People have to be really motivated to turn out en masse to a meeting on a public issue. So it was last night at Papanui High School Hall in Chch. No less than 500 people came to a meeting organised by the school’s principal Denis Pyatt. He allowed Chch ACE coordinator Maryke Fordyce to open. She pulled no punches, describing the 80 percent cut to ACE high school night class budgets as educational sabotage. The Government would be lying to continue calling the classes “community education” she said because the community was not consulted and would no longer be able to afford to attend the classes. She noted that education had thrived in NZ despite two world wars and a Depression and now a single Minister was wiping those achievements. Maryke urged the government to review its cuts. Denis Pyatt spoke next. He said he had two hours with John Key recently and told the PM that the government had under-estimated the impact and reaction to the ACE cuts. Key replied, “You are probably right!” Denis estimated that with a supportive board (it’s a mid decile school) he may be able to continue some course next year but classes are at risk for 2500 students next year and 60+ tutors could go. And fees would rise steeply.
The first of the two Nats, Nicky Wagner, said Anne Tolley had really wanted to be there, causing a sustained Tui moment. She traversed the usual arguments about the biggest ever education budget at $10.8b and the focus would now be on literarcy, numeracy, Te Reo and foundation skills. Aaron Gilmore did the “tough decisions must be made” line and alienated everyone with inept references to having to choose between funding people with disablities and those wanting “hobby” courses. (More on that from Lianne Dalziel who took the strongest offence.)
Maryan Street demolished the two hapless Nats. She pointed out that the cuts total just $13m a year, affecting 220,000 New Zealanders; that it was a nonsense to think people will go to courses labelled “literacy” or ”numeracy” – that these were embedded in many courses which appealed to people. Maryan noted there is adifference between hard decisions and wrong decisions – and the ACE cuts were the latter. And she put a human face on what ACE courses do, like the Belfast woman she met earlier in the day who learnt cake decorating and who now works in a cake shop. She said a great deal of harm was being done to save a piffling amount of money in a $10.8b budget.
The meeting then opened to an hour of questioning, all directed at the two Govt MPs, including from a woman with a son in a private school who begged them to redirect the $35m given to private schools in the Budget to keep ACE and the public education system going. Unanimous votes were passed to rescind the cuts and to support a National Day of Action in September.
Perhaps some of the huge audience might like to pay for their own courses ?
I think the ACE cuts, along with the cuts in the TIA and the attacks on the solo mothers today, are real gender issues. Many women understand how vital such educational supports are to them and other women and their families.
Well done the Papanui community! Looks as though the huge audience all agreed that the courses are of value and they recognise, those that could pay – that it wasn’t about them!
They do contribute David and while an extra $10 or $20 a week to offset these petty cuts might not be much to you it’s a lot to the 1200 people losing their jobs every week
Some points to make. The first is that it is galling to see the work of the visionaries in the first Labour government being trashed by myopic knee-cappers, and seeing the threat again of privatisation of the libraries and strangled adult education, two of the pillars of personal growth and betterment in the community.
The second is picking up on Hillary’s comment, that I detect signs of that old mysogynist stand-by, “keep ‘em thick and keep ‘em pregnant. Keep them in line and in their place.” Except, this excluding, arrogant thinking is aimed at all who will find it difficult to afford.
I have taught guitar to groups of adult students, some who were teachers upskilling for their jobs, others learning for personal growth and others to hand on their talents as entertainers or to family and friends in turn. They were subsidised into these courses and we all benefit in the community. Money well spent.
And good on Papanui, my home for my first twenty-one years. Sneer at your peril at such folk, David, they are the makers and breakers of governments.
Um, so at $13million per year for 220,000 New Zealanders that is $60 each. Is this really what all these people are complaining about?
Again, why dont people pay for their own courses ? I have a couple of hobbies and dont expect others to have to pay for them.
It would be great if we could afford it but we have a deficit and we would have to borrow the money overseas to fund cake decorating. Its just a bit weird thats all Brendon so there is no need to get personal.
@Brendon Labour seem to have difficulty coming to terms with the simple fact that we are in a recession and something has to go.
Would you rather we cut spending on health so that middle-aged ladies can do courses in flower arranging ?
Or would you like us to borrow overseas to pay for courses in Thai cooking ?
I suspect not.
Brian, there are always choices to be made, even in tough times. How about not funding private schools for an extra $35m! And don’t buy the argument that this is “hobby’ courses; much of the classes embed literacy, numeracy and other skills. And these courses help keep people sane, fit and occupied. We’ll pay a much higher price without them.
