Tags >> education spending
Posted by:
on Aug 31, 2010
I have been playing around with the Reserve Bank Inflation Calculator and it has thrown up some interesting statistics.
My calculations show that teachers rather than being disconnected have been sidelined. Mr Key says we have had significant pay increases over the last 10 years however what is significant is the fact that this has been insignificant in real terms when adjusted for inflation.
Compared are 2000 at top of basic scale $50300 with 2010 top of basic scale $68980
Salary for 2010:
2000 - 2010 CPI adjusted is $65,000
2000 - 2010 Wage increases adjusted is $70,750
2000 - 2010 Food price increases adjusted is $69,000
2000 - 2010 Housing price increase adjusted is $105,000
Averaging these out is $77,000
Salaries have kept pace with food but that is it. In real terms secondary school teachers' salaries are barely keeping up with inflation.
In terms of food and housing someone teaching in 2000 would need to be earning $87,000 in 2010 just to keep pace with inflation.
Actually no New Zealand Government has given secondary teachers a decent pay increase in the last decade. So far it has been a catch up for inflation. Increases in productivity (NCEA workload etc ) have NOT been rewarded.
Posted by: Rob
on Aug 12, 2010
PPTA members rejected the Ministry of Education (MOE) pay offer of 1.5% and 1% with clawbacks on existing teaching conditions.
Teachers also expressed frustration and disappointment with the MOE's refusal to negotiate on any of the improved conditions they requested.
Here's a calculation that works with the one thing the MOE actually offered teachers - the so-called pay rise.
Posted by: Winged Avenger
on Aug 3, 2010
Was Mrs Tolley starting to learn something about her portfolio?
For a moment it appeared that someone was listening...
PLD is highly valued by teachers and principals – and rightly so. Suddenly it's appeared on the government's list of things to do. Are they really listening? Is Mrs Tolley learning?
Nope.
Once again the government is adopting a once over lightly approach that smells strongly of tokenism.
MOE doesn’t have the staffing to offer this service? That’s not surprising given its regional focus on property and finance. Schools are businesses; principals are CEOs. Now, get on with it: sell your brand and balance your books.
Posted by: Rob
on Jul 22, 2010
We wonder how many Treasury officials send their kids to state schools or use our public health services? We wonder how many have lived on benefits or had jobs that got their hands dirty, or in which they have had to face the consequences of the stupid policy proposals they seek to inflict on the population?
Treasury advice to the National government on funding for education includes the proposal to remove the automatic adjustments to base funding which occur through demographic and other projected changes and fund these changes within the allocation of new money each year or make a case for additional funding on a year by year basis.
School rolls are projected to rise to about 2024. These are demographic changes which increase operations funding and staffing levels in a predictable manner. Currently the funding for school staffing and operations is automatically adjusted to fund the increased cost this creates.
Posted by: PPTAweb
on Jul 1, 2010
Congratulations to Tony Ryall, Nick Smith, Judith Collins, Anne Tolley, Christopher Finlayson, David Carter for wiping out the Aussie Mozzie
Takes seven ministers to squirt a bit of dimp 'round the BBQ?
But in all seriousness - fiscal responsibility and all that - and it really is nice seeing you all sharing the limelight - but hey could you give Anne a bit more time in her own portfolio area?
Posted by: Cynic
on Jun 9, 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: Rob
on Jun 3, 2010
Canada, but only Richmond in Alberta. Some cities/areas/states in the US (e.g. Cleveland, California, Illinois, NY). In Cleveland the result is classes of 45 students.
However, others parts of the US (e.g. Colorado) are choosing publicly not to cut numbers, using the stimulus funding the Obama administration has made available to support their schools.
France, though it's right of centre government has for 3 years had a programme of reducing teacher numbers as part of its education 'reform' package, so how much is due to the economic situation is moot.
In each of these places cuts are accompanied by a public outcry.
The New South Wales state government is preparing to shed public servants but it is not clear if this will affect teachers at all as it is targeted to 'back room positions'. Do I hear an echo??
The UK government has just has announced cuts of 6.2 billion pounds to public services for 2010/11, but has specifically excluded schools from those cuts.
Back to Canada - Ontario's right of centre government has declared it's intention to have a 2 year pay freeze after current contracts expire, but once again there is no talk of cutting teaching numbers.
Ireland has cut pay rates for public servants and teachers, but there are a couple of points to be made here.
1 Ireland is an economic basket case! Didn't that nice Mr Key say that our economy is in much better shape than most overseas countries. Aren't we expected to return to surpluses three years earlier than predicted last year? Are we really being asked to compare ourselves with places like Ireland and Greece? Is there something you would like to tell us Mr English?
