Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 94909	2008-11-17 04:15:00	First broken promise by the Tories	John H (8)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
720814	2008-11-17 21:11:00	Let's get real here. Any government, whatever colour their flag, will compromise on pre-election promises - this is a direct result of MMP and the power-sharing that gets done to facilitate the process of governing. I saw a horrible suggestion in the Letters to the Editor in the Herald this morning to REDUCE the party vote minimum percentage from 5% to 1%!! If you think the compromises are bad now, reduce it to 1% and watch NZ get a government like Italy's - if governments last a year there, they're damn lucky! Which mean huge re-expenditure on the voting mechnanism - and even worse: electioneering, all the time!!! :waughh: :waughh: :waughh:	johcar (6283)
720815	2008-11-17 21:22:00	John H, right, I am with you now....... .... Surely it is up to the school parents to ensure the ToB is up to scratch. Maybe school ToB's need better regulation and SLA'a. I dont see how the government can fund salaries any difference without more Bureaucracy is which half the problem the country faces at the moment. ... Have you been on a BOT, Sol? I lasted six years, but was horrified at the politically correct crap and red tape that was in place that tied our hands at every step. You had to play the MoE game to get anywhere. The problem with (and the beauty of) BOTs is that they are made up of parents - parents who are well-meaning (and very stingily reimbursed for their time, BTW) with a wide range of skills (if you're lucky - we were). The regulations that are in place for Boards cater to the lowest common denominator - so when you get a good Board together, who can make sensible decisions, they are ham-strung. For example, we had people with great construction and project management skills, but had to pay for a Ministry-approved PM (at a cost of $10K, deducted from our building budget) rather than do it ourselves and maybe get someone in at various points to ensure it was being done to a 'standard'. (The Ministry-approved PM was a plonker, BTW!!)	johcar (6283)
720816	2008-11-17 22:16:00	(snip)I do think ToB's should be responsible for salaries as they are in the best position to allocate and decide proportionate requirements for the school. Surely it is up to the school parents to ensure the ToB is up to scratch. Maybe school ToB's need better regulation and SLA'a. I think we might have to agree to disagree on that point Sol. I just don't think that Boards or Principals have either the skills to do that, or to resist the inevitable struggle downwards in terms of trying to make a silk purse out of the sow's ear of the bulk fund. I think they are on a hiding to nothing on this one. I dont see how the government can fund salaries any difference without more Bureaucracy is which half the problem the country faces at the moment. Well, the government already has the bureaucracy to manage the salaries issue - I think it is outsourced to a private provider or providers. If you look at the first point you are making (maybe a need for better regulation and SLA's), you are suggesting more bureaucracy than exists already, aren't you? My feeling is that it is probable that bulk funding will lead to more bureaucracy to hold schools accountable for spending of public money rather than less. Look at health - one of the craziest things Labour did was to reintroduce elected district health boards, on the theoretical basis that this will lead to local democracy in health. They replaced what had become a very effective and efficient Central/RHA system. In other words, they replaced one form of bureaucracy with another, with a consequent increase in the number of civil servants, all in the name of a local democracy that actually doesn't exist. It is the single most stupid thing Labour ever did (IMHO) and I think bulk funding will similarly increase bureaucracy rather than reduce it. (snip) I do know how bad some BoT's can be when in a small community, however that is down to community responsibility no? Personally I think we need to focus on what system will deliver the best educational outcomes for our children, rather than focus on esoteric political ideals. If some kids (e.g. in small communities) are ill served by the current system, then change it - don't add another layer that will over-stretch a system that is already creaky. We shouldn't abandon kids in small communities because of an idea of some minority party that doesn't have a mandate. National didn't get a bulk funding mandate either. As to more pay up North, I think that is to do with cost of living differences between the 2 islands, but that is a guess. I understand that your guess is right - that is how they "justify" it. However, it doesn't bear examination. House prices may be lower in some centres, true, but the cost of petrol, food, rates, power, telecoms etc are really no different or are actually higher. As an example, quite a lot of low income people got the idea it would be cheaper to live in rural communities, but soon met the reality that without access to big supermarkets, lack of public transport, and higher petrol costs, their incomes didn't go as far. Even in places like Springfield and Sheffield in Malvern this turned out to be the case. From a mental health service provider's point of view, think of providing a service on the Coast - that region is enormous with a widely scattered population. Travel costs etc to service that region are huge. I think the idea that it is cheaper to provide a service on the mainland is specious - the sort of thing that only a bureaucrat in Wellington could dream up.	John H (8)
720817	2008-11-17 22:17:00	John H, right, I am with you now....... While I understand the cheap teacher bit and balance requirements, I do think ToB's should be responsible for salaries as they are in the best position to allocate and decide proportionate requirements for the school. Surely it is up to the school parents to ensure the ToB is up to scratch. Maybe school ToB's need better regulation and SLA'a. I dont see how the government can fund salaries any difference without more Bureaucracy is which half the problem the country faces at the moment. Perhaps they need to measure school head count and match with per rata experience and qual for teachers then add weighting for location, I dont know. I do know how bad some BoT's can be when in a small community, however that is down to community responsibility no? As to more pay up North, I think that is to do with cost of living differences between the 2 islands, but that is a guess. I have no knowledge of ACT mandates, however I do agree with some of RR extreme views re: crime and there was a couple more.....I dont think RR will get many of them passed however...	SolMiester (139)