Mr Burns, perhaps I can help. The independent school funding is $5 million in the first year, and ten million for the following three years, to allow independent schools to attract more students from state schools, and lower the cost of public education.
I estimate that the government saves $1.2 billion over four years through children attending independent schools rather than state schools. A $35 million subsidy over four years is a pittance in light of that. If independent schools become too expensive for parents, then there is a risk that many students transfer to the public system and the state will bear the cost.
There seems to be a very big inconsistency between Mr Goff’s policy of providing welfare for millionaires who lose their jobs, and your argument that children in independent schools shouldn’t receive a tiny subsidy from the state for the cost of their education, 98% of which will still be paid by their parents.
Thanks Tim for adding some intelligent comment on the $35 mill funding for private schools.
I send my 3 children to private schools at a cost of around $30k per year.
If they went to public schools what is the extra cost to the taxpayer. $300m per year according to your figures.
Perhaps the fairies at the bottom of the garden can add that to the wishlist as well.
I agree if these courses only average $60 per head why dont people pay for them.
If they were that beneficial there wouldnt be a debate
Mac 1 you are a good example of the level of debate from the left ( seeing the threat again of privatisation of the libraries )where things are just made up.
While there will always be the example of the lady you mentioned who did a cake decorating course who now works in a cake shop – I’d be willing to bet that the vast majority of the people doing that course did so for personal interest only – very few would have seen it as an opportunity to move into the ‘cake industry’.
The upshot is – if you look at the courses on offer – the vast majority are indeed ‘interest based’ – be that cooking, building pizza ovens, or my personal favorite belly dancing. Should we as tax payers be paying for this on the off chance that some lady may get a job working in a Turkish bar dancing?
@Mark M
The front page of the Marlborough Express, not a newspaper of the Left (what is?), states today-”Don’t cut our library funds. Users tell Govt library at community’s heart.” 1500 postcards in Marlborough have been uplifted to sent this message.
There are not 1500 Leftish activists in Marlborough, so instead of slating me as an example of the Left which makes things up, debate the issues.
Your reference to ‘fairies at the bottom of the garden” show where you are getting your lines from.
Your third and fifth paragraphs don’t make sense. For example, 3 children will cost $300 million if they attend public schools.
We have boys coming to our school whose parents can’t afford school shoes, and are given assistance. $30,000 seems manageable to you for fees. How does a parent with six children who can’t afford to buy shoes right now, stump up with another $60, on average? Sometimes even beneficial things are not affordable, and in that household there would be a huge debate as to where a spare $60 could go.
@Mark M- I see your reference to $300 million is an answer derived from Tim Ellis’s figures, so sense has been made of paragraph three.
I would have asked for some sources for Tim Ellis’s estimation, though.
Tim, there is no Labour policy to provide benefits to millionaires – that was the govt spin. It does support helping people like those coming into my electorate office where one low paid partner has lost his/her job, but because their partner has a low-paid job, there is no support. And if the “tiny” support to private schools is so important, why not continue the “tiny” support to adult and community education.
Mac, 30,000 students attending independent schools at an average cost of $10,000 a year (see OECD average cost per student tables). This is not a marginal cost, which may be higher or lower, depending on the extent of transferring 30,000 students to state schools. If there is existing capacity in the state schools to deal with it, then the marginal cost would be lower. Given that a higher proportion of independent school students are in Auckland, I believe the marginal cost would be considerably higher.
“How about not funding private schools for an extra $35m!”
Thanks to “Working For (Other Peoples) Families” only 30% of working age people (between 15 and 65) pay any net income tax. This means that those parents who send their kids to private schools are likely to be in the group that is stumping up most of the income tax. Seems fair that they should get some of that back in grants to private schools.
Putting things in perspective, “Working For (Other Peoples) Families) costs around $3 billion per annum, the DPB costs $1.5 billion per annum and MSD spends $36 million p.a. on fraud prevention.
@Tim “Given that a higher proportion of independent school students are in Auckland, I believe the marginal cost would be considerably higher.” Excellent point.
If all the parents in Ponsonby & Herne Bay who pay to send their kids to private schools suddenly decided they wanted them to attend a state school then the state would probably be up for building a new secondary school in Central Auckland. Exactly how much would that cost ? I suspect the capital cost would well exceed $35 million.
“Tim, there is no Labour policy to provide benefits to millionaires – that was the govt spin.”
I suspect that was Phil Goff making policy on the run – National simply took it to its logical conclusion
Tim, thanks for the clarification. I appreciate estimates when given are somehow justified. However, I note your qualification, that the cost estimates of $10000 per student are the costs which private schools incur. I don’t think that Mark M understood that qualification.
