PARLIAMENT | PARTY | GRASSROOTS

Red Alert

Archive for the ‘students’ Category

Anne Tolley doesn’t care about sex criminals looking after children

Posted by Trevor Mallard on November 19th, 2010

The Education Amendment Bill currently before the house removes the obligation to get a Police check for people who look after babies and young children unsupervised at gyms and mall childcare services.

Labour may have over-regulated but this goes too far.

Tolley promised she wouldn’t do this but has broken her word. She said in the house parents should ask childcare staff if they are pedophiles. And the woman is a Minister.

But you can bet when the first offence occurs she won’t be there to support the child and the parents.

Filed under: children, education, justice, students
52 Comments

London Calling #2: Society Gone Missing

Posted by Grant Robertson on November 15th, 2010

Is 36 hours in a country too soon to make judgements? Well, what are blogs for if not to fire off first impressions. And those impressions are that the coalition government here is on some dodgy ground.  The massive student protest against fee rises has shaken up the establishment. While there is no doubt some protestors went too far, there is a feeling that this is the beginning of something much bigger.

As ever Will Hutton has some wise words to say on the subject.  I don’t agree with everything in here.  I would not say I am in favour of tuition fees.  I reluctantly understand they are part of our tertiary funding system, especially as Hutton points out as part of the massification of tertiary education. For me though I still think we need a vision for tertiary education that emphasises the public good of tertiary education, within the resources we have available.

Hutton also makes the point that the pace and scale of the fee increases are wrong and that the additional money will not be part of improved quality, but quite the opposite. The parallels with the approach of National in New Zealand in the 1990s are striking.

But what struck me about Hutton’s piece was his concern about where social policy is going in the UK. He says

You cannot treat society as an accounting ledger and displace risk and debt on to ordinary people without offering a really good account of why – and with no sense of there being a social bargain. Otherwise, it is just one-way traffic, the state taking away and leaving ordinary people on their own.

and later

The message is explicit: you British are on your own. Buy a house, fend for yourself and now pay your tuition fees. Society is going missing.

That is very much the feeling I get (admittedly from only 24 hours here). We of course went through much of this in the 1980s and 1990s, and got a significant amount back in terms of society under the fifth Labour government. The current government, with the lesson of the 90s under its belt is moving more slowly, but inexorably in the same direction.

Society as Hutton is using it here is about a notion of our common good. That ordinary people, as he terms it, in return for their participation in democracy, paying their taxes and obeying the rule of law, get the life chances that come from social provision. That is a progressive vision. It is one that is under attack here.

Those I have talked to in the political world agree with Hutton’s conclusion that the student protest was only the beginning. If people perceive the social contract to have broken down, the consequences could be dire for the government.

Tags: , , , ,
Filed under: democracy, education, social democracy, social development, students
26 Comments

The Student Loan Scheme

Posted by Grant Robertson on November 1st, 2010

The Annual Report of the Student Loan Scheme is out, and it gives some pause for thought. Almost $14 billion has been borrowed since the scheme began in 1992, with about $6.4 billion being paid back.

I was one of those original borrowers. There were some quirks to the scheme back then that have been ironed out. You could borrow the money for your fees and choose if it went to your bank account or directly to your institution. I had two friends who developed a rapid interest and then equally rapid loss of interest in dentistry one year. That is now not possible. You were paid in large installments (quarterly?), but could call a phone number and get money earlier if you needed it. I recall a shouted conversation into the pay phone in the bottle store of the Captain Cook one night. Now the living costs are paid in fortnighly installments.

I strongly opposed the scheme on its introduction. It was symptomatic of a government pulling money out of the tertiary sector and make education less accessible. Fees were going up, allowances were disappearing. The interest, both while studying and afterwards was a horrific barrier to repayment and indeed for some to borrowing in the first place. Labour in office got rid of the interest, capped fees and widened eligibility for allowances, and the scheme became more acceptable. Yet still it shackles young graduates with a large debt as they start their working life. I can say from my electorate work, it is still having an impact on some people borrowing for first homes.

But what can we replace it with that does not create further inequities and is affordable alongside the rest of the government’s priorities? The longer the scheme goes on, the more difficult it is get rid off. Labour went into the 2008 election with a policy that would have given all students an allowance, phased in over a four year period. This would significantly reduce the debt burden on students, but it is expensive (the annual cost then was estimated at around $210 million annually) especially in tighter financial times.

Other options that are live internationally include graduate taxes that eliminates the upfront cost barriers and have a time limit on them. There are also systems with more scholarships, bonding and employer contributions. Of course the ultimate answer its to invest more into tertiary education to help create the skilled workforce and inclusive society we want and need. But it has to be balanced against, health, housing, super and all the other things governments must do.

We are working on our tertiary policy now. Labour’s policy remains to make tertiary education progressively more affordable and accessible. We also want a quality system, which means resourcing tertiary institutions well, and understanding the changing way that people are accessing education. In the fifth Labour government we put a lot of attention on student support, in the future we also need to ensure that overall quality is enhanced, and not just universities either, but vocational and industry training too.

Whatever, we do need to see tertiary education as an investment in our collective future well being, and an integral part of developing a productive economy.

Tags: ,
Filed under: education, students
35 Comments

ACT tail wags National dog

Posted by Grant Robertson on September 24th, 2010

Heather Roy’s voluntary student association membership bill has been reported back from the Education and Science Select Committee.  It recommends, with a few minor changes, that the bill proceed.  This is bad. 

