Sometimes I just despair.
Since becoming Labour’s education spokesperson I have been fairly soft on Tolley. She is a new Minister, she hasn’t been doing much (well other than National Standards and letting Bill English eat Education’s lunch with hundreds of budget cuts some big some small). I’ve been giving her a chance.
But today we see that she – despite having all the evidence has declined to give an elite integrated school the bollocking it deserves for suggesting that a single parent mortgage her house in favour of the school in order to pay a voluntary donation.
The issue of “suggested donations” is not a simple one – anywhere in the state or state integrated system. In my opinion you can’t stop a school asking -because no matter how much the education budget increases we all want more at the margin for our kids – but we must insist that it is a request not a demand.
Rathkeale has crossed that line. the Trust board chair and the Principal should be summonded to Wellington, told to apologise to the parent in a very public manner and be used as example to other elite integrated schools that insisting on payment of voluntary donations is a breach of their integration agreement which places their state funding at risk.
I touched on the issue of these new elite schools – those with more funds than most private schools here.
Please clarify – my understanding was that if you enrolled at a Roman Catholic school – the payment of $1500 per annum or so was a FEE, not a voluntary donation.
How are these schools supposed to function if they are having to maintain buildings, grounds etc, outside of the government funding?
From what you say though Trevor, do you think that Anne Tolley (as well as Rathkeale) would see these payments as fees?
Typical right winger, wanting to price kids of an education.
Presumably the mother could send her son to a local state school that wouldn’t have such a high “donation” ? She is free loading off the parents who do pay the donation as presumably the level of the “donation” has to be set to cover those who don’t pay it: i.e. an allowance for bad debt in the schools budget.
Surely it would be fairer for the “donation” to be included in the compulsory fee and parents can choose whether or not to send their children to this particular school ?
If state funding followed the child then parents could choose the school that best suited their particular needs and this ludicrous situation would disappear. This parents who felt their children would be better off at a private school could choose that option without the government double-dipping into the tax-paying parents pocket.
Bryan Spondre
Yes Bryan, lets destroy our education system with vouchers. Remeber that a child’s right to education is enshrined in internation rules. People like you make me sick. Why not just fund all schools better, instead of letting the rich schools get the cream and the poor schools go to the wall.
Elvis
It would not work like that and you know it, also Deborah Coddington realised this in her book on such voucher systems.
Are you implying that for a fixed amount per student, we would suddenly see Kings College and Otahuhu College (over the fence) showing the same facilities and luxuries?
You would never get into a college like Kings with nothing but a voucher from Rodney Hide! A school like Kings would select its students as it does today, based on criteria under their own control.
ALternatively, the state could require Kings to run a ballot of applying families, but would private education survive?
It won’t happen. Rodney Hide in Epsom would end up like Christine Fletcher when she held the seat. Property values for the rich come into this too! And who do the rich vote for?
@ Art 11.51am Sorry for not being clear – there are two types of payments, first dues which are regarded as compulsory though I have never known a child to have been excluded because of parents inability to pay (unchristian), these are set as a result of the agreement which integrated the school, and secondly donations which by definition do not legally have to be paid as for all other state schools.
Bryan @ 12.25 – actually the vast majority of the state funding does follow the child – it results in the school being staffed, buildings provided and operational grants being made. All are based on the school roll. It even follows the child to integrated schools for staffing and operational funding.
Rathkeale have the audacity to ask for $2,000 annual fees and $4,000 donation!
If they need the donation to function, is it possible that behind the scenes, that one criterion for selection into the school is an abilty to pay more than actual fee? How transparent is that process?
Thanks for the clarification Trevor.
So does that mean that I can:
a) choose to send my son to ACG Junior College in Parnell when he reaches year 9 (our preferred option) and
b) the education department will pay ACG the amount it would have spent on educating him at Western Springs College (our local state high school and least preferred option) and
c) we will only have to top up the difference between the private school fees and the cost per child of state education rather than:
d) paying taxes to fund state schools and pay the full cost of a private education (i.e. double dipping by the state)?
Bryan Spondre
@Arts: “Are you implying that for a fixed amount per student, we would suddenly see Kings College and Otahuhu College (over the fence) showing the same facilities and luxuries?
You would never get into a college like Kings with nothing but a voucher from Rodney Hide! A school like Kings would select its students as it does today, based on criteria under their own control.”
No I am not. I simply do not want to pay twice for the same service. I am fine with private schools charging extra and providing extra service as long as my child gets the money they are entitled to from the state system.
