This report today of a Government initiative to spend $2.6 million funding Aspire scholarships for children of low income families to attend private schools typifies the priorities of this Government and clearly shows their view that the private sector is better than the public sector. The former principal of Glendowie College, Lindsay Adams, correctly asks why the Government should pay students to leave the public education system.
This is of course the same Government who increased funding for private schools in the 2009 budget and slashed funding for Adult and Community Education provided through our secondary schools. It is all about priorities and in my mind ensuring that all New Zealanders have the opportunity to access quality education through the public education system is the priority.
Associate Minister of Education Heather Roy predictably says it is about choice and then goes on to say she doesn’t “ … believe that necessarily the best school for a student is the one just down the road from them.” I believe we should focus on ensuring that generally the best school is the one just down the road. The underlying assumption of this ACT promoted Government initiative is that a private school is going to be better for students than a public school (just down the road or not). Funding private education at the cost of public education will undermine the quality of our education system and this is not in the best interests of the 97% of New Zealanders who are educated in the public system.
As New Zealanders I believe we have long prided ourselves on the quality of our education system. There are undoubtedly improvements we need to make to ensure all students achieve to their full potential but this sort of initiative, like the forcing through of national standards against the evidence, is not the answer.
Could this be called a trial school voucher scheme..?
Funding private education at the cost of public education will undermine the quality of our education system
What’s the difference between paying for kids to get educated publically and paying for them to get educated privately? Is there say a cost differential?
This is ridiculous! This a huge lack of prioritising! Silly Tolley, Roy and Sharples!!!!
On the note of Heather Roy though, have a look at this: http://www.thestandard.org.nz/how-acts-failed-coup-went-down/#comment-182007
Its awesome!
I’m commenting today almost as much as you Spud!
Kind of going against the grain a bit for me here, but I agree there should be strong investment in a high quality public education system, that private schools should actually be private (ie. no state assistance) but I do think that there is a place for some kind of state supported sponsorship for kids who can achieve well in a public school environment to be offered the opportunities a private school can offer.
I do believe there can be a comfortable plurality in the education system, but taxes don’t need to support a fundamentally private enterprise. However, where schools are willing to work with government, giving a kid from Pomare a chance to be exposed to an environment like Christ’s is surely to be supported too?
I don’t believe the education will be better in a private school, but the opportunities might be and that’s the thing that pulls me on the fence a bit on this one.
“I’m commenting today almost as much as you Spud!”
We shouldn’t focus on trying to send kids to private schools we should focus on making public schools as good as if not better than private schools. I personally don’t belive that private schools offer anything *that* great. I rekon it’s more of a status symbol for the rich… By paying to send kids to private schools we are showing that we have given up on improving the public sector. Put the $2 milliion into the public education system to improve it’s results. If a private institution thinks it can do a better job than the public sector then let them go for it. But I shouldn’t have to pay for their efforts as well as the efforts of the govt….
But I shouldn’t have to pay for their efforts as well as the efforts of the govt….
If the kids went to a public school, would you, as a taxpayer, be paying any more?
Actually Stephen, theoretically, parents sending their kids to a private school could argue that their tax contribution goes towards services not utilised by them, but in the end, that is the case with most tax payers with some aspect of state funded service models.
Be that as it may, I agree with n0exit that there should be priority for investment in public education so that all New Zealanders have access to high quality education. But, I do think there is a place for support for kids to attend a private school for the exposure to an environment in which they can access facilities not seen as essential in a public school such as technology.
It does amaze me though that those who advocate for choice, individual responsibility and user pays, are conversely (perversely?) happy to invest public money into a fundamentally private service?!
Actually Stephen, theoretically, parents sending their kids to a private school could argue that their tax contribution goes towards services not utilised by them, but in the end,
Not theoretically at all i’d say!
It does amaze me though that those who advocate for choice, individual responsibility and user pays, are conversely (perversely?) happy to invest public money into a fundamentally private service?!
ACT have advocated taxpayer funded school vouchers for ages (years?). That way you get choice, a fair bit of individual responsibilty, though not user pays. Not sure they even want user pays with something like education though.
… but taxes don’t need to support a fundamentally private enterprise.
You are quite right Kaine T, this seems to be evidence that the private education sector in New Zealand is not economically well based. I wonder why this government is intervening to not allow a rationalization in this field rather than allowing down to a few efficient providers.
However, where schools are willing to work with government, giving a kid from Pomare a chance to be exposed to an environment like Christ’s is surely to be supported too?
I won’t contest that Christ’s College supplies an excellent environment for students. The resources built up over decades of existence and the benefit of having two revenue streams have made an excellent facility. I spent some weeks working with the staff there, it is a wonderful school with a dedicated staff and plentiful resources.
However, why should the government pay for a student to win a scholarship to go to a private school like Christ’s College? The scholarship would not bring in a random deserving student, but the very best and brightest deserving student. A student bound to achieve academically well, and whose academic achievements would end up as an advert for the private school.
