Charter Schools Offer Choice and Chance

Jan Tinetti popped up on Q+A with Jack Tame a few weeks ago with yet another announcement that will ensure Labour MP posteriors will continue warming the exact same leather upholstery they are now. Labour appear to have a preternatural death wish to remain as His Majesty’s Opposition. If His Majesty were aware of this fact he would no doubt be happy that his subjects in New Zealand will not be subject to a further period of Labour’s largesse anytime soon. He’s currently getting a dose of what that looks like in his own country. But I digress.

Jan Tinetti chose education as a profession. I think she rose to the giddy height of principal. Listening to her as a minister, and now in opposition, one could be excused for wondering whether the profession in fact benefitted from her input. Jan, like many in the teaching profession is a dyed-in-the-wool lefty. As such, she sings from the left-wing songbook. These songs, as in left-wing education policies, come from the union hymnal of socialist doctrine.

This is being played out right now in regard to their opposition to charter schools. They don’t like them and hate might be not too strong a word. Jan said straight up that if Labour were returned to power they would be gone. According to her, they are bad for young people and bad for learning. Never mind that fixed-term contracts for the schools are for a period of 10 years. She said a hypothetical (interesting word to use) Labour Government will shut them down. This type of action is so typical of leftist behaviour. It’s not what the people want: it’s what they want. The time-worn ‘we know best’ salute.

If Jan Tinetti bothered to visit a charter school she might, just might, see for herself the benefits they can bring to a child who is not suited to the state system. She won’t because she is not interested in doing so. She subscribes to the policy of her comrades at union HQ, which is ‘one size fits all’. If that were not the case, they would have us believe the system is flexible enough to accommodate those with problems. That, of course, is a blatant lie. They are trying to pull the wool over our eyes.

Even if Labour genuinely believed in the concept, they would not be able to enact it. They are not allowed to fall foul of the union masters who fund their very existence. The consequences of this are children and their parents are being denied choice and chance. The choice to attend a school where they have a chance to succeed. Choice and chance are a complete anathema to the union movement. The hammer and sickle trademark is suitably reflective of how they operate. There is no room for debate.

It is worth remembering Willie Jackson was an enthusiastic supporter of charter schools. He helped to create one. But, like the rest of the flock, he gambolled his way into line, lacking the courage of his convictions. This is the problem with the left. Their adherence to the union apron strings denies them the opportunity to think for themselves. This dictatorial approach is one that is at odds with the majority of the voting public. It was precisely this that led to the demise of Jacinda Ardern.

There have been 78 applications received from organisations interested in setting up charter schools. That is a significant number, but it will be of little consequence to the bully boys in the union movement. They might think they’re bad but, at the heart of the matter, is that they are outside their control. Pure and simple. Everyone knows it. Charter school teachers are on a different pay scale and non-unionised. Jan Tinetti, as the union lapdog, is determined they will be removed.

She might like to reflect that, under six years of Labour’s Ministry of Education, New Zealand tumbled down the OECD rankings and she spent most of her time trying to hide the truth. Jan has produced precious little evidence to back up her sweeping claims that charter schools are bad for children and their learning. She is simply parroting the union position. As a minister she was an abject failure and would be again.