Education Minister Erica Stanford’s education overhaul has been impressive this government term. We’re seeing improvements in primary school student achievement, the NCEA qualification is not long for this world, and how good is it to have cellphones out of the classroom?

But for all the changes, there are families who feel the system simply doesn’t work for their child, whose needs, interests or circumstances may not fit comfortably within a conventional classroom.

Yet when someone suggests trying something different, we can become remarkably attached to doing the same thing and hoping for a different result.

That is why charter schools deserve a fair hearing.

ACT has made school choice and educational innovation central to its education agenda for the 2026 general election. It has set a target of 10,000 charter school enrolments by 2029, and a goal of a charter school option in every major town.

As the parent of a child with a brilliant, complex, neurodivergent mind who loves to learn but struggled with the mainstream school environment, this is music to my ears. In order for our child to complete her education, we went down an alternative route. No one was more surprised than we were.

It was hugely expensive and prohibitive for most, but it was brilliant. Our child, who was falling out of school, is now doing a science degree at university. Charter schools will hopefully give more families struggling with children in similar situations the same opportunity.

It is life-changing.

For a young person who has all but given up on education, it could be the beginning of a future that might otherwise have quietly disappeared.

Labour leader Chris Hipkins opposes charter schools.

"We should give all of our schools the tools they need to cater for all of the kids who come through the gate," Hipkins said yesterday.

It is an admirable ambition. But is it the reality? Teachers regularly describe classrooms stretched by complex learning needs, behavioural challenges and inadequate support. Expecting one teacher to meet every need in a crowded classroom is a little like asking a Swiss Army knife to perform open-heart surgery.

Most mainstream schools do wonderful work. But not every child learns the same way, responds to the same environment or thrives under the same structure. A practical, culturally grounded or more flexible approach can be the difference between disengagement and achievement.

There are legitimate concerns about charter schools. Public money must be protected, teaching quality maintained, and private operators prevented from putting profit ahead of pupils. Independence must never mean a free pass. Transparent reporting, financial audits, measurable achievement targets and the power to terminate contracts are essential safeguards.

But if those checks and balances are enforced, why should every school have to follow precisely the same model?

Charter schools are not a replacement for mainstream education. They are another tool in the kit. New Zealand’s children are not all the same, so why insist their education must be?