2 On the basis of ppp-adjusted salaries NZ rates would still need a 28% increase to match in real terms what basket case Ireland is now paying its teachers!
So, very few western countries are cutting teaching positions, even if they are cutting back on public sector jobs generally. Most OECD countries value their public education systems and the people in them and are continuing to invest in them.
Oh, and by the way Tony - PPTA's claim is for 4% for a one year term of settlement, not 12% over three years. Your spin doctors should not change basic facts in their rotations. When they can't don't have the facts its called sloppy. When they change them deliberately its called lying.
Posted by: Silverback
on Jun 1, 2010
Have you seen the part of Vote: Education that changes the ops funding calculation for secondary schools?
From 2011 the ops funding will be recalculated every quarter and secondary schools will have the ops funding adjusted accordingly.
The MoE website says that this is an incentive to schools to improve their retention of students.
What?
Apparently in the mind of the Ministry schools now influence the school leaving rate more than:
The state of national economy.
Or the state of the local economy
Or the needs of employers to recruit apprentices or employees in the mid year.
Or the armed forces or police with their mid-year intakes.
Or population movements
Or the collapse of a local industry
In effect schools are going to be fined for having their kids sorted and ready to move on to the next step in life.
Made the cut for intake into the Navy, Angela? Excellent we’ll fine the school when you leave.
An apprentice for your engineering firm, sir? To help take up that free trade opportunity in China? Sorry, can’t help. If we give you a student in the middle of the year, we’ll be fined.
Apparently the only time kids can leave school for any reason is at the end of the year. At any other times schools will have their funding cut. They’ll be fined.
So a 4% increase in secondary ops funding, less the 20% increase in GST, plus the reduction in ops funding due to the new calculation method equals no increase for secondary schools.
Any school unfortunate enough to have students leave during the year will probably be worse off than they were before this budget.
I’d love you to tell me that I have got it wrong, but I think that the only way I can have this wrong is if there is an as yet undetected proposal to fully compensate schools for the GST increase beyond the 4% rise announced in the budget.
I wonder which bright spark gave the Government this piece of stunning policy advice?
Perhaps the Minister has been sold a pup by a disingenuous official who has devised a way to use a superficially appealing phrase like “incentive for schools to improve their engagement with students” to claw back the money that the GST has not already got.
It just has to be stopped somehow.
What thoughts has PPTA got?
Posted by: Rob
on May 3, 2010
New Zealand teachers have one of the lowest starting salaries in the developed world
The OECD's Education at a Glance report 2009 shows that New Zealand teachers have one of the lowest starting salaries in the developed world but work some of the longest hours.
- Of 29 countries in the survey New Zealand had the fourth worst starting salary.
- After 15 years' experience New Zealand secondary teachers have a cost of living/exchange rate-adjusted (PPP) salary which is 17% lower than the OECD average.
Future proofing the secondary teaching profession
What we as a profession have to consider is what happens to teacher supply in the very near future when the economy recovers and new jobs and higher wages are again easily available outside teaching. A short term advantage gained by the recession can quickly revert to a major teacher shortage.
We are asking 4% to ensure that we have prepared for the inevitable counter-supply pressure which will (if not adequately anticipated) lead to another sudden and severe secondary teacher shortage as soon as next year.
In a competitive international market for secondary teachers we are also at risk of losing more teachers overseas if we do not maintain the relativity of our salaries internationally. We are already significantly behind other similar countries:
Distorted and politically motivated picture of teacher salaries
"The Government has carefully chosen its time period for commenting on teacher salaries to support what is a traditional policy of National governments to neglect secondary teacher salaries in the state sector until driven by a publicly unmanageable teacher supply crisis to a minimal response.
By using a low point as a starting reference (2000) and looking only at the 'recovery' period underpinned by the recommendations of the Bazely report and the (often reluctant) adherence to them by successive Labour governments the current Minister of Finance is presenting a distorted and politically motivated picture of teacher salaries. And he's not even correct in the critical figure he uses. At this stage in 2000 the top of scale rate was $50,300. This means that the increase over the last 10 years has been 38%, not the 50% he claims. We hope the Finance Minister is getting at least some other numbers right!"
Some context might help to present a more accurate picture than the Minster's carefully selected sound bite.
The attractiveness of secondary school teacher salaries depends on how the $'s compare to what could be earned outside teaching
Most teachers are paid at the top of the scale rate. This is the 'standard' rate for salary comparison and is the rate for the basic teaching job. It is what most graduates could expect to be paid if they come into teaching and what most teachers thinking of leaving for other better paying jobs are assessing their options against. The relative attractiveness of teaching salaries dependent largely upon how it compares with other wage and salary that could be earned in other jobs outside teaching.
Posted by: Cynic
on Apr 28, 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?
|
