It’s a perennial problem for National MPs.
How can they get more government subsidies for private schools when the public sees the desperate need for better funding of public schools?
The latest attempt of the wealthy to raid the public purse was launched last week by Education Minister Hekia Parata whereby a “funding review” of schools includes proposals to increase the $41.5 million direct government subsidies already going to private schools.
Parata’s argument (the same as advanced by Labour’s Trevor Mallard to justify Labour keeping the high levels of government subsidies for private schools set by National in the 1990s) is that students attending private schools save the state money which would otherwise have to be spent if those kids chose to attend public schools.
It’s always been a silly argument. Mallard and Parata are trying to imply that the wealthy send their kids to elite private schools as some kind of public service and should be funded to do so.
The opposite, of course, is the truth.
The wealthy send their kids to elite private schools to provide a socially-cleansed environment for their children’s education. They want their children to escape the social and educational consequences of the economic policies their parents support.
That’s why cabinet ministers send their children to private schools. They don’t want their kids’ education to be affected by the children of parents who’ve been driven into poverty in their hundreds of thousands as National facilitates the rich creaming it at the expense of the rest of us.
As things stand these subsidies are used by elite private schools simply to enhance their exclusivity. They keep their class sizes much smaller than public schools and maintain lavish facilities for the children of the wealthy – all with public funding.
We should fund private schools ONLY when they enrol students on the same basis as public schools and abandon their fees.
Until then the $41.5 million in public subsidies and $4.5 million in government scholarships should be withdrawn.
When has it been any different?
When has it been any different?
I believe that public funding of private schools was very low to non existent before the late 1970’s or early 80’s. Some other reader might be able to provide better details.
http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/private-education/page-2
I should have researched before asking my question.
Great piece John but I’d suggest harking back to previous governments and operatives is counter-productive. Trevor Mallard or whoever – all people in politics make wrong judgement calls at some stage (does anyone remember KDC?)
Critique the Now things and today’s personnel. You’re good at that John. Keep sweet, be fair and do care and compassion – cos that is what you are and do!!
Remember how transNational used to rail against Labour’s purported “social engineering”.
10000% eclectic, Remember ‘we will cut’ – “social engineering”.
So do remember that and I also remember when lying key west said the same thing like: “we will cut Government and take the regulations out of your lives again” !!!!!!!!!@@@@@@@@#$%^&**
National and other RWNJs are all in favour of social engineering – as long as it’s their social engineering such as increasing poverty while a few people get richer, kicking beneficiaries off of any and all support, preventing some groups from voting etc, etc.
With the extra money they can buy some more brown rugby players.
Then with their boosted teams, the elites can go to the disadvantaged areas and rub the locals’ noses in the mud to prove their superiority.
Why should’ – “We should fund private schools ONLY when they enrol students on the same basis as public schools and abandon their fees.”
John isn’t this a case of possible racism or separatism now appearing?
Your life’s history has been to fight racism/separatism so grab this issue also for MANA along with saving our rail please.
“They want their children to escape the social and educational consequences of the economic policies their parents support.”
Ouch. That seems to me to be one unescapable sentence.
Perfectly worded and right on the mark with the consequences they inflict on their fellow New Zealanders who have a little less money than they do for a fundamental right to top level education for their children.
Ouch is the reality living under a National government.
[Andrew, you will have email tomorrow. Do not post anything further. – ScarletMod ]
Are you against tax payer handouts ot not?
Yes, how about boosting the operations grants and teacher salaries of state schools by the same percentage? Handouts are suddenly good when they favour the wealthy?
If hand outs are to be believed then there should be a corresponding drop in the education budget for what ever reason. Instead we spend a few hundred million more than last budget to pay for the National party hand outs.
AMDREW- I SIGHT SLANDER HERE; SCARLET MOD PLEASE!
“It needs to be borne in mind that it was Helen Clark who reinstated school zoning in her first term in office.
The effect of this was to stop even the smartest brown person from South Auckland attending Auckland Grammar”
Post your proof that Helen Clark proposed this “effect of this was to stop – brown person from South Auckland attending Auckland Grammar”
please or retract this as slander please AS CONNECTED TO THE PAST PM HELEN CLARK.
He used the word “effect” as opposed to “intent.” The argument will hinge on the response that he meant it was the result of the change, not the purpose of it. Any defence lawyer or spin doctor would immediately point to that as their get out of jail free card.
