Red Alert
Archive for the ‘students’ Category
Answering questions on loans and allowances
Posted by Grant Robertson on May 8th, 2012I have been getting heaps of questions about Mr Joyce’s announcement last week. He does not seem of a mind to get into any details, so this is what I have been able to piece together. Feel free to get in contact with further questions. I have put quite a few in through the written question system where we have not been able to get other answers.
Is future eligibility going to be four years of allowances or 200 weeks?
Steven Joyce caused huge confusion last Thursday by talking about allowances stopping after four years. This was wrong. It is clear that the change he is proposing is to restrict allowances to 200 weeks. This would equate to five years of allowances for most undergraduate courses. This has acted as the default rate of allowances unless you were doing a “long course”. This includes most degrees, postgraduate and longer courses. If you were doing these courses you were eligible for another 50, 100 or more weeks worth of allowances depending on the length of the course. That is now gone.
If you have used up your 200 weeks already does this mean you will be ineligible for future allowances?
I asked Mr Joyce about a case such as this in Parliament today. He said the “final transitional arrangements will be confirmed in the Budget”, but he did go on to acknowledge that the example I gave (a real one) of a student who had used their 200 weeks already and was in the first year of a two year Masters programme would not be eligible for allowances next year.
How many people will be affected by the allowance changes?
Half an answer today as Mr Joyce admitted 4000 to 5000 postgraduate students would no longer be eligible for allowances. He did not give the number of those who would not get allowances because of the changes to parental income thresholds.
Can the government change the terms of student loan contracts that have already been signed to increase the repayment rate to 12% without the agreement of the borrower?
Sadly, yes. Clause 203 of the Student Loan Act says that the Act will override anything that is in a loan contract. The Act contains the repayment rate, but also has a clause 37(3) that says that if the rate is changed by regulation then that rate is deemed to be the rate rather than the one listed in the Act. So, basically the government can do anything it likes to a loan contract as long as it is in the Act. One small caveat is that, through Clause 20, they do have to inform borrowers of any changes to their loan contracts within seven months of the change. Let’s see if they manage that.
There have been a number of questions about limited full time students and how this effects them, which I am chasing up with the Minister. Will come back when I get the results.
As I said the other day I can not believe that Steven Joyce would make these announcements without more information being available. Its simply not fair on students, graduates and their families.
An irresponsible and cynical announcement
Posted by Grant Robertson on May 3rd, 2012Today, Steven Joyce as Tertiary Education Minister announced changes to the student loan and allowances scheme. When I say announced, I mean that he held a media conference at which he told the assembled reporters about the changes. He did not produce any paper, apparently could not offer much in the way of figures to back up his announcement and gave some vague answers. He has finally late this evening released his notes which shed only a little light on proceedings.
This is irresponsible and cynical. Pre-budget announcements are nothing new, I know that, but if you are going to do do them, how about actually giving details about what you are going to do? Student support is one of those areas where the details matter to individual students and their families. Many students live financially fragile lives, and little changes mean a lot. For families trying to support their children and plan their future, announcements like this have significance. Judging by the questions I am getting on email and on Twitter people are confused, and it is no wonder.
The reason it is cynical is that this is about getting the bad news away before the Budget so that on the day Mr Joyce can show how he is putting some more money into research and certain courses. The robbing Peter part of the equation out of the way, it will be time to pay Paul on Budget Day.
As to the substance of the announcement, they are giving all graduates with loans a pay cut by increasing the repayment rate and they are cutting access to allowances, including limiting eligibility to four years. This is significant. This means no allowances for people in later years of studying medicine, engineering, architecture, veterinary science or for post graduate study or double degrees. In short the very things the government says it wants.
There are still loads of questions unanswered about the detail of the announcement (such as what happens to those in the middle of longer degrees, do four years of allowances at any time in the past make you ineligible from next year?) but the overall message is clear; this government simply sees tertiary education more as a cost to be cut than an investment in our collective future.