This is why justification of estimates are necessary, so that we can judge the basis of your calculations. Private schools charge a fee to cover costs. Do they make a profit?
Is Mark M’s figure of $10000 per child an average fee, or is it greater or smaller. By How much?
They’re still estimates, Tim, and you haven’t persuaded me of their accuracy or whether they bear any relevance to what it costs the State system to educate a child per annum. Your figures are still surmise.
Another question, Tim, why did you quote a four year figure of $1.2 billion in that earlier post? Is a figure of over a billion more weighty for the purposes of your argument? Why not quote an annual ‘cost’ of $300 million, as Mark M did?
@ Brendon – “there is no Labour policy to provide benefits to millionaires – that was the govt spin.”
That wasnt spin (comments like mallards key killing babies is spin) – that was exactly what your leader (I cant remember his name) was saying – the example he and your party pushed out to the media was Bruce Burgess and used him an example of the kind of person that needed help.
The guy owned three property’s. (although labour cunningly forgot to mention that bit)
It was only after your leader was on the radio getting grilled for putting up such a stupid argument did he say “ummmm, there would probably be a cap”.
Up to that point he had indicated that it was open to all.
Its obvious to all that labour dont have “a policy to provide benefits to millionaires” – its very clear that labour just dont have policy’s.
Mac
you talked about privatising libraries.
That isnt the same as any reduced funding for libraries.
I quoted Tim Ellis’ figures for private schools but biker kiwi has it correct that those who pay private school fees probably pay a disproportianate amount of the tax used to fund other peoples children through school.
I dont have a problem with that but I do object to the sneering tone from people who should know better , when a ” small ” amount of money is returned to offset years of no increase in Govt funding.
Over the years since the last increase in the subsidy , how much more of my taxes have gone into the public sector.
The unfortunate down side to the lefts continued villifying of “Rich Pricks” is they tend to take their money off shore.
It seems to have escaped the left that taxes come from wages earnt by working for rich pricks.
The public sector dont generate their own income either, it comes from the taxes earnt from jobs generated by rich pricks.
Ditto the money to pay beneficiaries
@Mark M
If libraries are not seen as core local body business and are severely curtailed financially, then private interests will arise to fill the vacuum. One of the functions of libraries here is to provide internet access to knowledge bases etc and a local business has complained in the past that this is part of its business. It also provides access to DVDs, CDs, talking books, newspapers as well as hire and free book loans, a venue for literary/writing groups and reading/writing/study facilities.
In the nineties here, the local council mooted the idea of privatising the library service. Not reduced funding, selling the kit and kaboodle. it was howled down by meetings of locals- not leftists, ordinary folk who valued the public nature and service of access to information and all else that a library does.
Minister Hyde is raising the question of core public services and what they are. He is driving a move towards privatising these services. Water will also come into this purview and the ‘public good’ will come under threat for private gain.
This is why I linked the reduction of funding for ACE with the provision of public education by Local Authority libraries. Quite frankly, I resent the time spent in seeing off another raid on rightly publicly owned assets.
A lot of my taxes have gone into areas of public service that I don’t access. I don’t use anything to do with the areas such as Agriculture, Excise and Customs, Defence, Business, etc etc etc but I don’t begrudge state help, involvement and resources going into those areas.
Similarly with education. You choose, and my parents chose, to provide a private schooling for their children. In my case, it was for religious reasons. But that is our choice. I suspect that you agree with this/.
You have trouble with some people’s sneering tone. I too have trouble with sneering and i have been subjected to a lot of that in my life as a teacher, a worker, a political activist. A lot of people should know better.
Rich pricks have been vilified, but so too have that of workers when you say that jobs are provided by employers/rich pricks and then 220,000 people are paid no more than the minimum wage. This is how some rich pricks become rich.
However, I do acknowledge the inherent need for employers and employees to have each other. Wages come from employers- of course. But employers would be nothing without workers. Their profit comes from the labour provided as do the jobs come from the employers’ money, savvy and desire to take risk.
I am arguing for a partnership here, just as I would argue for a partnership between the public sector and the private. You and I will become beneficiaries as well, if we are not already, and the money for that will come from another group from us as we progress into needing what the public sector provides in health care, and welfare in all its forms.
People vilify the left, too, you know, and sneer at us. I don’t have to have leftish views. I have the education, experience, contacts, support to be a businessman as my father was, and more, thanks to his and my mother’s efforts to provide the education and support. I choose through my make-up to be part of the public sector, providing education for children and adults. I know where my salary comes from but I don’t bear a grudge as do you seem to have as a successful private sector individual.
Time for tea. Cheers.
good post Mac