How a $359m budget for a war with education unions can be sold as beneficial

16
0

1527014_1410439352535515_82637701_n

We have $359m for a right wing education experiment creating a new class of bureaucrats, but we don’t have $100m to feed every hungry child at those schools? If National wanted to improve educational achievement, they would shut down Charter schools and rather than bribe teachers into betraying their public education values, would spend that money on the real cause of educational under achievement – POVERTY!

The sticky glaze of praise the mainstream media have given Key’s education experiment will only be matched by their hatred of anything Cunliffe says on Monday.

When Key can announce a tax payer funded $359m war with the Unions to force competition models into a public education system and receive a standing ovation from the mainstream media, you understand how necessary a change of Government in 2014 really is.

16 COMMENTS

  1. Metiria Turei made one of the best statements around this latest move by the government on education. Poverty is the single most important driving factor for kids failing at schools. Change that and we will have much better rates of success in poor areas. I do wonder who these exceptional principals and teachers are going to be and how they are going to be chosen. Teachers of well to do large schools? I suspect you put a dog in charge and these kids would still be successful, and then of course some of them rig the stats by not allowing some kids to do NCEA and all of that.

    • In NZ, poverty (if it exists at all) is an issue of individual responsibility. With our welfare system and WFF, there is absolutely no excuse for ANY child to be living in ‘poverty’ in NZ. So no, poverty is not the reason for poor educational outcomes, bad parenting is.

      “Copenhagen Declaration: Absolute poverty is a condition characterized by severe deprivation of basic human needs, including food, safe drinking water, sanitation facilities, health, shelter, education and information.”

      Are you seriously suggesting anyone in NZ falls under this definition?

  2. Yes agreed totally.
    Feed the kids, on moral grounds, let alone the obvious financial savings of spending $350M for an extra layer of political administrators in schools.

    But sadly we’ve got used to the MM not asking such thought out questions, they just want to print the statement that comes out of the (foreigners before Kiwis) National parties propaganda department.

      • @ Intrinsicvalue: “Why should my taxes be used to feed other peoples kids because of their poor lifestyle choices?”

        As I said earlier, neoliberalism profoundly influences statements of this sort, whether you are aware of it or not.

  3. This is not so much a “war” against the teachers union, it is a cunning strategy by Key and Nats to divide the teachers amongst themselves, and it is this “divide and rule” approach that keeps them in power. They are doing it with workers, with the public in general, and with talking about “the extreme left”, when referring to the Labour and Greens in opposition (alongside Mana).

    Indeed it is a very dangerous development, and it is very worrying that some teacher union leaders (e.g. A Roberts) “welcome” such changes. Rewarding certain principals and “well performing” teachers with sound experience, by giving them new titles and positions, and generous salary top ups, that is an attempt to buy the ones that National wants to win over, and to put division between them and the rest of the teaching profession.

    The union leaders should see this and not allow this to happen. United we stand and divided we fall, and that also applied to the unions and their members after the introduction of that hideous Employment Contracts Act in 1991.

    While it is ok to offer some rewards for leadership positions, the size of it is also a concern, as it will do anything but close the gap between the high earners and the low wage and salary earners. One must bear in mind, the Nats have only insulted workers, by offering them a tiny “increase” for the minimum wage every year. They have brought in legislation to take away more rights from workers, and sadly many workers seem to be asleep at the wheel.

    This divide and rule stuff is exactly what the Nats and “the right” love, and they know it works for them, as there will always be opportunists who will take the carrot and leave the rest of their fellows behind. We see this daily at work places all over the country.

    It is time for Labour to take a firm stand against these suggestions, but what Cunliffe had to say is not that promising. The last thing we need is another election where bribing carrots are given away to the voters, by especially the larger two parties, wanting to please the middle class.

    With this policy plan Key will actually please a fair few middle class voters with kids, as they are concerned that their kids get the best possible education. Many that can afford it already send their schools to private schools, and I cannot see that this policy will benefit students in general. It will serve the ones who can achieve under existing circumstances, and the ones that are left behind, many going to school on empty stomachs, and with poor self confidence, they will not learn better by simply having role model teachers and principals getting extra pay and more mentoring responsibilities.