Bryan Spondre
@MIllsy “Yes Bryan, lets destroy our education system with vouchers. ”
Can you explain to me how vouchers will destroy the education system ?
Our local high school is Western Springs College. Though it has lifted it’s game in recent years my first hand observation of the political leanings of it’s teachers means I am unwilling to send my son there when he reaches year 9. The teachers there seem to have strong socialist, environmentalist and activist leanings: i.e. not good role models for children.
Research indicates that there are private schools that align more closely with our family values. Why should we be penalized by having to pay twice ?
Bryan Spondre
Bryan @ 2.15
a) Yes b) Partially c) No and d) No because your private school choice attracts a state subsidy though I presume given your other views you wouldn’t accept it.
Thanks Trevor.
Re you response (b)
So if the education dept will pay a part of the amount to ACG that it would have paid to Western Springs for my sons education, what is the Labour Party rationale for not paying the full amount ?
Bryan
Elvis
I have noticed that right wing advocates of vouchers use wording similar to yours above when you said:
“If state funding followed the child then parents could choose the school that best suited their particular needs and this ludicrous situation would disappear. This parents who felt their children would be better off at a private school could choose that option without the government double-dipping into the tax-paying parents pocket.”
The guillible voter of limited means interprets this spin as meaning that private and public education would be straight options – if the state did not deliver the goods, then private schools would be built as similarly priced options, open to all.
The REALITY would be quite different. Private schools would continue to top up voucher payments with fees of their own, not so different to what they charge today. Their only disincentive to maximise fees would be when supply exceeded demand.
You are not being required to pay twice in the current system. We are ALL paying for provision of a state education system – including single people, childless couples, pensioners, etc.
On the contrary, under Chopper Tolley, the general taxpayer will now be funding the state system (which is their entitlement), plus paying increased bonuses to private schools – in order to increase the gap between private and state sectors.
Private school fees would separate from vouchers – they would be regulated purely by market forces.
This blows away one of the most often quoted advantages of a voucher system and also zoning abolition. Advocates of vouchers commonly shed crocodile tears for those “locked into” low decile “failing” schools. They pretend to have a solution, when what they have in mind would create a bigger gap than what we have today. But then, is that a surprise to anybody?
@Arts: “Private schools would continue to top up voucher payments with fees of their own, not so different to what they charge today.”
Really ? Surely the government could just regulate the maximum fees private schools could charge as they do for GP’s who are part of PHO’s ?
It is great that Tolley has chosen to supplement the amount of money that private schools receive – is it 35 million more? This obviously will be at the expense of what state schools receive and lead to a repeat of the 90’s experience where schools were terribly underfunded and teachers were poorly paid.
The idea of vouchers is absolutely rediculous and will lead to a two tier education system and it is usually put forward by people that have no understanding of the eduction system and how it works. It ultimately leads to a ghettoisation of secondary schooling – schools for the haves and many more of the have-nots.
Every pupil that enters a secondary school in New Zealand receives funding from the government. The extra money that is paid by parents who CHOOSE to send their child to a private school usually goes towards offering facilities, subjects, reduced class sizes and so on that are unsustainable by state schools. Why should the tax payer pay for private school kids to receive speech lessons every week or take part is skiing trips? This moaning from those that want to send their kids to private schools is just annoying. If you want it then pay for it.
As for regulating private schools, surely this is not needed. Again it comes down to choice. If parents want to pay it then they will, if they don’t then they can send their child to the local secondary school.
Tolley is useless and has so little knowledge of education it is embarassing. Does anyone in the National Party actually have any idea about education? I loved Tolley’s desire to speak to the Chancellor of the universities instead of the Vice-Chancellor (lmao). I heard that she has become a laughing stock in educational circles simply because she has no idea.
@Elvis
More great theory from you I see!
PRO-Care doctors don’t provide an elite service – they provide a service that meets the state’s conditions! The aim of private education is to provide an ALTERNATIVE to state requirements.
I don’t see an ACT-led government maximising fees that a private school charges! They are market-driven.
And if a National government did severely limit fees to maximise ability of people able to apply, then applications for a school like Kings would greatly exceed available places.
On what basis do you think Kings would select the lucky students?
If they used balloting and full transparency, then their school would lose their elite edge, and they would end up with neither one thing nor the other.
You invariably get “unexpected” consequences when you put the state and private in the same mix!
