CHARITIES, PHILANTHROPISTS, POLICY ENTREPRENEURS, INTERNATIONAL COMPANIES AND STATE SCHOOLING IN AOTEAROA NEW ZEALAND Final report to the New Zealand Educational Institute Te Riu Roa, New Zealand Post Primary Teachers’ Association Te Wehengarua, and New Zealand Primary Principals’ Federation Ngā Tumuaki o Aotearoa John O’Neill with Connor Duffy and Sarojinie Fernando Massey University Te Kunenga Ki Pūrehuroa, Manawatū July 2016 Contents i ii ListAcknowledgements of Tables and Figures iii Summary v Introduction 1 Context 3 Transparency, understanding and debate 4 Blurring public and private in state schooling 5 ‘Modernising’ state schooling 6 Educational Management Organisations 17 For-profit 21 Not-for-profit 25 Philanthropy 28 Regulation 29 Giving 35 Investing 36 Educational charities in New Zealand 40 Policy N 47 Actors 47 etworks 51 Cases 58 NetworksPearson 59 Cognition Education 65 Core Education 76 Foundation North 86 COMET 98 Kidscan 109 Conclusion 116 References 119 Appendices xix Appendix A: Methodology xix Appendix B: Educational charities with annual income between $1 million and $10 million xxvi Appendix C: Case organisation Tables and Figures xxxiii social network i Acknowledgements The direct costs of the research were funded jointly by New Zealand Educational Institute Te Riu Roa, New Zealand Post Primary Teachers’ Association Te Wehengarua and New Zealand Primary Principals’ Feder Aotearoa. ation Ngā Tumuaki o Tom Haig, Liz Hawes and Stephanie Mills provided advice, guidance and feedback throughout the project. rature searches and social Connor Duffy undertook the main web and lite networktwo Charities analyses. Services Dr Sarojinie databases. Fernando undertook the statistical analysis of the Ella B ation information retrieval, Dylan Roberts withourke analysis assisted of annual with financial case organis statements, and Ju final report. lie Sakai formatted the ii List of Tables and Figures Table 1. M ori population by iwi grouping and census date 39 Table 2. Financial redress, historical Treaty claims: ten largest settlements 40 Table 3. Educationalā charities with annual income, annual expenditure and total assets each in excess of $10 million, reported by gross annual income (n=51) 45 Table 4. Third party payments from Cognition Education to John Hattie 2010-2015 49 Table 5. Teach First New Zealand Trust annual financial statements 2011-2014 55 Table 6. Cognition Education Ltd annual financial statements 2009-2015 (2012-2015 figures include the wholly owned subsidiary, Cognition South East Asia) 71 Table 7. Cognition Education Trust annual financial statements 2009-2015 72 Table 8. Cognition Institute annual financial statements 2009-2010 72 Table 9. CORE Education Charitable Trust annual financial statements 2010-2015 82 Table 10. CORE Education Limited annual financial statements 2010-2015 82 Table 11. Foundation North Group annual financial statements 2009-2015 94 Table 12. Foundation North Grants Ltd annual financial statements 2009-2015 94 Table 13. Centre for Social Impact NZ Ltd annual financial statements 2014-2015 94 Table 14. COMET annual financial statements 2008-2015 102 Table 15. Kidscan annual financial statements 2007-2015 112 Table A1. Analysis of Charities Register database of educational charities xxiii Table B1. Educational charities with annual total income, annual expenditure and total assets each between $1 million and $10 million, by 2014 gross annual income (n=174) xxvii Table C1. Pearson point, person, position and organisation xxxiv Table C2. Cognition Education Ltd and Cognition Education Trust point, person, position and organisation xxxviii Table C3. CORE Education Ltd and CORE Education Charitable Trust (persons) point, person, position and organisation xliv Table C4. CORE Education Ltd and CORE Education Charitable Trust (organisations) point, person, position and organization xlviii Table C5. Foundation North and Foundation North Trust (persons) point, person, position and organization liii Table C6. Foundation North and Foundation North Trust (organisations) point, person, position and organization lvi Table C7. COMET (persons) point, person, position and organisation lx Table C8. COMET (organisations) point, person, position and organisation lxiii Table C9. Kidscan (persons) point, person, position and organisation lxvii Table C10. Kidscan (organisations) point, person, position and organisation lxix iii Figure 1. Unit organisational form and approach to relationships (Source: Thompson, 1991, p. 244) 6 Figure 2. Educational charities’ total gross income by number of Educational charities 42 Figure 3. Educational charities’ total gross income by proportion of Educational charities 42 Figure 4. Educational charities’ total expenditure by number of educational