720818	2008-11-18 00:36:00	Secondly, why am I against bulk funding? You have to remember that management and governance across the secondary education sector is mostly amateur. No doubt some principals and their BoTs have a degree of skill. Many do not. With bulk funding, the government adds another layer of complex management to their already difficult tasks. How many schools have the governance and management expertise to manage this new task? Most principals are trained teachers, not trained managers, and BoTs are an accident of fate at the ballot box - you have no guarantee of the skill mix after an election. Good stuff John. Generally I'm an ACT supporter and probably right-wing in your view. Personally I think I'm liberal and middle of the road. :D However I do agree with you about bulk funding. Originally I thought Tomorrows Schools was a great concept but now having been involved with Boards of Trustees and battles with the Ministry of Education, it is a hugely flawed model. BOTs and principals have enough to do without going into employment battles with their teachers. Nothing can sour a school staff more quickly. When a school gets bulk funded salaries, it has to decide how to apportion those funds across its teaching workforce. There is no incentive for a school to employ skilled, experienced teachers who command the top salaries. There IS an incentive to employ cheap, relatively unskilled teachers because they are less of a drain on the salary bucket. In that group there will no doubt be new graduates who need the experience to become skilled - that is fine. However, a school needs a balance, yet bulk funding provides an incentive to replace the best teachers with the cheapest in the market, and the balance will be lost over a few years as the highest paid teachers move, get promoted, or retire. I disagree here. My experience on the sidelines is that the BOT aim for the very best teachers, never mind the cost. The BOT are parents after all and they want little Susie and Johnny to have the best. My children's primary school fund-raised to pay for an extra teacher, that is how much they valued teachers.	Winston001 (3612)
720819	2008-11-18 00:57:00	Have you been on a BOT, Sol? I lasted six years, but was horrified at the politically correct crap and red tape that was in place that tied our hands at every step. You had to play the MoE game to get anywhere. The problem with (and the beauty of) BOTs is that they are made up of parents - parents who are well-meaning (and very stingily reimbursed for their time, BTW) with a wide range of skills (if you're lucky - we were). The regulations that are in place for Boards cater to the lowest common denominator - so when you get a good Board together, who can make sensible decisions, they are ham-strung. For example, we had people with great construction and project management skills, but had to pay for a Ministry-approved PM (at a cost of $10K, deducted from our building budget) rather than do it ourselves and maybe get someone in at various points to ensure it was being done to a 'standard'. (The Ministry-approved PM was a plonker, BTW!!) Sounds like Labour red tape to me.....jobs for the cussies....10K for PM...LOL..	SolMiester (139)
720820	2008-11-18 01:05:00	<snip> I disagree here. My experience on the sidelines is that the BOT aim for the very best teachers, never mind the cost. The BOT are parents after all and they want little Susie and Johnny to have the best. My children's primary school fund-raised to pay for an extra teacher, that is how much they valued teachers. x1 absolutely, Winston! exactly my experience! [/b] Sounds like Labour red tape to me.....jobs for the cussies....10K for PM...LOL.. Labour/National whatever!! The fact is (having seen it from a Trustee's point of view), the education system gets loaded down with more and more MoE-mandated requirements, but rarely if ever, is anything taken away. Teachers are expected to do more and more, between the hours of 8.30am and 5pm, with (generally) no additional resources - no extra time/money/people. It's little wonder there is a shortage of good teachers...	johcar (6283)
720821	2008-11-18 02:43:00	Good teachers have no need to worry . Do we need teachers in the education system that are not competent at their jobs and not dedicated to doing their best to bring knowledge and skills to the children of New Zealand. In most occupations promotion and raises are performance driven, and not based on time served irrespective of the quality of the performance. PS I have been a teacher	KenESmith (6287)
720822	2008-11-18 02:50:00	Good stuff John . Generally I'm an ACT supporter and probably right-wing in your view . Personally I think I'm liberal and middle of the road . :D Well, a lot of these things are pretty fluid now . Time was when you knew where anyone stood on the spectrum depending upon which way they stood on one issue - since market economics entered the fray (and MMP?) things are far less predictable! However I do agree with you about bulk funding . Originally I thought Tomorrows Schools was a great concept but now having been involved with Boards of Trustees and battles with the Ministry of Education, it is a hugely flawed model . BOTs and principals have enough to do without going into employment battles with their teachers . Nothing can sour a school staff more quickly . The latter is another good argument against bulk funding . Once you bring those sorts of issues within the decision making purview of the school itself, it sets off a lot of dynamics that don't currently exist - I understand the PPTA was very concerned about that when Labour was threatening bulk funding under Douglas . I disagree here . My experience on the sidelines is that the BOT aim for the very best teachers, never mind the cost . The BOT are parents after all and they want little Susie and Johnny to have the best . My children's primary school fund-raised to pay for an extra teacher, that is how much they valued teachers . You have the advantage over me here W . I have never been on a BoT (thank goodness) . However, you may have had your experience with a good BoT with a conscience, and one that was prepared to stand up for high educational ideals . I wonder if they are all like that?	John H (8)
720823	2008-11-18 02:52:00	(snip) It's little wonder there is a shortage of good teachers... And the teacher population is evidently an ageing one as well - what is going to happen as the bulk of the current workforce retire or drop off the twig? But that is another topic entirely.	John H (8)
1 2 3 4 5