Island Life: Good on ya, Paula
491 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 11 12 13 14 15 … 20 Newer→ Last
-
Apples and pears. What is the funding per student? Of course state schools will get more than private, because there are many more students in public education.
Yes and students in public schools receive funding for more than operational expenses.
I don't know the answer to your question Paul, however I'd be astounded if all public funding per student in public schools isn't significantly larger than all public funding per student in private ones. This has been a large part of the argument from the Independent Schools for more funding; that it represents a savings compared with funding for public schools.
I agree per student is the right metric, I'm not certain though what to exclude to come up with a meaningful comparison.
Unless it's not already clear, I understand that the Nats will increase funding for private schools; they'll create a strong incentive to shift kids from public to private and pocket the savings. Evidence for this can be found in the dying days of Shipley's government. More evidence can be seen just three-hours west where Howard's Coalition government massively increased subsidies to the point where now half of all secondary students in NSW are in non-state schools (possibly conflating correlation and causation).
My starting position is that this approach ultimately residualises public education and stratifies society. It should be challenged, I just don't think QPEC's challenge is helpful.
-
What is the funding per student? Of course state schools will get more than private, because there are many more students in public education.
To know the funding per student, you need to know the numbers of students. I don't.
But you don't need to know the number of students to know who gets the most money. David provided a figure of 4% of students being privately-educated. On the assumption that the other 96% were educated in state schools, you can work out the proportions per student.* It could be that there is only one privately educated student, who gets the whole $35m/$70m, and 24 public students who get $168.9m each.
For every $100 in public funding that goes to each public school student, in 2008 $22 went to each private school student.
* this is an erroneous assumption, as there is further funding for students in state-integrated schools.To simplify matters, I assumed that all these students were public students, but ignored the funding they get, thus substantially underestimating the public funding of students.
State-integrated schools received public funding of just under $500m in 2008. As a very rough estimate I would posit that 13.8% of students are state-integrated. This would change the figures to, for 2008:
For every $100 in public funding that goes to each public school student, in 2008 $19 went to each private school student.
-
Stupid estimate. Still an estimate, but I think a better one:
Make that 11.7% state-integrated, and $19.30 public funding of private schools.
-
And I'd note that my stupid estimate is for 2008 PLUS the $35/$320m funding additions).
-
It's logic Jim, but not as we know it...
And yet I know of one recent case locally of a private school trying to drive out kids with special needs, largely I think because they feel they will be targets for bullying
Cart. Horse. WTF?
That's up there with the Chch City Council's solution process:
ie - 1: too many drunks wandering onto Cambridge Tce by far too many bars
- solution = close road!
or 2: litter accumulating at base of council rubbish tin that isn't emptied often enough for location
- solution = get rid of bin altogether!So no chance of teaching kids about diversity or embracing difference, or even (gob forbid)
not enabling bullying behaviour at private
schools then? Character building stuff!yrs reasonably
Aristotle
a bugger for the bottle -
I am lost. Somebody tell me the right answer.
-
well you know it's a private boys school trying to hard to be am English Public School - that's its 'special character' - bullying is probably a protected activity that produces the right kind of boys out the back end of the process (at which point they're no doubt given young Nats cards and set upon those on benefits .... just to get vaguely back on topic)
-
I am lost. Somebody tell me the right answer.
I thought Graeme had done that on the basis of the data he's reviewed i.e. that the increase for private schools while substantial, doesn't mean per pupil funding for private schools is anything like it is for public.
He (and I) observed that the confusion arises because QPEC compared the increase in aggregate funding between public and private without noting the different base funding.
The answer then is: Nat's increase funding for private schools back to levels circa 1999.
-
[recovers breath; seconds out: round two] Even if supporting private schools represents a saving for the Government (which I still doubt) the schools must also be supported by parents through fees; of course only a small proportion of parents can afford those fees; so it is a subsidy for the rich.
Including building costs for public schools in the comparison does not seem right to me, since this is capital expenditure - an investment for the Government.
I would also like to know how many students with special needs are educated privately. I think this talk of special needs is a canard. I think most money for private schools is spent on rich kids.
-
Now did anyone listen to Question Time to hear what the Minister said about her access to the SWIFTT database?
-
Even if supporting private schools represents a saving for the Government (which I still doubt) the schools must also be supported by parents through fees; of course only a small proportion of parents can afford those fees; so it is a subsidy for the rich.