As I said, ACT (or ex-ACT) writer Deborah Coddington came to the same conclusion in her book on school zone abolition and vouchers. She concluded that the rich will ALWAYS find some way of gaining advantage when getting their families educated. I do not think it is her greatest piece of writing, but I think this is the result of trying to square the wheel.
So bryan, you want to send you kid to a school which shoves jesus down his throat ( and teach him about magic ), and where the teachers think that poisoning the air, screwing the poor and the workers, is a good thing?
Bryan
At the near new Parnell ACG you will get luxury hotel standard accommodation for your son. Shame about the playgrounds though which they do not have – do they have a First XV?
The school will do a fantastic job in impressing you the parent, that they can out-homework the best of them, but it is a matter of debate whether this is or is not in a student’s best interests.
It is co-educational which should present better social opportunities than single-sex.
I don’t know much about Western Springs but it is a high decile school these days.
So what if the “political leanings of it’s teachers” are socialist, environmentalist and/or activist? I would be more worried about myself as a role model than the teachers! If different world views are exposed at school, that is surely a source of enrichment.
You say “private schools that align more closely with our family values.” Family values such as … ? Families are diverse in New Zealand and please remember the students are young adults who need to think for themselves – secondary schooling is not simply a game of knowledge transfer.
These schools turn out their share of accountants and lawyers and I guess of your vision is of an establishment profession for your son you will probably get your way.
Have you taken your son to meet the people at Western Springs? It is doing well for good reasons. Oh and don’t forget to consult the league tables in the latest Metro, you may get an unpleasant surprise if you believe in league tables !!!!
Deleted duplicate Trevor
Elvis @ 2.59 Because a subastantial amount of the balance is in fixed costs and i don’t believe in using taxpayers funds to duplicate assets.
Just watched the discussion on Close-Up – the BOT chair’s face was a picture as he was informed by ConsumerNZ the difference between a donation and a fee – apparently hadn’t occurred to him that there was a difference.
I don’t want to have an opinion on her decision to persist in driving her son to that school gate every day – the elitist, pinched expression around having to deal with a ’solo parent’ showed all over this guy – and he didn’t have the stones as the Chair of that board to own the fact that his school has harrassed her for months – he blamed some other guy not in the room to defend himself. Nor do I want to have an opinion on the type of school that Bryan/Elvis may want to send his son to – his loss really.
None of that matters – the fact is, parent’s don’t have to pay a donation, it’s the rule! She pays the fees on time when they’re due – she doesn’t want to pay the donation because her situation has changed and she can no longer afford it – end of! She doesn’t have to pay a donation – it’s a donation, not a fee – if Tolley doesn’t want to step in and inform the riteo, us that he was wrong – no worries – Consumer NZ did, quoted MoE legislation around it and everything – there is no argument (or there shouldn’t have been).
Now, I still think the mother has to sit down and think about the quality of the environment her son is going to expect whether she wins or loses this battle – clearly, unless the Governance of this school has a serious issue with language literacy – it’s not the donation that is causing the problem, it’s the parent’s ability to pay (or not as the case may be), that speaks it’s own volumes – and Bryan/Elvis – you are welcome to that philosophy – your kids have you as a role model – no hope there!
If people want a defferent eductaion than the state system and want to indoctrinate their kids they should pay for it. It is the ordinary tax payers who went to state school who will be paying their pensions and health care after all.
Sorry about the spelling. My well educated kid punched the send button.
@ Kerry 1 – True, true – but they still don’t have to pay a donation, otherwise not-for-profits everywhere would be knocking on doors with a valuation report during awareness weeks, not the point though is it?- If the school wasn’t able to function on the fees and relied on the donations then they need to have a very open and very community spirited AGM – be up front and increase their fees.
This woman had no problem being a ‘friend to the school’ until her circumstances changed – and the school were happy to include her child – until her circumstances changed.
Until her circumstances changed her son had a place at the school and a roof over his head, the fact that the school management would appear to have no issue with both of those things being at risk under her present circumstances should give her pause for thought. If she did take her son elsewhere along with the fees + the state contribution they get for him, it would hurt more than the loss of the donation, that’s not their issue, it’s not about the money.
She has not neglected her legal responsibilities, she has kept up the fees.
Whatever her personal beliefs (and I probably wouldn’t spend a lot of time chatting about politics, religion or education with her unless I was tied up and forced to) – she’s still right and she still has a right to send to her child to that school without being harrassed. If she wants to………..
Chez
No matter what the official line is – this IS very much about the money.
