Recently, the NZCER released a report based on students’ own experiences of alternative education (AE).

It was interesting to read how perceptive these kids are about their learning needs.  They need one-to-one support.  They prefer very small classes.  They like the intimate nature of AE centres and feel swamped in mainstream secondary schools. 

 The report also mentions the range of health and social issues young people in AE are likely to be grappling with: drugs, alcohol, gang affiliations, poverty, learning setbacks, anger… Obviously not all kids in AE experience all these factors.  However, most do have several of these ongoing challenges in their lives.  They have complex needs which are hard to deal with.

 This report comes at a time when numerous government agencies and advisory groups are publishing material about similar issues.  Have we reached a tipping point?  Most reports come to similar conclusions:  teenagers with multiple risk factors, including conduct problems, are expensive and difficult to deal with.  The Advisory Group on Conduct Problems, the Taumata Whanonga, Youth 2000, PPTA’s own working group on disruptive students agree:  the five percent of most difficult students require significant, ongoing, costly support.

NZCER interprets student self-reports of being ‘ok in primary’ as some kind of indictment on secondary schools.  This is not only unfair – but also misleading.  The NZ Herald (29 August) cited increasing violence in Auckland primary schools, new MOE stand-down statistics show that overall stand-down rates remain higher than they were ten years ago, and that violence in primary schools is on the rise.[1] 

Schools rely on AE centres to work with kids who fall into the most damaged and difficult categories of teens.  We do this knowing that the centres are not adequately staffed or funded to do the job properly.  We do this in the knowledge that many are run with untrained, unqualified teaching staff.  We do this because we have no choice.

Despite considerable evidence to support our contention that five percent of kids in schools have serious conduct problems, AE and allied services (including GSE) are funded to deal with about one percent.  This means that many students who need the small, relaxed, personalised support are simply not going to get it.  Others will get it only after significant delays – they are at significant risk of falling through the cracks before a place becomes available. 

The undersupply of places, and delay in provision for the lucky ones, also means that classroom teachers bear the brunt of the difficult (sometimes dangerous) behaviours that these kids carry with them every day.  And so do the 80% of students who are willing and able to focus on most of their learning, most of the time.  Teachers and students want to be able to get on with the business of learning.  Is that too much to ask?  And, bluntly, so do the AE kids – but they need fairly specialised support and conditions so that they can learn too.

We also know that all AE centres are not created equal – this places unreasonable demand on centres with a positive track record.  The MOE knows this too – and commissioned a review back in 2008.  The reporting date (March this year) came and went.  What were their findings?  We asked; we asked again; we put in an official information request (declined); we put in an OIA to the minister.  Like Christmas, it’s on it way… or, is this some kind of state secret?

We know that AE centres are, in some respects, the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff.  But while we wait for the types of interventions that are supposed to work best, for some kids, they are our best hope.  But they are a fragile best.

We need the caps on places and provision to be removed – and the per student funding increased to ensure that centres can employ trained and qualified secondary teachers, as well as the youth workers and social workers – all of whose support these kids need.

In the meantime, while we wait, while we make do, while we hope that this fragile system called alternative education holds together, we ask the government: what kind of youth guarantee is this?