    The MSM staff are largely middle class to upper middle class persons themselves, mostly white, with private school education, who could afford to study at university or other institutions, to get a degree or diploma in journalism. They will not live in Otara, the centre of Manurewa, in Petone and so forth, they will be from “better” backgrounds and hence love such stuff that Key presented. And they did not even examine the rest of his speech, which was full of lies, half-truths and manipulative comments.

    They will not warm to the idea of paying more taxes under Labour, so yes, Cunliffe will not get much credit from them.

    • “The MSM staff are largely middle class to upper middle class persons themselves, mostly white, with private school education, who could afford to study at university or other institutions, to get a degree or diploma in journalism. They will not live in Otara, the centre of Manurewa, in Petone and so forth, they will be from “better” backgrounds and hence love such stuff that Key presented. And they did not even examine the rest of his speech, which was full of lies, half-truths and manipulative comments.”

      This is the real reason why our media sucks, I know because I work in it.
      (I’m a technician.)
      Most reporters have no idea what it’s like to struggle as the vast majority are from “good backgrounds”. That’s why these poverty issues are presented in the current manor, the reporter usually thinks it’s their own fault. I hear the conversations in the vehicle when traveling back to base and cringe, No wonder I’m sometimes ashamed to tell people I work in the media.
      Want a good read on the evils of television?
      Remotely Controlled by Aric Sigman
      It’s why I no longer watch it, ironic aye!

    • @Marc
      In my opinion you have hit the nail on the head with this excellent analysis of gNat tactics to divide and conquer, something I have seen time and time again within the PSA union.
      Last year the government negotiators also refused to lower the pay out to non-union members, thereby raising the simplistic question of why anyone should bother paying union dues when they appear to gain the same benefits as union members.

    • @Marc
      In my opinion you have hit the nail on the head with this excellent analysis of the divide and conquer tactics beloved by the gNats when negotiating contracts with unions.
      Another well worn ploy is to give the same benefits to non-unions members so employees question why they should pay union dues when they are receiving the same benefits as fee paying union members.(These people obviously have no sense of history and are unaware that people have been killed for their simple right to form a union.)
      A case in point was last year’s PSA contract negotiations were the government officials refused point blank to offer a larger differentiation between benefits paid to union and non-union MSD employees.

    • @ Marc
      I think you have hit the nail on the head with you excellent analysis of the gNats divide and conquer tactics used on our unions.
      Another favourite ploy is to offer the same benefits to both non-union and union members so people question why paying union dues while everyone receives the same benefits (obviously these people have no sense of history or realise the enormous sacrifices-including death- made by union founders so we all have the right to join a union).
      A case in point in last year’s negotiations with PSA, the government officials refused point blank to a small change in differentiation between benefits paid to non-union and MSD PSA members.

    • @ Marc: the government and the teacher unions love this policy for different reasons.

      The teacher unions see this as an extension to their career structure, something they’ve been wanting for many years. Therefore they’re prepared to overlook the Trojan horse element of performance pay. If they’ve read the research, they’ll know that this can’t by itself lift performance in “failing” schools.

      On the other hand, the government believes – or, more accurately, wants us to believe – that this policy will fix up underperforming schools, while at the same time sneakily inserting performance pay into schools.

      In the last day or two, I heard Parata declare that quality teaching is the most important factor in improving academic achievement. But they must know that the research unequivocally shows this not to be the case: they’ve funded some of it!

      Ah….. the neoliberal worldview: truly bizarre, is it not?

  4. I see nothing in this announcement that is going to advance learning in those children that need it other than create another layer of bureaucrats, who is going to appoint these teachers?, what is going to be the criterea used for the extra salary, I would be concerned if it was National Standards as the benchmark used. What about placing resources into reading programmes such as reading recovery so more children can take advantage of the programme, special education services, literacy and numeracy programmes that can identify those in need and give them the one-to-one help they need> What about reading and maths materials in schools – why are PTAs having to use school fairs to pay for essential school materials? Nothing in Keys announcement seems to address these issues?

Comments are closed.