It should have occured to the Board and the Principal that if they could get rid of this family, they could replace the student with someone willing to pay fees and donations.
That presumably is why they were applying the heat. Pay up or Ship Out. In a workplace it could possibly be called constructive dismissal if the victim walked.
I think some people here aren’t very informed about the way that private and integrated schools are run.
An integrated school gets the same amount of funding as a state school of the same decile and then parents pay fees and occasionally donations on top (this is the first case of donations to integrated schools I’ve heard of).
Private schools get a very, very small amount of govt funding per student, compared with integrated. They also have complete autonomy from the govt and MoE in curriculum decisions etc.
The voucher system wouldn’t work at a private school because it would mean that A)the state would have to fund the full education of probably another 10-15 thousand students (I have no idea about this total, making it up) which is impossible and B)one of the reasons schools are private is so they can have autonomy and if the state paid the full amount of funding per student there would need to be some requirement that the school listened to the MoE.
Let’s face the facts guys:
Why do parents send their children to private schools?
Because frequently private schools provide better facilities and programmes for sport or art that you wouldn’t find at a state school. This is not to say that private schools sporting teams are better, because we all know that this is not true at all. However, often private schools will have academies for individual/small team sports where students can have professional level training during school time. And often the students participating in these academies will be on scholarships, some of them full (this also doesn’t mean that they’ve been poached from other schools).
The teaching staff are better. Now that is hard, but it makes economic sense. In a private school, teachers are paid better. Therefore, there are teachers clamouring to teach there. This means that the school gets to pick the teachers.
This also doesn’t mean that the teachers are indoctrinating the students into a certain ideological viewpoint. Just because the school has a religious background doesn’t mean all the teachers are members of the religion. I think you’d be surprised of the diversity of the teaching staff within the average secondary school (including hardcore socialist activists). I don’t think private schools set out to indoctrinate students either (unless maybe they’re brethren?), they strive to provide a balanced education to all of their students.
Lets also dispel the myth about elitism. By nature, private schools are elite – they select their students and the cost keep people out. However, the majority of the students come from middle class suburbia whose parents are struggling to pay the fees. Seriously. I know because I’m one of the students who comes from a middle class family struggling to pay the fees.
It is also a very serious decision for a school board to raise fees (I’ve watched family members go through it) because they care about the families that attend their schools (certainly the ones I’ve been involved with) and want them to continue to send their children to the school. Whilst private schools are frequently run like businesses, they are also mostly not for profit charities. Much like any NGO. Which means that by raising the fees they are not gaining any extra profit, merely they are trying to cover day to day running costs.
Now you may ask why the govt pays private schools at all. Why? Because the education system could not survive without them. And why is this? Because the govt could not afford to pay for the huge influx of students that the collapse of the independent system would create. The govt would have to build new schools to cope with the sheer number of students that would suddenly need to enroll. And that would cost more tax dollars than there is around and would continue to cost more. Quality of teaching staff would reduce because presumably their pay would drop to pay for the extra students, and teachers wouldn’t be attracted to the profession.
Personally, I think we should stick to the status quo.
And if the govt had to legislate for anything they should legislate donations out of integrated schools so we don’t have the problems that this woman is going through now.
I disagree that teachers at private schools are better paid than in state schools. Some may be, others not, and then there are employment conditions to consider which could be more or less onerous depending on the school. Does anyone have stats?
I have been quite shocked at lack of policies at some private schools, eg around health and safety, bullying, education outside the classroom etc, compared with state schools which have to meet quite tough standards and are audited on them by ERO.
And there might be some good facilities that impress parents but they should also ask who gets to use them, and when.
Hilary: Do you have stats to say that they are paid the same as state school teachers? I have talked to many private school teachers about their pay and a standard teacher with no extra responsibilities, at an independent school, is paid at least the same as a Head of Faculty of state school. And, of course, it increases from there. Pay is also more flexible in private schools as well. A teacher with a doctorate and several other degrees, who may only teach a standard class, will be payed more than someone straight out of teachers college. The pay gap isn’t huge, but it is enough to make a difference.
Talking to many independent school teachers, I’ve seen that many see it as a stepping stone back into the state sector. A teacher may come and be a classroom teacher at an independent school and then move on to be a principal at a state school. I also guess that there are more training opportunities and staff are better supported both academically and in the workplace in an independent school. Certainly many of the teachers that I’ve talked to love working in independent school because they have more freedom to teach as they want etc.