My view is rather than forming and state funded advertising campaign for the private schooling system, the government’s role surely is to invest to enable the citizen’s of New Zealand as fair a general start as possible. This means more resources to the public system.
From elsewhere:
“This is wrong. For two reasons, at least. We have a swathe of state schools in desperate need of better funding. It is wrong, fundamentally and absolutely, to subsidise the private sector when this need is so great. Second, the implicit statement is that the government has no confidence in the state sector – it sees “opportunity” as better offered in the private sector. This is probably Ms Tolley’s view, and is morally wrong, as well as nonsense in terms of a productive successful economy. In this case, the personal choice of Mr Key for his children’s education is a legitimate political issue, for his choice is explicit evidence of his lack of faith in state education……”
Yeah Stephen… I guess I’m almost hinting at something similar to the voucher system and it goes WELL against the grain for me to say it really. However, there is some merit to be had in that and this is the only part about tax revenue being diverted into a private school that I would support.
Sean… I don’t know that I think exactly that… but for me, I would support where a student is perhaps doing well all round? I dunno… as I said to Stephen above, it’s well against the grain for me to suggest there is a possibility to consider, having said that, I could just as easily argue against myself because I absolutely agree with your last paragraph.
National’s out to destroy the community. Every decision that they’ve made since getting in office does that. ACC levies going up when they didn’t need to, Education funding being cut while private schools got more subsidies – everything that is supported by the community that is also good for the community but bad for private profit is being dismantled by under funding and false scare stories.
From ACT’s point of view, there’s two aims being served here.
Number one is to funnel taxpayer money into the pockets of private businesses (the schools). This is a no-brainer. Everything ACT has ever proposed has this subtext lurking somewhere, it’s the party’s chief raison d’etre.
Number two is to foster the illusion of social mobility – the myth that “being working/middle/upper class” is somehow a matter of choice. That’s the myth that makes countless people accept the class system. The fact that only a small minority *can* ever get such a choice is not mentioned.
Yes there is, it’s called profit. What can be done in a private school for $1m is what can be done in a public school for $990,000. Public schooling removes the dead weight loss of profit.
Shouldn’t any such scholarships go to kids that aren’t thriving in the public system, rather than to those that are?
And of course parents who send their kids to a private school aren’t utilising the public system, but that’s not an argument for anything.
Our taxes aren’t based on an itemised account of services used. My son isn’t at school yet, nor have we needed the hospital system for several years, but we don’t get a tax rebate because of that. Our taxes go towards providing things that are available if we choose to use them. If we choose not to, for whatever reason, that doesn’t mean the state is not obliged to let us use the public system should we need/want it.
Yes there is, it’s called profit. What can be done in a private school for $1m is what can be done in a public school for $990,000. Public schooling removes the dead weight loss of profit.
Good point. Would be nice indeed to be able to prove whether or not there is a dead weight factor in the private sector vs the public sector for the ‘average’ students, not incorporating (or is the phrase ‘controlling for’?) costs for special needs students, correspondence school etc.
Virtually no private schools are for ‘profit’. For example most were set up by the various churches, including the integrated schools.
The cost difference is about 50-60% being the cost of a state school. It may well be less.
AS for the students, as long as they are eligible based on income, the limited scholarships are done by ballot. So no ‘best and brightest’ a some have described it.
They have to enrol separately, so you still have to be eligible as far as the school goes. ie you win a scholarship and then find a school that will take you.
One of the sillier ideas around.
My view is that its a way of subsidising the well off private schools. The struggling ones getting separate assistance
I see that last year it cost $175 for a ticket to the Christ’s College school ball. Will the parents of the poor scholarship kid from Aranui be able to afford that – or the skiing trips or all the other expensive activities which go with private schooling?
There seems to be an underlying belief that children will be better off in a private school but this was not my experience as a scholarship student from a poor family. There were huge social disadvantages. I can remember begging my parents to let me leave my private school and go to a state school where I wouldn’t always be an outsider. I wouldn’t put any of my children through that experience. There are so many better ways this money could be spent.
I don’t think there is “an underlying belief that children will be better off in a private school”… you could argue that just because it’s private, we get all upset about it. There can be a half way here, where we don’t see billions going to private school but also where “random deserving kids” can go to a school like Christ’s, or Scott’s, Rathkeale or where ever with support from the state.
There ARE advantages in these things Elizabeth, but it’s what emphasis we place on them and why. Just as much as there is value in understanding not everyone can go on those trips, have those lap tops or wear those clothes. Having experienced these both kinds of education, I think there are merits in both and down falls in both… But I like the deconstruction model here.
I don’t intend to re explain myself in terms of how weird it feels to argue FOR this… but if we could find a way to make it happen, without it being an investment into these schools rather just paying for 3 years at one of these schools, then I’m all for it.