Whether he meant it as “intent” or “result”, well, we can make our assumptions, but that was his wording. Personally, based on his previous pattern of speech, and general attitudes, I presume he was having a go, but given his phrasing, it’s a hard one to pin.
A lot of the private schools are religious ones as well ……
Nationals increase of funding to private schools is part of its bribes that cause many ‘Christians’ to hold their noses and vote for them….
http://www.nzonscreen.com/title/the-hollow-men-2008
If you watch the documentary you will learn of it ……….. and more.
Exclusive brethren.
It is there choice to send their kids to private schools if the public school is not good enough for their kids then that is too bad. How come the public school is good enough for the poor who don’t have lots of money. Why should we ( tax payers) pay for people to send their kids to a private school. They get a third of their donation back so they aren’t paying as much as they say. This is there choice so this means they pay more money as we do when we want something of better quality. But a lot of people send their kids to private schools because they don’t want their kids to mix with the poor brown kids ( racism & discrimination) Only when it comes to Rugby do some of these snobs cow down to the brown kids only because their kids have to play with them. Bloody disgusting in Aotearoa 2016. To make matters worse we have a ruling government feeding these issues that keep rearing there ugly head
What donation? Fees for Auckland private schools are up around the $20,000 mark annually unless you’re a foreigner, in which case you pay about double. For the kiwi kids, often there’s a family tradition with mum, grandma, great grandma all having gone to that school. So parents take out loans to continue the tradition or rely on grandparents to foot the bill. As the fees continue rising, finances are stretched to breaking point and kids are starting to fall back out into the public system so there are private school vacancies where there used to be waiting lists. My point is that sure there are some awful superwealthy at private schools but there are more ordinary folk as well who are making sacrifices and barely clinging in there.
Rather than feeling resentment, why not consider that every child educated at a private school at parents’ expense, frees up public funds to be spent on the kids at the public school. Those private school kids have a right to a free education same as everybody else and if they all did suddenly exercise their right as some here seem to wish, the public system would be overwhelmed and all the kids would suffer. So why not consider that prevention is better than cure so if the private schools can keep fees down and fill their rolls because of $ injections far less than it would cost to educate them in the public system: where’s the victim?
There was also a tradition in NZ that families could live in a house, pay their utilities, and still afford to eat. You spin it as if going to a public school instead of a private school is some kind of hardship which we must defend against. As if the loans they must take out to continue this tradition make their situations somehow more deserving than the family who must take out loans just to give their kids a roof over their heads. What a load of apologist twaddle. Do you think the finances of the families whose kids go to public schools aren’t also stretched to breaking point? You say those private school kids have a right to a free education – Well, they can go to a state school and get it, just like everyone else does. Stop expecting that the public ought to be subsidising their “traditions” when there are far more pressing issues that have nothing to do with the choices the families make. Seriously, your argument is preposterous.
Where did you get all that? I was trying to say that if all those private school kids did suddenly swap to the public system as you propose- the system would be overwhelmed and all the kids would suffer.
The rest of my post was pointing out that not everybody at a private school is a gazillionaire and as the fees keep rising, private rolls are falling and kids are moving back to the public system where they claim a share of resources currently available for use by others. Surely better to inject a few dollars to keep them where they are?
Your response appears to ignore these points in favor of ad feminem abuse and straw woman sophistry. Any chance you can argue the actual point, not the woman?
Except that it probably wouldn’t be. I’m sure that the present public system could easily handle the 5% of kids that presently go to private schools.
Ah, so the providers of private schools are finding out that commercial education doesn’t work without massive government subsidies.
And that just means that the government should increase funding to public schools as their rolls increase – which I’m pretty sure that they actually do.
You’re arguments don’t support more public funding to private schools but more funding to public schools.
I don’t feel resentment Rebecca I feel robbed of my taxes going to people who made there choice to send their kids to privates schools. This is like middle class welfare what about people that don’t have kids. Freeing up money and places for public schools is a poor argument for the unfairness of the funding Rebecca it is in fact a lame excuse for the deregulated education policies being rolled out by our Tory Government. These polices Rebecca are effectively kicking the poor kids and their families in the guts.
Surely this a good example where a stitch in time saves nine. If it costs a notional nine stitches every time a kid moves back to public- whats wrong with one initial stitch to keep them where they are?