I think that people view private schools as huge monoliths of elitism and inhumanity. The opposite is true. Certainly, in my experience, private schools have a family oriented atmosphere where the senior management care for each student and their families.
As a student (and the son of a board member) I have an insight into both sides of the school running process. As a student I see what the school is really like, not some pretty picture painted for parents and as the son of a board member, I see the struggle and amount of thought that goes into decisions about private schools’ future.
When I said in my earlier post “the teaching staff are better” I mean that they are likely to be more highly qualified, trained and it is likely that they will be, at least, “good” teachers. They will also have more experience, because it is rare for a teacher to come out of uni and go straight into a private school.
Private school teachers (their qualifications and experience) would be on par with those that work at any decile 10 school. The pay difference is so small as to make it almost insignificant (on average it is three percent, however, this is often pooled into one fund and paid out on the basis of bonuses). There is without doubt extra responsibilities for teachers at private schools. Many have compulsory Saturday morning ‘co-curricular’ time, there are definitely more out-of-school hours expected and the reporting to parents is often overwhelming.
What annoys me is that our current government seem to be great supporters of independent schools and not so much of state schools. I know that (names deleted Trevor) all send their children to private schools – is there anyone on the National front bench that has their children enrolled in public schools?
Hello bloggers – Anne Tolley has earlier this morning come down against the school and in favour of the solo mother.
So there!!
Sounds like she’s been reading Red Alert again.
Funny that you mention that jarbury – either she or her office refered a journalist to it yesterday. Pity she wasn’t as quick at reacting to the complaint or when first approached by media. And of course she quotes it in the house. I’m pleased that she gives us credit.
If Anne Tolley supported Rathkeale College (as the right wing would tend to do), it would be a signal that it is OK for any private school to switch to integrated school – get teaching and operations grants for the Government, and charge parents whatever they like to get all the goodies. That is why the Ministry of Education recommended that Private School subsidies from the state be increased.
Integrated schools threaten both the state system and the private system. This is a weak sector from a political perspective.
All Integrated Schools should be given a timeframe to either become FULLY state or FULLY private.
Better late than never, I suppose: http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/stories/2009/07/15/1245bbf03127
Clearly a Minister out of her depth.
The problem is that there is a real range of integrated schools. The browning of the Catholic church has meant that there are a significant number of low decile integrated schools. On the other hand some of the older former private (eg Rathkeale) and the designed to integrate schools (eg HIBs) are places where those with access to cash are the norm.
I’ve watched the question on pay develop with interest. I think that Tim is probably right on average – but that average probably disguises some big differences. I’m going to show my prejudices here and guess. Decile ten and private boys’ school teachers are paid more on average than at the equivalent girts’ schools. And within their private/integrated groupings Anglicans pay more than Presbyterians who pay more than Catholics. Then again maybe my prejudices are wrong.
Presbyterian St Cuthberts in Auckland would need to pay tops, would it not Trevor?
Also do keep an eye on Perth where one Chopper Axworthy is turning a blind eye to an impact of League Tables in his state:
http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuId=77&ContentID=154821
St Cuthberts is a brilliant school run by one of New Zealand’s leading principals. My guess is that some good teachers wouldn’t need a pay margin to go there.
And why is chopper such a common nickname tho in that case doesn’t relate to helicopter use.
Tim says “What annoys me is that our current government seem to be great supporters of independent schools and not so much of state schools. I know that (names deleted Trevor ) all send their children to private schools – is there anyone on the National front bench that has their children enrolled in public schools?”.
And what about Labour Party MPs with children in private schools ? or is that a ‘no-go’ area ?
Thanks richgraham that one slipped past me. We will have a chat on where lines are drawn when the Red Alert posters get together but I agree that the naming of families is not necessary to make the point. I have deleted both from your comment and Tim’s.
Sorry – no names in future. I know a lot of Labour MP’s children that went to state schools though – some through I school I was involved in.
I guess, ultimately, the worry is that there is a slow creep to privatisation. The outsourcing of elective surgeries will weaken public health, paying private schools more money will weaken state schools and goodness knows what is going on with ACC – from what I hear the gutting continues. There is a pattern, one that the public was warned about before hand. They many not be ‘privatising’ just yet, but they are certainly softening up the market to do so.
There is no doubt that in health and education there is an ability to privatise by stealth. The point I have been trying to make is that having elite fee charging schools as part of the state (integrated)sector might be just as bad if not worse. And just to clear both are bad.