What’s going to happen to student loans/allowances?
Posted by Grant Robertson on April 4th, 2012Earlier in the year the Prime Minister said the government was going to rein in the student loan scheme “big time”. He refused to say what this specifically meant, but it is clear the government has plans. Having decided that they can’t do what they really want to do in terms of getting rid of the interest free part of the scheme they have made a number of changes to limit eligibility, such as stopping those 55 and over borrowing for the living costs portion of the loan.
But there is more to come. In answer to a written question I put in about reports that the Minister of Tertiary Education had received about changes to student support, came this answer from Steven Joyce.
I have received many reports and briefings regarding future student support arrangements since 1 August 2011, if the Member would care to be more specific I will endeavor to provide a response. However, the Member should note that many of these will relate to future Budget decisions and therefore will not be released prior to Budget day.
So students can expect changes to be announced on Budget Day. Rumours abound as to what the changes will be. I have heard talk of major changes around allowances that would effectively wipe them out in favour of loans. This would be hugely controversial and create major equity issues. Moreover it would have the effect of massively increasing the student loan balance which would seem to be the opposite of the government’s policy objective.
More likely is an implementation of National’s election manifesto statement about student loans that
Ensure students who borrow from the scheme are working towards qualifications that can attract an income that allows them to pay back the loan.
This relates to the already announced plans to publish the salaries of people with particular qualifications. It raises huge concerns. What courses will not be eligible for student loans? What time scale will be used to identify the income? Will other factors will be taken into account to assess the value of a course?
I am all for ensuring that tertiary education plays a major part in providing the skilled workforce that we need. I also think we need to keep a careful eye on the quality of courses, but that is not the same as saying students can only borrow for courses that attract a particular income. The salaries earned by graduates are not the be all and end all of the value of tertiary education. Bob Jones famously once said he would rather employ an arts graduate than a commerce graduate because they had been taught to think.
We need to have a wider view of the value of tertiary educaiton, firstly for the individuals concerned and what they learn, but also for society as a whole of having people who have undertaken a range of courses. We want musicians, designers, artists or whatever it might be that the Minister considers is not earning enough, don’t we? They might not have huge financial benefit, but they are important in a civilised society.
Budget Day could be very interesting, and possibly disturbing ifor students and future students.
Allan Peachey … a man who put kids first
Posted by David Shearer on November 7th, 2011It was both very sad and a surprise to hear about Allan Peachey’s death today. I worked on the Education and Science Select Committee with him, some of my family taught at Rangitoto College under his reign.
He impressed me with his deep understanding of education and real commitment to getting the best for kids. Ultimately for him that was the test. He was no friend of National Standards. For his passion and understanding alone, he should’ve been the Minister.
He chaired the Select Committee in a true spirit of bipartisanship and was unfailingly polite to those who came before us. We differed in our politcal views – sometimes quite a bit – but that’s politics. We are poorer for his parting.
Our condolences go out to his family.
Restoring the Refugee Study Grant
Posted by Grant Robertson on October 15th, 2011In Labour’s tertiary education policy announced by David Shearer earlier this week was a small, but very important commitment from Labour. If elected to government we will restore the Refugee Study Grant. This grant was canned by the National Government in the 2009 Budget with effect from this year. When I was Tertiary Education Spokesperson for a while I met several people who had greatly benefited from the grant, and I am so pleased that we have committed to restoring it.
What the grant has provided is support for refugees mainly for bridging courses or other courses to meet pre-requisites. While as permanent residents refugees can access student loans, many need support to get to the level to be able to undertake tertiary study. Not having the support can mean that opportunities are missed and refugees dont get the kick start that can allow them to achieve their potential.
