Posts by Paul Williams
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
And the word going round the traps is Writers-in-schools will also be extinct. Let's face it Kerry - creative types arnt really *useful* for most market purposes until they turn into Peter Jackson, and we might encourage questioning of the status quo as well as the evil traits you've mentioned...
All these enrichment programs are victims to the back-to-basics drive of the last few years (in NZ and elsewhere). It's what I meant when, in response to Paul Litterick, I said "residualised" public sector. The schools of last resort.
I work in vocational education and training, I've no real problem with the obsessive focus on labour market outcomes for the vast majority of our students, but schools must provide far far more...
-
What sickens me is PB claiming regret at the backlash. PB and the rest of her kind know very well that women on the DPB are the witches of our age, easy targets for anyone with a gutful of bitterness.
Well put Kerry. Bennett meant this to happen, she meant to discredit, she must have known how the talkback blogbile would develop and this from a women who claims to be proud of her achievements as a one time beneficiary! Total and complete hypocrisy.
I can't help but think she's nothing more than a cypher; cast in the roll of a reimagined Shipley, she's totally embraced the character.
-
Thanks David. How'd you arrive at that page?
Bennett says:
As I have said numerous times, I certainly did look at those ministerial guidelines. I made a judgment call based on them, and I am quite willing to stand by that.
She will indeed. Or fall of course. Whereas yesterday she was saying she took advice, now it appears she herself made a determination based on her interpretation of the online guidelines.
She also claims the CE:
"...acknowledged that I had made that judgment call and that he backed me on that."
Hughes backed her decision to release the material, or her determination to make her own judgment call. I suspect the latter.
Over at redalert Trevor Mallard explains that the SWIFTT terminal was added so that parly staffers could work more effectively. Judging by Bennett's willingness to table the advice regarding this access, I'm guessing there's little by of guidelines as to it use.
-
I/S, where is the uncorrected answers to Oral Questions, I can't find it on the parliamentary website...
-
Even if supporting private schools represents a saving for the Government (which I still doubt) the schools must also be supported by parents through fees; of course only a small proportion of parents can afford those fees; so it is a subsidy for the rich.
Agreed, it's a cost shift. I wasn't disagreeing with this, I just wanted to be clear about the magnitude of the change.
-
Now did anyone listen to Question Time to hear what the Minister said about her access to the SWIFTT database?
-
I am lost. Somebody tell me the right answer.
I thought Graeme had done that on the basis of the data he's reviewed i.e. that the increase for private schools while substantial, doesn't mean per pupil funding for private schools is anything like it is for public.
He (and I) observed that the confusion arises because QPEC compared the increase in aggregate funding between public and private without noting the different base funding.
The answer then is: Nat's increase funding for private schools back to levels circa 1999.
-
Apples and pears. What is the funding per student? Of course state schools will get more than private, because there are many more students in public education.
Yes and students in public schools receive funding for more than operational expenses.
I don't know the answer to your question Paul, however I'd be astounded if all public funding per student in public schools isn't significantly larger than all public funding per student in private ones. This has been a large part of the argument from the Independent Schools for more funding; that it represents a savings compared with funding for public schools.
I agree per student is the right metric, I'm not certain though what to exclude to come up with a meaningful comparison.
Unless it's not already clear, I understand that the Nats will increase funding for private schools; they'll create a strong incentive to shift kids from public to private and pocket the savings. Evidence for this can be found in the dying days of Shipley's government. More evidence can be seen just three-hours west where Howard's Coalition government massively increased subsidies to the point where now half of all secondary students in NSW are in non-state schools (possibly conflating correlation and causation).
My starting position is that this approach ultimately residualises public education and stratifies society. It should be challenged, I just don't think QPEC's challenge is helpful.
-
Thank you, David, and thank you, Giovanni. The figures for that piece came from QPEC.
Paul, David, in the past, I've not found QPEC entirely reliable. Good that Graeme's clarified the matter.
-
The Minister has the right to see any information she wishes about her portfolio.
I don't think that's correct James (but stand to be corrected). Some information collected by her agency will not necessarily be information the Minister automatically has a right too. Other's will be more expert than me, but my recollection of the Privacy Act is that information is provided for a purpose and can be accessed for that purpose and not others. That being case, information not provided or needed for the performance of Ministerial duties, and the payment of a particular benefit is not likely to be a matter of Ministerial discretion, ought not be accessible by the Minister.