I’m guessing you don’t have school age kids because those of us who do, understand perfectly why we want those private kids to stay put! Yes I “get” that it sticks in the craw to send dollars towards people who you might imagine have everything already- but rolls are already falling and fees keep rising and we all need to be careful what we wish for.
That would mean that we’d have to build more schools. That’s all. It’s really not a problem.
In other words, it’s a false argument.
Because it doesn’t due to the subsidies from government to private schools.
That’s their choice. If they don’t want to do that then they can send their kids to the local public school.
Agreed 100% M.Gray. National will fund what suits their own needs not the needs of the many. If National ministers want their own children to attend private schooling then shouldn’t it be “user pays”? Don’t look for a handout.
A similar analogy would be with me on the public waiting list for my hip operation but going private and having it funded so as to be done quicker. I wonder what the elitists would think of that.
Agreed 100% M.Gray. National will fund what suits their own needs not the needs of the many. If National ministers want their own children to attend private schooling then shouldn’t it be “user pays”? Don’t look for a handout.
A similar analogy would be with me on the public waiting list for my hip operation but going private and having it funded so as to be done quicker. I wonder what the elitists would think of that.
I think when it comes to what the have-nots want, it’s “User pays,” but when it comes to what the haves want, it’s “You sir, pays.”
Who created the haves and have nots it was the haves (pnats) we need to look at the cause and effects
The Key National government has been increasingly raising the funding of private schools at the expense of state schools since they first came to power. The majority of kiwi kids attend state schools.
Absolutely agree with you Mr Minto, Private schools should NOT receive any state funding whatsoever. That goes for charter schools as well. The rich can afford to pay for it themselves, like the businesses that want to profit from it can too. The crony rich should stop bludging off the tax payer for free handouts, and the government has to stop pandering to it.
There is this relentless meme about ‘poor brown kids’. Why?
There are many brown kids of assorted ethnicities and cultures who actually aren’t ‘poor’.
There are also many pink kids who are poor, play sport and face discrimination.
Perhaps it wasn’t intended to be so, yet it comes across as brainwashing and peculiarly lazy thinking. Unfit for positive purpose, really.
Andrea people need to say the word ”some” but at the end of the day the poorest people here are the indigenous people followed by the PI people.
Parents who take their kids out of the public school system should pay a penalty because they are removing their social capital out of the public education system.
The public education system depends on a lot of good will from parents from fund raising, being on the board, coaching school teams, being parent helpers in the classroom, transport etc. If parents take themselves out of that system, they place a bigger burden on the parents who stay behind and that should come at a cost to them and not the subsidy they are getting now.
[The reason that the government wants to fund private schools on a per child basis and up the amount is that Private Schools fear Charter Schools and are putting the pressure on the government. Charter Schools get many of the benefits of a Private School (lax regulation, they get to choose students, etc) but with the government paying the costs. In America Charter Schools decimated the low end private schools because the latter couldn’t compete with parent only versus government funding. The more the govt fund charter schools, the more private schools will want from the government… state schools get screwed from both ends.]
It was my understanding that integration was mainly advocated by the catholic school system on the basis that the parents of its school children are taxpayers also. You have said the motive is elitism which is a fair comment although a number of the parents want their children to get a good education as well. I would guess that the same percentage of parents with children at state schools want them to have a good education as well which is difficult with the poor funding of the state system.
It is almost dishonest to keep complaining about state funding for private education without mentioning that private school parents pay tax also. I think the charter schools are a total scam & that money should be spent on the public schools & there is a case to examine other transfers to the private system but as the principle is no tax without the right to vote then those who pay tax should be allowed financial support for their children’s education even if they do not use the public system.
That is probably the argument that they used but it’s actually wrong.
We use taxes to provide government services including education. If people then want to send their children to private schools that would be their choice. That choice comes with additional costs that the government is in no way required to cover.
They chose the extra costs – they can damn well cover them. It’s all about personal responsibility and how the rich don’t want a bar of it as they much prefer getting the poor to pay for them.
What part is wrong? You could say the same about roads, we tax fuel, vehicle registration, RUC etc to pay for roads but pedestrians, cyclists that use roads don’t pay any of these taxes. Personally I think the Government contribution to private schools should be less than what public schools cost per student & they should work to the same standard regarding exams etc but to move to a society where state education is the only option would be a backward step. There are bigger battles to win over sharing the economic gains fairly that need to happen. When working families can afford their own home with the ability to save money as well due to a better income/reduced expenses then education should be fully funded also & any disputes over private schools will seem pointless.