Mohammed Amri is one example. He was one of the Tampa boat boys. A bright guy, but with little experience of English or learning in a New Zealand environment, who took language, reading and writing skill courses that got him his start on the way to a degree. Another example is a young woman I met, who’s story is included in the publication by Changemakers Refugee Forum as part of their campaign to see refugees recognised as an equity group. She was 19 and still at school here trying to catch up with her peers. She did well, but was not ready to do tertiary study. She was losing motivation for school, doing long hours working at a supermarket, acting as an interpreter for her family, and wanted to get on with her life. She accessed the refugee study grant, got the support to lift her literacy skills, understand the pecularities of New Zealand langauge, and gain entry to a degree at Victoria University. She’s doing really well.
All of this came from a fund that used about $1.3 million a year. In the grand scheme of the Budget, not that much. But it was a lower priority for National in that particular Budget than extra funding for private schools. I am really proud that Labour is saying we will give some extra support to people who have had to flee their homes, who have endured hardship, so that they may achieve their potential, have a fair go at owning their future, and fully contribute to our society. Its the right thing to do.
A note to those who supported VSM
Posted by David Shearer on October 13th, 2011Massey Unniversity has responded to the Voluntary Student Membership Act by increasing its fees next year by an amount about equivalent to that paid by students to their Student Associations.
Just to note:
- it seems like the fees are compulsory
- the government will have a big say on what the increase can be used for – not even the university
- it looks like students through their association may be able to negotiate with the university about what services are kept – but no guarantees
- it’s likely to be the model that will spread across NZ – I was in Waikato University yesterday and they are looking at something similar
So all those who backed VSM will still pay the same, but you won’t have any real say about how your money is spent – even less if you decide not to belong to the student association. Taxation without representation it’s called.
And now you don’t even get the choice of a referendum.
What was wrong with an opt-out clause and accountability around association spending as we suggested?
Well done. Everyone loses.
Labour’s Tertiary policy announced
Posted by David Shearer on October 10th, 2011We have just put out Labour’s tertiary policy. It follows on the big effort that we’ve made to lift skills in our workforce. No need to remind people that times are tough and it’s tough getting any new money. But I think we’ve got a pretty solid mix here that will make a difference.
The key aim is produce the best graduates we can – and keep them in NZ – to help us grow a smart, high-value economy.
The policy has some specifics targetting some of our smartest. It puts back the post-doctoral scholarships for scientists who finished their PhDs that was canned last year. This is critical for not only keeping our best here and giving them time to consolidate their studies, but bringing some of our best back. After all, we’ve already invested massively in these people.
We’ve also put additional funding aside for funding our very best where they are world beating. The ‘brilliant scientist’ concept is simple – give sufficient funding to our best scientists and academics to employ the staff they want, buy equipment they need and then let them get on with it. Smart people attract others – from around the world. Backing our best with resources will grow expertise in core areas where our talent is top shelf. And we DO have some fantastic talent. Those researchers will receive funds personally and are free to choose the NZ institution – or business – where they want to set up.
Other parts of the policy: we must maintain and raise the levels of our universities. Recent results show we are slipping in the world rankings and there’s little doubt that funding is a key part. We run universities that are some of the most efficient in the world, where an extra dollar can really make a difference. Our policy maintains our level by inflation proofing our universities and sets our commitment to increase it.
We need to maintain the affordability of our tertiary institutions so all NZers that reach the standard can access a high quality tertiary education, no matter what background they come from. There’s aspects in the policy here for that too, fixing tuition increases at 4% and restoring $2 million to the Training Incentive Allowance to give a lift to those who want to get a tertiary education – solo mums for example – to get some support. Remember this is the one that helped Paula Bennett before this government axed it.
And we’ve put back the money for adult and community education. Cutting $13.5 million and collapsing it was a travesty. More than 150,000 people no longer access night schools who once did. This is a no-brainer for people wanting to get back into learning.
National MP Opposes VSM Bill
Posted by Grant Robertson on September 28th, 2011Here is a video taken of Michael Woodhouse at a public forum at Otago University in July. He quite clearly states that he is opposed to the Bill in its current form (ie the form that it is in right now). Today, in the Third Reading Michael Woodhouse and other National MPs will vote to pass the Bill into law.
