Posted by: Cynic
on 23, Jul, 2010
In 2005 ERO came up with the 20% gap - no data, no proof, no evidence. In nearly every government and education press release since then you will find this expanded myth - that teachers and schools are "failing 1 in 5" students.
Now ERO are re-using the 20% in their latest report - this is not a fact but a convenient reusable guesstimate:
"As a result, little statistical data is provided in this report. Schools are evaluated against highly variable contexts in terms of the different proportions of students with high needs they have and the range of needs these students may exhibit."(p.12)
How can ERO bring about change and improvement in the sector when their strategy appears so negatively focused on blame and bringing schools and teaching into disrepute. A strategy that values teachers, values schools, and aims to work together to improve one of the better functioning education systems in the world, would surely be better placed to promote successful learning. Together we can make it the best education system for all students.
A strategy that says there are schools that are fabulous role models, we will work out why, perhaps parts of their model will work elsewhere. There are schools not coping, we will resource them to investigate why and work together to improve learning opportunities for students, teachers and school communities.
NAH way too hard - let's drive up the crises, let's diss the teachers, diss the schools, and put the jackals out to feed on the bones of an education system that was doing reasonably well but nobody wanted to defend.
Posted by: Observer
on 22, Jul, 2010
What the hell was that? Tolley (who clearly had only the most superficial grasp of what a PPP was) must have felt like she had been savaged by a flock of dead sheep because Henry’s interview was so pathetic.
If he hasn’t time to get to grips with the main problems with PPPs, he should at least have had someone on the programme (Bill Rosenberg, Ganesh Nana, - even Trevor Mallard) who does!
No Paul, it isn’t just unions who oppose them. If you look here you’ll see that the NZ Treasury concluded there was nothing in it for NZ – hardly a bunch of leftwing pinkies!
Posted by: Cynic
on 09, Jun, 2010
"As a parent I would not be happy if my school was using money that should be going to the education of my children for sprinklers. I send my kids to school to get educated, not to have a shower." (Anne Tolley)
But sending kids to a burned-down school, or even worse losing a student or teacher's life, is OK?
First the Ministry suggests that schools remove rubbish bins from their premises in order to prevent fires then they suggest "schools that cannot afford sprinklers should install security systems " (and how would security be cheaper in money and lives than sprinkler systems?). And what about prevention being better than the cure - school arson attacks cost more than $30 million in the last 10 years - (and that's just dollars, not lost school/teacher/student work, not the loss of a community facility, not the people costs) did those schools have sprinkler systems?
Anne Tolley is a parent and she is the Minister of Education, the buck stops with her, not her ministry (despite media pitches to drive up sales for the $327 report from TransTasman).
Don't drop and roll for cover with glib comments Anne - you should ensure every school is funded to install sprinkler systems and not treat students, teachers and communities in such an off-hand cavalier way.
Posted by: Cynic
on 28, Apr, 2010
The April edition of the PPTA News includes a message from the president, Kate Gainsford, about a new and REDUCED funding formula that the Ministry of Education is developing for small area schools (below 200). Well that’s what it seems to be planning judging from this document entitled Change of Class Applications (pdf) and obtained under the Official Information Act. Various ministers of education have been establishing new schools (even when there are surplus places at surrounding schools) as if there was no tomorrow.
The most recent minister, Anne Tolley has belatedly realised that the cost of facilitating parental choice by providing a secondary school on every corner - where the dairy used to be - is unaffordable. So what has she done? According to the document seven new kura kaupapa Maori have been approved by the minister to become wharekura (ie. area schools that provide education from year 1 to 15) BUT at a much lower funding rate than other are schools get. The document says this is an interim measure but that the ministry is working (in secret it appears) on a permanent formula. This raises a number of questions:
- Should wharekura get less funding than other area schools?
- Are all schools with roll numbers below 200 going to face reductions?
- How are the interests of schools that are small because they are remote going to be safeguarded?
- Are parents going to be expected to make up the shortfall?
- Is it right to provide “choice” thorough a mechanism that reduces funding and potentially diminishes education quality?
Posted by: blogger
on 14, Aug, 2009
By The Flying Pig
Has anyone else noticed how much school property money goes into flash administration blocks these days?
You arrive at a school and are greeted by a receptionist behind a huge counter in a spacious area with soft couches, huge pot plants and a groaning cups cupboard. This admin area can be miles from the rest of the school, and sometimes without even an internal connection between it and the rest of the school.
