Charter school surprise

There is something very wrong about announcing a major policy just after the election. People weren't given a chance to make a decision based on proposed policy, which in some ways is even worse than a broken election promise.

Being that National's coalition deal with Act is being used as an excuse for the delayed charter school announcement, one would expect that John Banks had informed us about their plans prior to the election.

However this was not the case, with the only (woefully lacking in detail) announcement coming after the coalition deal was signed. Here's Act's charter school policy announcement made over a week after the election:

The provision to set up a trial charter school system - under sections 155 (Kura Kaupapa Maori) and 156 (designated character schools) of the Education Act – for disadvantaged communities, specifically in areas such as South Auckland and parts of Christchurch where educational underachievement is most entrenched.  A private sector-chaired implementation group will be established to develop the proposal for implementation in this parliamentary term.

Act is claiming that legislation already exists that has given the government a mandate to set up a trial charter school system. Let's have a look at exactly what the legislation states:

156 Designated character schools

• (1) Subject to subsection (2), the Minister may, by notice in the Gazette when establishing the school, designate a State school as a designated character school

• (2) The Minister shall not establish a school as a designated character school unless satisfied that—

• (a) the parents of at least 21 people who would, if the school were established, be entitled to free enrolment there, want the school to be established; and

• (b) the parents want the school to have a character that is in some specific way or ways different from the character of ordinary State schools; and

• (c) the parents have given the Minister a clear written description and explanation (expressed in the form of aims, purposes, and objectives for the school) of the way or ways; and

• (d) students at a school with such a character would get an education of a kind that—

• (i) differs significantly from the education they would get at an ordinary State school; and

• (ii) is not available at any other State school that children of the parents concerned can conveniently attend; and

• (e) it is desirable for students whose parents want them to do so to get such an education.

Not only did they fail to announce their intentions to start a trial charter school system before the election, it appears that their policy is in breach of the Education Act 1989, being that the minister could not be satisfied that the parents of 21 students wanted a charter school because there was no time given to seek that approval.

It also appears that the Education Act does not give provision for schools that already exist to be changed into charter schools... so unless National and Act are prepared to ignore or retrospectively change the Education Act, they currently have no mandate for charter schools, even on a trial basis.

But let's just put that fact aside for now, as I'm sure National and Act will ignore the law as it is written. What about the supposed benefits of charter schools? Here's what the in-depth Standford University study (PDF) into Charter School performance in 16 US states concludes:

Executive Summary

The group portrait shows wide variation in performance. The study reveals that a decent fraction of charter schools, 17 percent, provide superior education opportunities for their students.  Nearly half of the charter schools nationwide have results that are no different from the local public school options and over a third, 37 percent, deliver learning results that are significantly worse than their student would have realized had they remained in traditional public schools.

That means on average charter schools are 20% worse than publicly funded schools. Clearly on the basis of previous experience there is no good argument for implementation.

Couple this with there being no electoral or parental mandate under the Education Act 1989, and the government is once again trying to force what is already an unpopular policy down peoples throats without any semblance of a mandate.

Have they learnt nothing from the implementation failure that is National Standards?

Wikileaks Needs You!

The injustice system

Last month, Pita Sharples made the brave move of saying that our justice system was prejudiced and discriminated against Maori.

There is no question that he's right... only those who are racist themselves or ignorant to the many cases of bias against Maori would argue against his statement:

"Maori offenders are arrested at three times the rate of non Maori for the same crimes. They are also more likely to have police contact, to be charged, to lack legal representation, not to be granted bail, to plead guilty and to be convicted," said Sharples.

Although obviously grandstanding prior to the 2011 election, Sharples raises a most worthwhile topic for debate... is there endemic racism within our justice system?

Of course the argument was dismissed by the right wing on spurious grounds and nothing has changed. The influence of various organizations like the SST and the private prison industry on the powers that be will not allow any proper investigation into the issue... and it will be swept under the carpet.

It seems that the acceptance of discriminatory practices is the main problem, whereby racism within the general population is unfortunately mirrored by our legal and political representatives.

The question is whether you believe that Maori are born bad because of their genes, or that social conditioning gives rise to increased crime or that the justice system is geared against Maori?

Personally I think it's a combination of the last two... but if you needed any further evidence that the justice system treats Maori differently to Pakeha, read this article:

The man who organised the fatal "hit" on young father Raymond Piper is poised to be freed on parole – just 10 months after he was sentenced. 

Mr Piper's family say they feel "punched in the face" by this week's decision to free Sean Hawke, 51, early in the new year. 