Michael also goes on to assure people that the Bill in its current form won’t pass into law this year. I have heard from other students that is the same commitment they got from other National MPs. This was misleading students and the National MPs should be ashamed of themselves. They heard the evidence at the Select Committee, and they know that tertiary institutions do not want the Bill, the vast majority of other submitters do not want the Bill, but they are still supporting the ideological crusade of their crumbling coalition partner.
Michael also suggests that Labour should promote the ‘opt out’ compromise solution. We did. It was rejected by ACT and National.
So the question for Michael Woodhouse (and other National MPs) is, why will he vote to pass a Bill today that he does not support and that he knows will destroy student services and advocacy?
Students will lose, but still pay
Posted by David Shearer on September 26th, 2011ACT and National will push voluntary student association bill through parliament this week on the last Members Day. We can expect a good deal of student opposition around the country. Good for them.
Next year, students won’t pay any fees to student associations. That’s inevitable, would you pay your council rates if they were voluntary? Wherever student associations have become voluntary they effectively collapsed.
What happens next?
Well, the university, polytech or institution will step in, charge students a levy, and continue some of the services through subcontracting companies or students to do it for them. It’s already been gazetted (NZ Gazette No. 138). Institutions can charge students for: advocacy and legal advice, careers advice and guidance, counselling services, employment information, financial support and advice, health servieces, childcare facilities, sports and recreation facilities.
In other words, all the stuff that supports students and makes these institutions of learning vital, interesting places.
So, voluntary student association membership will result in … money taken off students compulsorily, leaving them with no power to determine what services are kept. Taxation without representation is one way it can be represented.
The National-Act spin that student associations are the last bastions of compulsory unionism is bollocks … it’s idealogy pure and simple.
We could’ve had a good, enduring Bill with an opt out clause and some rules around accountability of student association spending. I’d spoken a number of times with Heather Roy about some possibilities. She was willing to compromise when she her Bill looked in doubt but held the hard line when she thought she’d get it through.
Too bad, fortunately it won’t last long.
Putting Kids First
Posted by Sue Moroney on September 17th, 2011This week I had the privilege of announcing Labour’s plan to lift achievement in primary schools – or more accurately, years 1-8. We called it “Reaching for the Stars – Whakamaua Nga Whetu” and it spells out the way forward from the debacle that is National’s national standards.
Our policy ensures that parents get plain language information they require on their child’s achievement, progress and next learning steps without schools having the flawed national standards imposed on them. Labour will require schools to use recognised assessment tools and teacher judgement to assess children against the celebrated NZ Curriculum. Simple really – no major drama.
Meanwhile, the Government has resorted to having the Ministry write national standard targets for the non-compliant schools. So much for self-managing schools! As we speak, those school boards are now being threatened with the sack if they return those charters to the Ministry with the words “under duress” on them. This Government seems determined to go to war with the education sector, rather than work with them to get good outcomes. As Labour’s policy shows, its all so unnecessary.
It is telling that Mrs Tolley hasnt been able to work out how to attack our policy. She started off with ” the policy is written by the unions,” but then changed tack later on to say it was a “watered down version of national standards.” Of course, neither is true – but the contradiction in her statements demonstrates how Crosby Textor are struggling to find the attack line on our policy. Which all adds up to it being just more great policy from Labour.
I prefer for our educators and school boards to be focused on providing excellent education for our children, than going to war with the Ministry of Education. Labour’s policy lets them get on with the job, while making sure parents are kept in the loop too. After all, we know that our kids’ education thrives when parents and teachers work in partnership.
In praise of… the ’school secretary’
Posted by Grant Robertson on September 2nd, 2011
Actually the title of this post is wrong. The person we used to call “the secretary” at our local school is now rightly given other titles such as Office Administrator or School Administrator. But even those don’t capture the role that they play in the running of schools and the well-being of the staff and students.