Agreed, it's a cost shift. I wasn't disagreeing with this, I just wanted to be clear about the magnitude of the change.
-
well you know it's a private boys school trying to hard to be am English Public School - that's its 'special character'
Ooooh Ooooh can I be a consultant.....
-
I am lost. Somebody tell me the right answer.
My answer:
Total: Public students receive ~4x the amount of money Private students do
"Operational funding": Private students receive ~10% more money than Public- There is some concern over whether the respective "operational funding" buckets are directly comparable
- This is based on Graeme's 2008 numbers PLUS the stated respective increases -
I would also like to know how many students with special needs are educated privately.
I don't have any data, just know that my niece goes to a private (pre) school for this reason, and she isn't the only one.
-
Now did anyone listen to Question Time to hear what the Minister said about her access to the SWIFTT database?
Nope - had a busy day. but it should be up on the website soon.
-
I/S, where is the uncorrected answers to Oral Questions, I can't find it on the parliamentary website...
-
-
And one more thing they've ditched in education: Artists in Schools
But we don't want imaginative, independent, associative thinkers, do we?
-
And the word going round the traps is Writers-in-schools will also be extinct. Let's face it Kerry - creative types arnt really *useful* for most market purposes until they turn into Peter Jackson, and we might encourage questioning of the status quo as well as the evil traits you've mentioned...
-
Thanks David. How'd you arrive at that page?
Bennett says:
As I have said numerous times, I certainly did look at those ministerial guidelines. I made a judgment call based on them, and I am quite willing to stand by that.
She will indeed. Or fall of course. Whereas yesterday she was saying she took advice, now it appears she herself made a determination based on her interpretation of the online guidelines.
She also claims the CE:
"...acknowledged that I had made that judgment call and that he backed me on that."
Hughes backed her decision to release the material, or her determination to make her own judgment call. I suspect the latter.
Over at redalert Trevor Mallard explains that the SWIFTT terminal was added so that parly staffers could work more effectively. Judging by Bennett's willingness to table the advice regarding this access, I'm guessing there's little by of guidelines as to it use.
-
I think that the response of a proportion of the population cannot be characterised as anything other than "why aren't those beneficiaries suffering? How dare they live decent lives?".
Spot on. Reminds me of Gene Hackman in Mississippi Burning, talking about his father's attitude to Blacks: "If I'm not better than a nigger, son, who am I better than?"
What sickens me is PB claiming regret at the backlash. PB and the rest of her kind know very well that women on the DPB are the witches of our age, easy targets for anyone with a gutful of bitterness. Any working man or woman on the minimum wage trying to support a family would feel resentment at some perceived 'easy wicket' - in fact politicians rely on that very ugly streak coming to the fore and making life as unbearable as possible for their target. Nothing like a good dose of shame and ostracism to put them in their place.
-
What sickens me is PB claiming regret at the backlash. PB and the rest of her kind know very well that women on the DPB are the witches of our age, easy targets for anyone with a gutful of bitterness.
Well put Kerry. Bennett meant this to happen, she meant to discredit, she must have known how the talkback blogbile would develop and this from a women who claims to be proud of her achievements as a one time beneficiary! Total and complete hypocrisy.
I can't help but think she's nothing more than a cypher; cast in the roll of a reimagined Shipley, she's totally embraced the character.
-
And the word going round the traps is Writers-in-schools will also be extinct. Let's face it Kerry - creative types arnt really *useful* for most market purposes until they turn into Peter Jackson, and we might encourage questioning of the status quo as well as the evil traits you've mentioned...
All these enrichment programs are victims to the back-to-basics drive of the last few years (in NZ and elsewhere). It's what I meant when, in response to Paul Litterick, I said "residualised" public sector. The schools of last resort.
I work in vocational education and training, I've no real problem with the obsessive focus on labour market outcomes for the vast majority of our students, but schools must provide far far more...
-
Thanks David. How'd you arrive at that page?
Don't know about him, but I make heavy use of the sidebar. Click on "questions for oral answer" in the frontpage "Quick Links", which takes you to the list, then click on it again (either at the top of the page, or in the side menu).
-
Oh... it's not all that obvious that you click the link twice but I'm grateful for the explanation. Cheers to you both.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.