a very long time. 

Add to that we have 3 wealthy individuals and one organisation who have offered us the use of their remarkable buildings – investing millions because, up until now, they have believed in the model. They have been waiting months for indications/approvals.

We also have major suppliers – e.g. for IT – who have also been in wait mode.

We are well and truly ready to go and can have all four schools flying by February of next year.

We are not just expressing concerns from us but have heard from many of the other applicants who are bemused – at best.

We have concerns about some of the behaviours of Jane Lee. We have stuck to protocols – however Jane directly rang me after the first online applicant briefing to ask me how I thought things had gone. 

She then arranged for me to speak, online, with a number of their people about the assessment strategies I would recommend.

All applicants met the stage 1 deadline – but the CSA decided that they would extend their own time frames by a week. We have been frequently told that the CSA’s role was merely to decide if we were fit and proper people and capable of delivering.

We then received a bizarre letter from Jane Lee  telling us that one of our applications had made stage 2 – but we (Education 710+) had to choose which one. In that letter Jane clearly indicated that she wanted three of our applications removed because of the “high number of applicants”. It is, therefore clear, that they were not looking for the 15 best applications (i.e. not looking for the 15 best schools to serve the NZ education system/families/taxpayer) they merely wanted to spread them around the applicants. Is that what you, as Minister, stipulated?

What then followed was an online meeting with Jane Lee and Chris Richards. Jane refused to record the meeting when I requested it. I recorded it anyway as is my habit after years of experience with Ministry officials. The meeting was not pleasant for either party. Eventually they acknowledged that they were wrong and that – if we were fit for purpose and capable for one – then all four were required to go through to stage 2 as applicants had been told repeatedly. 

It is important to note that we have not had a conversation with a genuine educator during this process and the application documents were certainly not written by one. We have been asked very little about curriculum and very little about genuine assessment plans. The application documents were repetitive and some questions simply did not make sense. The key people are procurement people – Chris Richards who is an expert in waste management, Helen Saville whose qualification is in fashion and a young stats graduate. 

It was also clear that Chris Richards, etc, had not read any of the previous Charter School evaluations and knew very little about the policy in general.

The next online meeting was inexplicably cameras off and applicants were fully muted. It cannot have been to keep secret who were in stage 2 as all of the applicants names were up when they logged in. Why be secretive anyway? Why not actually take questions in a public/private partnership application process?

There was significant insistence from the CSA/Jane that they would be providing advice/rankings to the Authorisation Board (touted as an “Independant Body”.)

Applicants were then told that those who were likely to be approved would see draft contracts in the week of October 21 – 24. This didn’t happen.

The next notification (below) informed that the Authorisation Board had “finished their review” of applicants and that no one would then know about approval until November 15. Applicants were also told that the AB would contact applicants by email if they needed clarifications. No interviews were mentioned.

During the last week, as the applicants are very open with each other, applicants became aware that some applicants had been interviewed by the AB and others had not. Even those interviewed found that process confusing and were not sure of the point.

As I said – we will be ready to go by February – if approved – others, including some interviewed are much less certain.

These aspects raise major questions. 

– By October 28 had the AB decided that some of the applicants would not be approved?

If that is so and the applicants have not been informed that is appalling. It also has huge financial, and potentially legal, ramifications. Like in our case – we have 4 property owners who have put their incomes on hold and not sought other tenants. One has had to delay a major property purchase a number of times as he took the CSA’s time-line to be accurate. Likewise applicants have put many aspects of their lives on hold – as well as having waiting stakeholders – including MANY families who are frequently contacting applicants as they are looking for the best for their children and actually have to make choices.

In our situation – if not approved as Charter Schools for all four schools we would have been sending in Designated Character School applications (our model is approved with a designated Character as it is largely the one I wrote for South Auckland Middle School and Middle School West Auckland). I will send all four applications directly to you later today for approval as Designated Character Schools. As you are well aware it is a waste of time sending these to the Ministry. When I applied, three times under Hipkins, all were turned down. Jo Martin and others met with you – and you advised them to “play the long game” until you had decision-making power. Now is the time. 

Also – for at least two of the sites we would be also stongly consider a private school application.

– If decisions were not made by October 28 – why have some applicants been interviewed (with attempts to swear them to secrecy) and others not?

All of our applications clearly meet the criteria. Our Board is outstanding. The staff in waiting are of the highest quality and there is ample demand. I am also well aware of many of the other applicants and what they may bring.

I can only assume that we will be approved (unless people have another agenda) and that the AB simply has no questions for us. 

That does not lessen the frustration of huge concern about the nature of the process and the way the applicants (and all of their stakeholders) have been treated. Including the bizarre elimination of Crimson – who could genuinely change the education environment in NZ. I was speaking to a group of 35 State School Principals in Hamilton yesterday. There was a Correspondence School leader there who informed the meeting that they now have over 30,000 enrolments – and we know the outcomes they are getting.

David – we are aware of how important this policy is and we have/had significant belief in it. So far this process has been significantly worse than 2013 – 2017. In fact the transition process under Labour to State schools was far better and is likely a key reason why the former Charter Schools have not returned (nor are many State or State Integrated Schools looking to transition).

We look forward to a timely reply and actions for us and all applicants. There is significant media interest and, if asked, I will be sharing this letter.

Yours 

NB: CSA email below, Jane Lee email below (with my emphasis added).

Alwyn Poole
alwyn.poole@gmail.com
Innovative Education Consultants Ltd
Education 710+ Ltd
(both sites currently being re-done)
alwynpoole.substack.com
www.linkedin.com/in/alwyn-poole-16b02151/

Kia ora,

The Authorisation Board have conducted their review of all stage two applications and are now seeking clarifications before they make their final decisions. If your application requires clarification, we will be in touch with you by email.

Once the Board has all the information that they require to make their decisions, they will communicate these which will allow approved sponsors to be passed back to the Charter School Agency to commence contract negotiations.

We expect that we will be in a position to communicate all of the Board’s decisions by 15 November 2024. Please note that this date is an estimate which may change.

All decisions will be conveyed to you formally with a letter by email.

Kia pai tō rā

Applications Team

Charter School Agency

Good morning Alwyn

Thank you for your response to our feedback so far, which was intended to assist you at this stage of the application process.

You have indicated that you wish to proceed further with all four of your applications as we proceed into the next stage of the process so far. As I have said, that is your choice and all the applications that you want to proceed with will be fully supported in the process (as needed) in the same way as all the applications going through this next stage. Your applications will be presented to the Authorisation Board when it meets to consider the many applications received.

In terms of the remit of the Charter School Agency, our role is to make recommendations to the Board to assist it in its role, and we are clear that the Board is the decision-maker.

Nga mihi

Jane Lee

Jane Lee
Chief Executive
Charter School Agency
charterschools.govt.nz