This morning I attended the farewell for Anne Young (pictured above) the long time Office Administrator at Cardinal McKeefry School in Wellington. Anne has been the friendly welcoming face of the school for many years, and right from when I met her I always felt welcomed and included when I visited the school. As I looked around the room at her farewell today I saw all kind of representatives from the community for whom Anne is their window to the school- from the bank, the contractors, other schools, parents, staff and of course the kids.
A couple of years ago when NZEI were running their support staff pay campaign I listened to some administrators detail the scope of their work. It was vast, but they all seemed to know that the ultimate reason for them being at work was the kids. At every school I visit the office staff have a great feel for the schools and the needs of children. I have observed them playing the role of counsellor, mentor, friend, shoulder to cry on and general supporters of a range of kids. They know them, keep an eye on them and notice all the ups and downs.
Schools simply could not run without the likes of Anne. From making sure the bills get paid to making sure the kids are looked after, they are a key part of our school communities. The jobs do not pay anything like what they should, so I thank them all for their service. All the best to Anne in her retirement, but also to all the school secretaries/administrators/whatever you are called, thank you for what you do.
A Report on Progress
Posted by Grant Robertson on August 4th, 2011Anyone tuning into Parliament yesterday afternoon and evening may have had a bit of trouble working out quite what was going on, and a few people have been in touch to ask, so, to coin a phrase, here is a report on progress.
Yesterday was Members Day, which happens every second Wednesday when we consider Private Members, Local and Private Bills ( ie not the government’s legislative programme). We began the day with further consideration by the Committee of the Whole House (what Parliament calls itself when it is debating each clause or part of a bill) of the Royal Society Bill. As those who watch Parliament closely will know this Bill is in my name, but is a Private Bill to update the Royal Society Act to reflect some changes they have made to the way they operate. It is fair to say this Bill has been getting a lot of attention in recent months!
Early in the debate Heather Roy moved that the House report progress on the Bill. This is a provision of standing orders that allows debate on a bill to stop for that day and for the Bill to be set down for further discussion the next day. With the support of National this motion was passed, effectively shutting down debate and seeing us move to the next Bill, the hotly debated Voluntary Student Association Membership Bill in Heather’s name.
What followed was some procedural argy-bargy as to whether and how a motion to report progress can be used. This included a few appearances by the Speaker to clarify points of order. The Speaker acknowledged that the use of the provision was something that needed the attention of the Standing Orders Committee, but gave an interim Speakers Ruling that said that a motion to report progress could only be put as the Committee of the Whole considered a new clause or part. ( I bet you are glad you know that!).
I know the procedural argy-bargy can look a bit unedifying, but it is, and always has been, part and parcel of Parliament. There are a lot of rules and precedents, and as seen today all sides use them from time to time.
In any case we went on to the VSM Bill, and some fairly vigorous exchanges. Labour strongly opposes this legislation, because we believe it is an ideological attempt to kill of student associations, and in fact it actually reduces the choice of student associations to decide their own destiny. For me student associations are like local government. Enrolling as a student makes you part of a community, and the student association is the organisation that helps govern that community. You can read more of Labour’s position here and in our minority report on page 5 of here.
I do not apologise for fighting hard to stop VSM. I really think it will be detrimental to students, and their welfare, and to tertiary institutions. I have always felt if you believe passionately in something you have to be prepared to fight for it.
The House rose with the Committee debating Clause 9, the final clause of the Bill. That means we have not yet completed the Committee stages. One confusion to clear up, completing Committee stages does not mean the Bill has passed. That comes with a Third Reading, a two hour debate that will occur after the Committee stages are completed, and can not be on the same day as the Committee stages are completed.
Hope that helps. The next Members Day is the 17th of August. Tune in for another exciting installment.
New Zealand’s first tertiary high school
Posted by David Shearer on June 29th, 2011Met with Stuart Middleton at the Manukau Institute of Technology today, the driver behind NZ’s first tertiary high school where students are simultaneously enrolled at school and MIT. The idea is that they transition from school, where most are about to leave anyway, and pick up a course at MIT. It’s a model that deserves copying.