And in a rare move, the chairman of the Parole Board has spoken out, saying he understands the shock and outrage felt by victims' families, but has to abide by the law. 

"If we come to the view that someone is not going to be an undue risk, the law requires us to release them. It's as simple as that," Judge Sir David Carruthers said. 

Being that their crime is so heinous to begin with and they have received no rehabilitation, the risk of Sean Hawke, 51, and his sister Susan Bragger, 45 re-offending in some way is high.

The justice system has ignored the fact that if Hawke and Bragger hadn't employed a hit man to make Raymond Piper "disapear," he would still be alive today. Serving less than a year for constructive manslaughter is completely wrong and a miscarriage of justice.

You might have noticed that Hawke and Bragger are white while their victim is Maori. Did this have any influence on the judges decision or the boards early parole... it certainly looks like it:

"Sometimes it's unpopular, sometimes it's unwelcome and sometimes it can be seen as outrageous because the offending is awful – but we do our job and our duty under the law and sometimes that's not easy." 

Hawke and his sister Susan Bragger, the mother of Mr Piper's former partner, were jailed for three years in February after pleading guilty to conspiring to commit grievous bodily harm to Mr Piper, 23, known as Son, of Paekakariki. 

Bragger paid hitman Ainsley Anderson $3500 to give Mr Piper a bashing to get him out of her daughter Hanna Lark's life. Hawke assisted her, haggling over the price. 

But Anderson went further than they intended, stabbing Mr Piper to death after a struggle.

So they were convicted of conspiring to commit grievous bodily harm but the actual law that applies concerns constructive malice, whereby the malicious intent inherent in the commission of a crime is considered to apply to the consequences of that crime.

They told the hit-man to make the victim disappear, which can only mean one thing to a thug. Hawke and Bragger should have been held to account for the murder of Raymond Piper and sentenced accordingly. If they were Maori... that's exactly what would have happened.

Why the hell has Hawke now been granted bail after serving a third of what was already a light sentence? Don't expect Garth McVicar to jump up and down about it either... for obvious reasons.

A slap on the hand with a wet bus ticket because he's white is evidence of the endemic and unacceptable racist attitude that pervades our justice system and ensures Maori are overrepresented in our ever expanding prison populations.

Stop the evictions

National plans mass evictions for Glen Innes. On November 16 Socialist Aotearoa reported:

160 families are facing eviction from their homes in Glen Innes, as the working class face social cleansing to enable private property developers build luxury villas where state houses once stood. It's the age old battle of poor people on rich land- and the greed of property developers and yuppie gentrifiers who want beautiful views of the Bay comes before the needs of poor Maori, Pasifika and Pakeha families.

This is completely unacceptable! Property speculators have already pushed house prices up so that the average Kiwi family can no longer afford to own their own home.

Not content with falling home ownership, National intends to kick the poor out into the streets where those same property speculators can charge overinflated market rents for unmaintained and unhealthy housing. We cannot allow this to happen.

Ten votes

Today, the NZ Herald reported:

Cabinet minister Paula Bennett is on the verge of losing her Waitakere electorate seat. 

Sources report that Labour's Carmel Sepuloni is ahead by fewer than 10 votes after the counting of special votes.

I really do hope this is true. Carmel Sepuloni is a great MP and what many consider one of Labours new faces. She stands for equality and a fairer system and deserves to win.

John Keys dyscalculia

Today, the Prime Minister John Key said he was disappointed that the British Government announced an increase in passenger duty for air travellers to New Zealand.

The British Government has announced that the UK Air Passenger Duty (APD) will increase next April from 85 pounds sterling to 92 pounds sterling per passenger coming to New Zealand. 

[...]

The previous UK government used environmental grounds to justify imposing a higher levy on long-distance flights. 

“With the tax for New Zealand-bound passengers set at four or five times the costs of offsetting the carbon emissions produced, this logic is without basis,” Mr Key said.

Let's see if John Keys claim that an increase of £7 to the APD is "four or five times the cost of offsetting the carbon emissions produced" is true?

At the lowest estimate, one-person flying economy to or from the UK produces 1.63 metric tons of CO2. The current price of carbon has fallen from €10 in November to €7.19 now or $12.34 NZD.

That means the actual cost to offset the carbon emissions produced in a flight to or from the UK is NZ$20.11 or £10... clearly nowhere near the £7 imposed. The British government is effectively subsidizing the APD by £3 for each persons flight.

John Keys claim that the introduction of the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) into the APD was "four or five times the cost," (£40 to £50) is absolute rubbish!

It appears that the Prime Minister can't even do basic maths.