Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
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.
-
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.
-
Apologies - there was a typo:
it was $36.8m in 1999.
-
Hang on a bit there Graeme - those numbers are 2008 - given the budget boost stated, private school funding has doubled.
Certainly. Still a fair way short of three times, however. I believe it just caught them up with inflation, after the funding was run down over the nine years of Labour's Government (it was $35.1m in 1999).
private school operational funding is now 38% higher than public.
As private schools don't have operational funding distinct from salaries funding, I don't think that that's a fair complaint. It's just the budget line it comes out of; I'm entirely confident it is used for teacher salaries.
-
But back to Taito Phillip Field...
From the Herald article "Jury retires in Phillip Field case:
Field has been remanded in custody while the jury deliberates.
WTF?
-
Okay. Have now sourced numbers from Ministry of Education.
Total public funding of Private Schools in 2008 was:
$35.5m (operational funding).
Total $35,500,000
Total public funding of State Schools (excluding state integrated) was:
$910.9m (operational funding)
$2,778.0m (teacher salaries)
$363.5m (property funding)Total $4,052,400,000
Using your figure of 4% private students to work backwards we determine that privately-educated students getting just over one-fifth the funding of publicly-educated students. It appears you were out by a factor of fifteen.
-
I can't find primary sources regarding total funding distribution but the recent budget saw $35m *additional* funding for private schools (with 4% of students) vs. $320m for public schools -- a ratio of 2.65 : 1. Obviously this is largely meaningless without the totals but helps fan the fires.
Okay. That makes sense. Three times the amount of *new public funding* per student. There is no way, absolutely no way, that it is three times the public funding for each private student.
-
I/S - I believe the reference was to the second optional protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child (the one which prohibits, among other things, the sale of children). We've signed it, but not ratified.
-
And besides, when the choice presented itself to ratify the UN convention on children, Labour chose not to.
True ... the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, wasn't ratified by New Zealand under a Labour Government; but that's probably because National was in government in 1993.
-
But thanks to the recent increase in funding, private schools are funded with 3x more public money per student, per year, than public schools.
David - have you a reference for this? It's rather alarming.
I think it is utterly disingenuous to pretend that the children of the rich are more deserving of government assistance than disabled children.
Didn't funding for special needs increase by like $47m? I am just going off the Minister's talking points, but wasn't $2.5m of inequitable funding (funding to schools based on numbers, rather than need, in that more needy children at the wrong school missed out) cut and replaced by $50m in funding based on actual need, rather than the school zone their parents live in?