The idea that private schools should get public funding. They shouldn’t because it’s the choice of the parents not to use state schooling.
But they probably do pay rates which pays for the roads that they do use. Not all roads are paid for by the state and the taxes that you mention.
I didn’t say that should happen. Sure, it probably would be the result of removing state subsidies from for profit education but in what way would it be a backward step?
If we had good provision of state homes then people wouldn’t need to be able to afford their own homes and then we wouldn’t get the massive imbalance of housing that we have today.
Home ownership is actually the problem.
No, that’s not true.
The Catholic school system run out of people from religious orders who could teach for free. They didn’t have the money to pay for teachers and upkeep so they went to the government and said that they were going to have to close. The government saw that the public system couldn’t cope with all these Catholic students arriving so they said they’d fund some of the costs if the Catholic schools maintained the buildings etc. It was win-win – the Catholic schools stayed open at a much lower cost to the government than if they closed.
That’s integrated schools, not private. There’s a difference.
And all the government really had to do there was to buy up the school and make it a full state school.
But private school parents take away something from the public system by leaving it – they take away their social capital. This places a burden on the public system because private school parent’s generally have greater social capital than non-private school parents (or else how did they get the money to leave). There has to be some sort of penalty for leaving and so far it’s been equivalent to the cost of a state school education.
I have nothing useful to add here so I have a question.
What would yankee doodle psycho jonky-stien and the double dipping dipton dribbler look like in prison garb in Mt Eden ?
I know ! Lets find out ?
Oh ! Wait ? Maybe I do have something to add …. Nope. Just gas .
No ! Wait ?
I ponder what my mother would have said. ” The Devil takes care of his own.”
Poorly educated psychopaths hunt people then kill them for giggles.
Well educated psychopaths hunt people, then torment them until they kill themselves, for giggles.
Your first 7 words were quite accurate.
Parents who use private schools are trying to buy their children and advantage over the children of other people.
This contradicts two articles of right-wing faith:
1.) That success and failure in life is due entirely to talent and hard-work
2.) That they believe in personal responsibility and not expecting help or being dependent on others.
These two flaccid right-wing clichés are clearly only for public consumption and in private when dealing with people they actually care about (their kids) they are fully aware that they are self-serving lies.
I think a 2-3 year phase out of the subsidy is entirely just.
Although true there’s one other, probably more important, aspect to it and that’s the social networking with rich people. John Key specifically mentioned it a few years ago in his Listener interview.
This aspect gives their kids the social connection to rich people who can provide jobs and career security. As the old saying goes: It’s not what you know but who.
It’s the Old Boys club writ large and funded by the poor (The rich never pay for anything).
Under the current “we know what’s best for you” system, I guess they all come out pretty much the same. God Bless the renegades among us.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUwUp-D_VV0
One is beginning to get the impression that this government is out to play a similar role to that of Hitler. Segregation of the classes.
The fickle policy of User Pays clearly defined once again
Tax paying masses getting the other privileged boot stomping on them
If private schools cant survive financially then with all their education cant they make n argument to tell the govt what is wrong with its policies
Dumb me they are all pissin in each others pockets ,torified chicken for tea again anyone with splashes of corporate thickening
My parents were not the wealthiest I knew when my brother went to St. Andrews College. They sent him there because he got a scholarship.
And because his mates were going there. He and his many friends turned out to be perfectly decent people and he never saw himself as being better for having that education.
They sent me to Burnside because I wanted to go there. And my mates were going there. I and my mates turned out fine too.
So this typical Minto line about a socially cleansed environment doesn’t hold any water with me.
… except it’s not all about you.
Private schools may be an institutionalised form of privilege but there is an up side.
If the rich want to cloister themselves away in their special schools and groups and pay for it themselves, then let them. At least we don’t have to put up with them taking control of our public schools and running them as prep camps for the labour they will need when they become corporate business managers.
Of course therein lies the main problem. The rich want their own private schools but they think everyone else should pay for them.
I have no problem with private schools as long as the parents pay for it all themselves, like they do with international students in public schools but I have a big problem with National putting increasing amounts of money into private schools and running down state education. AND lying about doing so.
Put more bluntly: in Auckland at least, they don’t want their children attending schools with Maori and Polynesian kids who might live nearby.
Comments are closed.