In the Select Committee we heard from individual students whose ability to stay at university or polytechnic was the result of advocacy and representation from student associations.  Like the guy in Hamilton whose flat burned down and was about to be left with nothing because his insurance company gave him the run around, until the student association stepped in.

We also heard from tertiary institutions who do not support the Bill.  They appreciate the representation role played by student associations, and they know that they can not provide services in a cost effective way that associations with large amounts of voluntary labour can.

We heard from Australia how their version of voluntary membership destroyed the vast majority of the services and programmes that student associations ran.

The bizarre thing about this Bill is it actually takes away a choice for students.  The current law, which National put in place, allows students to decide by referenda if they will have a voluntary or universal association.  That is gone.

One curious thing, is Heather Roy’s media statement on this Bill focuses on calling for National to support her bill. She says

“I call on the National Party – indeed, all Parties of this House – to support my Bill and the right to freedom of association for students throughout New Zealand,” Mrs Roy said.

Why ever would she be worried about National’s support? Didn’t they just vote it through the Select Committee? How curious.

Filed under: Tertiary education, Uncategorized, education, students
58 Comments

Rodney Hide too distracted to be a Minister

Posted by Grant Robertson on September 24th, 2010

As previously noted the last time I asked Rodney Hide where the review of special education was I got a very short shrift.  The review was all but done when Heather Roy was unceremoniously dumped.  Parents, schools and families are anxiously awaiting the outcome.  They appreciated the work Heather Roy had done, but are worried the review seems to have disappeared. It is now a month since Rodney Hide became the Minister responsible for special education and we have not heard a peep from him on the subject.

I am strongly of the view Rodney Hide is not appropriate to be a Minister, and John Key’s continued defence of him is disturbing.  In addition he is clearly far too distracted to actually follow through on the important tasks of being a Minister.  For the good of all those involved in Special Education John Key needs to do the right thing and relieve Rodney Hide of his portfolios.

Tags: , , ,
Filed under: act party, education, students
16 Comments

Time for “shouty Steven” to get his act together

Posted by Grant Robertson on August 21st, 2010

I had just become Labour’s Tertiary Education Spokesperson when the Budget estimates for Vote Tertiary Education were before the select committee in June. This is the one occasion when committees get to question Ministers. I have a healthy respect for Steven Joyce’s political nous, but I was keen to find out what lay behind that in terms of policy. What I quickly discovered was that when it came to tertiary education his was the accountant’s view- he knew the cost of everything, and the value of nothing.

Our exchange in the select committee was marked by two things. The first was his clear response to the emerging pressure on tertiary enrolments. He said it was a temporary problem and proudly boasted of the limits to eligibility to student loans that would “dampen demand”. That phrase has stuck with me as being one of the most disturbing things I have heard from a government Minister. In a time of high unemployment for the foreseeable future and a desperate need to find new ways to grow the economy, the key strategy of the Tertiary Education Minister was to work on ways of keeping people out of tertiary education. It just seemed wrong.

The second thing I saw was Steven Joyce get angry. I had never seen that. He had spent a year and a half smiling his way through his introduction to being a Minister. But he got angry with me when I started pushing him on the need to lift the cap on enrolments. We have seen quite a bit of “shouty Steven” as opposed to “smiley Steven” lately in Parliament. He is handling a heavy workload, and with problems in terms of the flip flop on the drink-driving limit, the enrolment limits at universities and the roll out of broadband it is no wonder he is less cherry than he has been.

But in the end Mr Joyce’s mood is irrelevant to the fact that we have people in New Zealand who want to be in tertiary education, who will not be this year and more next year. We are not going to catch up with Australia or anyone else for that matter if we do not harness the potential of all New Zealanders. To me the answer here is for a more active role for the Minister to ensure that potential students are catered for. It might be that not every single person who wants to go to a University should automatically go there. It might be that some time in a Polytechnic or Wananga would be a better place, or that a PTE might provide a good bridging course. Whatever, it requires an active Minister to lead the process.

To satisfy yourself that your job is done as a Minister if the bill for student loans is cut a little is not good enough. Mr Joyce should can and should be playing an active role in connecting students to study and people to opportunities. It is vital to our whole country.

Filed under: education, students
21 Comments

Oh well, who needs tertiary education anyway?

Posted by Maryan Street on May 23rd, 2010

The news for tertiary education and students was all bad in the budget. I will do a specific post on the impact on students later, but I just wanted to address some of the headline effects of the budget on tertiary ed to start with.

There is about $99 million LESS going into the sector this year than last year. Say what?  How is the economy going to get a “step change”, let alone the quantum leap we actually need, without investing in knowledge and skills?

The government will make much of the 1735 extra students they are funding in universities and the 3173 they are funding in polytechs. But these are not new students – they are simply funding the students already there whom the institutions are currently carrying as unfunded students. Steven Joyce says there will be 765 new students at universities. Divide that across 8 universities and you get fewer than 100 new students per university.  Take the 455 new polytech students and divide them across the 20 polys – and you get 23 new students per polytech.

This simply won’t cut it. The government wants a step change to occur through science – who grows scientists? Universities and some polytechs, that’s who.

And don’t get me started on the cuts of $3.4 million to Adult and Community Education delivered through high schools. They only had about $3.3 million left last year………

Filed under: Tertiary education, economy, education, science, students
32 Comments

Newer Entries »