Mainly because students can see some outcome of their learning – and therefore get really passionate about it – the Tertiary High boasts impressive success. Their latest results for NCEA Level 1 for Maori and Pasifika are below, and remember this is from a group that otherwise were on the path to dropping out of school.
Maori
Nationally – 60.8% at MIT – 80%
Pasifika
Nationally – 54% at MIT – 71%
Pretty good results. We have a 20% drop out rate in NZ - 20% of 16 year olds are no longer at school. The big factor, according to Stuart, seems to be that once kids drop out it’s really difficult to pick them up again. Instead if they move to some other learning, it doesn’t matter which so much, but one that gives a qualification, the chances are incredibly high that they go on to another qualification.
Not rocket science, perhaps, but a scheme that’s based on principles worth instituting into policy.
Weltec orientation subdued but ok
Posted by Trevor Mallard on March 2nd, 2011
The traditional MPs shout – sausages – at Weltec orientation was quieter at times and stopped altogether for the two minutes silence yesterday.
Most MPs attend orientations at tertiary institutions in their region – for me it is Vic and Weltec.
Rino Tirikatene and Mea’ole Keil worked the bbq with me and a good Labour team helped us out.
I find it a really good way to quickly and informally catch up with hundreds of students and staff most of whom are constituents, and also to make contact with some younger people who offer to be active in poltics.
The amount some students can eat never ceases to amaze me. After one guy who looked fairly fit came up for his second set of four we did limit them to two at a time.
And just for the record – sausages outside campaign time are not treating under the Electoral Act.
Loosen up Anne Tolley
Posted by Kelvin Davis on February 15th, 2011It’s daft it when bureaucratic bullshit gets in the way of helping people.
I’ve had the Special Education spokesperson role for just on two weeks now and I arranged an informal visit with a loose collection of parents in Kaitaia who have children with special needs.
A senior MoE person has instructed his staff not to attend any gatherings if I’m going to be there.
How dumb is that?
How am I supposed to find out what has to be done for this vulnerable sector of society if I’m blocked from talking to a group of people who work with them on the ground?
Is Anne Tolley so paranoid she thinks the government will crumble if I have a conversation with a speech language therapist in Kaitaia?
These people up north are so de-centralised I can guarantee no “state secrets” will be revealed. It’s not like I’m trying to meet with some policy writer in Wellington.
Supporting these children to achieve beyond their potential alongside their families is more important than petty politics.
Anne Tolley needs to loosen up.
Signing Fees Pledges
Posted by Grant Robertson on December 10th, 2010A very tough day in the UK today, with the Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition passing(just) its proposal to triple university tuition fees and cut allowances for some students. There is a huge wave of protest in the UK that has got pretty ugly, with Prince Charles car attacked, the NUS condemning the violence and stories flying about police tactics.
Leaving aside the substance of the issue, which represents fees of up to 9,000 pounds, for many casual observers in New Zealand it might be hard to understand why this debate and vote is so significant in the UK, and why the focus is so much on the Liberal Democrats. Martin Kettle in the Guardian has a good description of this, and believes that this is the beginning of the end for the coalition.
From a Liberal Democrat perspective many backbenchers voted against their leadership today because it was clear party policy not to raise fees, but also because many, including their leader Nick Clegg signed pledges not to raise fees. Those Lib Dem MPs in electorates with large university populations are worried.
Signing a pledge such as this is not new. There are many of us here who remember Lockwood Smith’s 1990 promise not to raise fees. To remind, here is the evidence. (h/t Moana Mackey)
London Calling #6 A Thousand Cuts
Posted by Grant Robertson on November 24th, 2010{Please note this post was written London time last night and scheduled to appear several hours later well before we knew of the second blast at Pike River. It does not seem appropriate now, but as it is up I will leave it. See next post for thoughts on Pike River. Grant} (more…)