Again, the question is… is there more benefit from a kid from Pomare – whether purely on academics or in general or randomly I don’t know – in being given the chance to go to Christ’s – I think there is.
Ultimately though, I’m still going to choose that taxes are better spent investing in public schools, I just don’t think we have to demonise every aspect of private schools you know?
From what I’ve seen/read it seems as though private schools are more for the socialising rather than a better education. According to WINZ 70% of jobs go through word of mouth rather than through advertising. That being the case then we have to ask the question: Who’s going to get the top paying job? The person who socialised with the business owner through private schooling or the person who has a degree through public schooling but doesn’t know anybody?
I don’t have any real objections to private schooling per se but I do have objections to state money going to them.
The students selected for these scholarships will be the best and brightest from their schools. They will be high achievers (probably with sporting talent) who will do well anyway. Private schools will not select misbehaving low achievers. The private schools will have the poor brown face smiling on the cover of their next Prospectus to illustrate how they’ve made a difference in the poor kid’s life.
A government’s responsibility should be to create the conditions (educationally and socially) where all students achieve beyond their potential.
Research (e.g. the Best Evidence Synthesis) shows that Professional Learning for teachers has the greatest effect on lifting achievement. The $2.6m, invested instead in Professional Learning could help a lot of teachers improve the lives of many students, rather than just a couple of dozen lucky students benefiting.
This is another example of the government focusing on the wrong solutions.
If we are to enjoy an education system where all students achieve beyond their potential, and go on to be successful, and contribute positively to their communities and country, this ain’t gonna do it.
I don’t have any real objections to private schooling per se but I do have objections to state money going to them.
Maybe you’ve heard this before, but up to a certain level of government subsidy (say 50% of costs), couldn’t finding private schools save money, assuming a lot of private school kids would go to state schools for a ‘full subsidy’ if they couldn’t afford the private ones?
I concur with Kelvin. The money should be spent in areas that have been researched to have the greatest impact on outcomes. Private schools have offered scholarships to the ‘best and brightest + sporting talent’ to make their school look better and as private institutions this should be privately funded.
Private schools do have different aspects to offer and I found a lot of wealthy families had sent their not-so-bright offspring to try and make the most of what nature had endowed. I think the private school had much higher discipline standards – something many public schools seem to have difficulty with. I guess the parents put a little more effort into making sure ‘James’ was not expelled when they’re paying for the prestigious=expensive school.
I guess the private schools receiving state money could be required to take on a certain % scholarship students (approved as ‘disadvantaged’) to receive this funding. Same result without the extra Govt expenditure.
Of all the working class parents who send their children to private schools (except one for a boarding school as the child was running wild) they all stated they did not see the education as better (the class trips were), but that they would be able make friends from within the wealthy and influential families. ie they would get inside running for later career development via the social network. I have no opinion on this but am attracted to the real ‘alternative’ schools such as Montessori. So I endorse more state scholarships for parents to have the choice of schools.
However when everyone else is belt tightening (ACE) and state schools still threaten parents to pay fees and add on costs that are fundamental parts of the Ed system (camps, balls) I have to wonder about the priorities of the minister, and who is missing out so she can buy some votes?
So I endorse more state scholarships for parents to have the choice of schools.
Why stop at ‘more’ and not just say ‘give’em all vouchers!’?
Misdirection. The kids going to state schools aren’t subsidised.
Just paid for.
If the govt stopped paying any money to private schools, and a number of the kids then went to public schools instead, wouldn’t that cost the government more than if the kids just stayed private?
StephenR- No, because kids going to private school still pay taxes to fund public schools. Also even if funding for private schools is cut off it is unlikly that many kids would change to public schools. If you can afford private school you can afford it. Parents arn’t going to send kids to private school if the can *JUST* afford it…. Do you get what I mean??
Well well well – 2.6mill – How ironic – same amount of money it cost to rebuild Aorangi – but no, those ‘poorer’ kids were better off with the school being closed and them shipped off to higher decile schools. So now we know why Tolley wanted to close the school and reinvest the money somewhere else – private! Another kick in the gut from Tolley to the community – what next?
I think that the education system should be better in private and non-private schools.
e.g. some schools have absolute terrible facilities and others have very good facilities and this is making the education system wierd and comfusing.
i think all schools should have good facilities.
ok I just wanted to say, I saw some people saying that ‘taxes dont need to support a fundamentally private enterprise’
happens ALL THE TIME… its called a BAIL OUT… and billions of tax dollars went from governments into private enterprises in free markets around the world in the recent recession
so dont treat this tax funding private schools thing like its an isolated issue. Your taxes have very recently gone towards bailing out private enterprises.
Parents arn’t going to send kids to private school if the can *JUST* afford it…. Do you get what I mean??
There are a few newspaper articles showing just that in the last year or so.
so dont treat this tax funding private schools thing like its an isolated issue. Your taxes have very recently gone towards bailing out private enterprises.
Like?