charities 43 Figure 5. Educational charities’ total expenditure by proportion of educational charities 43 Figure 6. Educational charities’ total assets by number of educational charities 44 Figure 7. Educational charities’ total assets by proportion of educational charities 44 Figure C1. and organisations combined xxxvii Figure C2. CognitionPearson social Education network Ltd of and persons Cognition Education Trust rsons and organisations combined xlii Figure C3. CORE Education Ltd and CORE Education Charitable Trust social network of pe xlvii Figure C4. CORE Education Ltd and CORE Education Charitable Trust social network of persons and organisations combined lii Figure C5. Foundation North and Foundation North Trust social network of lv Figure C6. Foundation North and Foundation North Trust network of persons and organisations combined lix Figure C7. lxii Figure C8. social network of andCOMET organisations social network combined of persons lxvi Figure C9. COMET social network of persons lxviii Figure C10. persons andKidscan organisations social network combined of persons lxxi Kidscan social network of iv Summary This report examines the development and delivery of state schooling policy in Aotearoa New Zealand at present. The main purpose of the report is to prepare a preliminary and understanding of what is occurring within a rapidly changing policysketch landscape map . The analysis in this report documents how an increased presence of private sector actors is reshaping the ways in which state schooling policy is developed and enacted in classrooms, staffrooms, schools and local communities. It seems fair to suggest that the substance and magnitude of these chang widelyes appreciated remain largely across unremarked civil society. in the media and their consequential effects not Of particular interest in this report is the role played by not-for-profit, charitable entities in state schooling. State schooling has commonly been regarded in social-democratic systems as a public or social good. Historically, education has alsolike been New a principalZealand objective of charitable activity on the basis that it provides a significant public benefit. Charity or philanthropy enjoys a privileged position in contemporary New Zealand society, which itself places great importance on the altruistic acts of ‘giving’. It is therefore timely to assess the extent to which these emergent state schooling philanthropic actors appear to be motivated by considerations of public good, public benefit and altruism. Since 2008, National-led governments have actively encouraged a diverse array of for-profit, not-for-profit and hybrid private sector actors, and facilitated t state schooling. This representsheir entry intoa rapid the local managed acceleration marketplace of the of privatisation New Zealand of state schooling trends that have been emergent globally since the 1980s. In New Zealand, as elsewhere, privatisation of state schooling businesses; and bringing the privatetakes sectortwo main into forms: state schooling. making schools run more like Before the last decade or so, these privatisations could mostly be seen in the use of sole trader consultants, corporate professional services, or infrastructure trades and technology services, generally operating at arms’ length from politicians and public servants. Today, the private sector comprises all these entities in for- profit, not-for-profit and Public Private Partnership (PPP) consortia forms, Non- Government Organisations (NGOs), private foundations, publicly registered v charitable trusts, individual entrepreneurs, and community groups and organisations including iwi, r (UMAs). Many of these entities ūnonanga longer and simply Urban deliver Māori schoolingAuthorities services on behalf of the state, however, but are also energetically involved in their conception, articulation and development in policy texts. Some public policy activities clearly continue to and are mediated by the public sphere, but some others may not. Hencetake there place is in need for transparency and debate about the substance and style of state school policy governance to try and ensure its sustainability as a public good. At the heart of the recent efforts to ‘modernise’ state schooling in New their relations of mutual interest. Zealand,For the purposes lie networks of this of reportactors, itorganisations is suggested andthat these efforts may be understood theoretically as the displacement of traditional ‘ ’ and ‘bureaucratic’ forms of state schooling governance, by newer professionalclassic market and philanthropic ‘n ’ and ‘clans’ (e.g. iwi). In the education policy literature, the emergent patternsetworks of dispositions and practices that embody these are sometimes known as ‘network