In the reaction to Hekia Parata's proposed new Communities of Online Learning (COOLs), the debate has been relatively polarised, with plenty of arguments for and against. And there are lots of good questions being asked: Is the proposal a major change, or merely a technological catch-up? Is it a disaster in the making, or careful reform? More teaching bashing, or simply responding to the diverse needs of students?
Below, the two polarised verdicts on the proposal are set out. But, of course, positions are always more nuanced than they might immediately appear, and both sides of this debate see both merit and risk in online learning developments.
Verdict 1: Parata is a fool
Not surprisingly, the Opposition parties have led the way in opposing - or at least asking the hard questions about -the new COOLs proposal. Much of this has focused on disparaging the Education Minister - see, for example, the blog post by Labour's chief spin-doctor Rob Salmond: Hekia's waynebrave. He says "The Education Minister, Hekia Parata has form on having stupid ideas in public... Well, she's outdone herself this week. Hekia's new idea of massively expanding online-only primary schooling just reeks of small-minded, bureaucratic penny-pinching, right down to the naff name for the new sCOOLs" - see: Hekia's waynebrave.
Labour is leading the opposition to the proposal, reportedly saying that "The Government's proposed online learning centres are a way of privatising the education system by stealth" - see Newshub's Online learning centres a 'Trojan horse' - Labour. The party's spokesperson, Chris Hipkins is also quoted as saying, "National's agenda is being driven by a desire to cut costs and privatise. It's certainly not being driven by education and research".
The Greens and NZ First have also been highly critical of the plan - see Mei Heron's Online schools will supplement, not replace schools - Minister. The Greens' Catherine Delahunty also argues that the COOLs open the way for privatisation, while NZ First's Tracey Martin "said it was one of the most dangerous things she had ever seen in education".
The Post-Primary Teachers Association has spoken out against the initiative. According to Newshub, PPTA president, Angela Roberts, "says the proposal - which could be the biggest shake-up of the education system since the 1980s - will damage the state education system most children rely on" and she is quoted as saying: "Anything that increases privatisation and reduces resources and support for the network of state schools is of course going to be damaging" - see: Online schools - education solution or 'absolute disaster'?
Leftwing bloggers are also firmly opposed. No Right Turn sees merit in new technology in schools, but suggests this is simply about cost-cutting: "if the idea was coming from the education sector and driven by education professionals who were interested in outcomes and the welfare of those kids, it would be worth considering. But when it comes from an education minister whose sole priority in office seems to be trying to find ways to close schools, cut costs, and funnel public money to her private donors and cronies, its hard to view it as anything other than yet another means to achieve those ends. The logic for the government is just a little too naked: 'schools are expensive and troublesome, so lets close them down, sack the teachers, and replace it all with online learning we can contract out to the lowest bidder / our donors'. Yeah, nah. I'd rather have schools, sorry" - see: Not COOL.
Moana Maniapoto declares that she's "not 100 percent against charter schools", but also thinks this is about cost-cutting: "400 schools have closed in the last 15 years largely on the advice of Treasury, which declared that bigger schools are more cost effective than smaller schools. Look at the potential savings online schools could bring. Transport - think of all the cars and buses off the roads. Housing - all that real estate space created by downsizing or simply razing empty school buildings. Finance - fewer pupils means fewer teachers. And health - no more catching bugs and kutu off other kids" - see: Hold on Hekia. Cyber schools aren't the answer.
To Martyn Bradbury, it's all about getting rid of teachers, or at least their current power: "National see teachers as Taxi drivers in an uber world... This is an all out war now on public education. It has started with the funnelling of millions into private education and secretive ideological Charter Schools and it ends with the National Government effectively killing off Teachers altogether" - see: National's contempt for Teachers finally outed with talk of on-line education.
Rather than ideology driving this latest announcement, Danyl Mclauchlan sees it as an attempt to show voters that the Government is still doing things: "Earlier this year Key is said to have asked his Ministers to come up with some new policy ideas, to deflect the criticism that they were a tired, exhausted, intellectually bankrupt government spinning its wheels and going nowhere. Maggie Barry's 'Predator Free New Zealand' stunt was one. And now here's Hekia Parata" - see: Electrons!
Mclauchlan is also critical of the concept of online learning, saying that on top of the many unanswered questions about the concept of COOLs, physical class teaching is still how people want to learn.
For many, it's the untried and untested nature of Parata's proposal that concerns them. For example Alison Campbell, a scientist from Waikato University, says the proposal is "like an untried social experiment with the potential for a lot of brown stuff to hit the fan" - see: COOLs? are they as cool as they sound? She wants more information: "I'm sorry, Minister, but we need - and our children and students deserve - to see the actual evidence that this proposal works before it's put into action."
Campbell's blog post also highlights existing research and information about digital learning, and points to existing use of technology potentially making reform unnecessary: "Yet digital options already exist in mainstream schooling & have been used very successfully to engage students, with notable successes - including for students at low-decile schools. So we should be encouraging & supporting teachers in all schools to investigate ways of doing these things, rather than setting up yet another layer of schooling - presumably also funded by the public purse - to 'fix' a perceived problem in an untried way. After all, a range of resources already exist"
Others are put off by the conveniently gimmicky COOLs acronym being used to sell the concept. Paul Little says the concept would more appropriately be labelled Ostensibly Helpful Communities Offering Mediocre Education Online Now", and he speculates on how the new name was created - see: Totally way too COOL for School.
Matthew Dallas is even more cynical about the acronym: "One wonders if they simply stumbled upon the convenient abbreviation - 'OMG, it spells COOL' - and fell over themselves in high-five delirium. Or perhaps the COOL came first, and it was all about finding the right words in the right order to fit the message that, you know, they were hip with the kids and what they were proposing didn't seem like the origin story for a dystopian science-fiction movie" - see: Education reforms half-cooked and not so cool.
