Bulk Funding
Malcolm Loudon
Hi,
I have been involved in a thread over in nz.gen about the teacher salary
saga. There are many people there vehemently opposed to bulk funding
of teacher salaries and yet to my mind it appears a good idea.
The reasons I have seen so far against bulk funding seem pretty lame to me.
Is there someone on nz.politics that can point out the error of my ways
and explain to me why bulk funding will be such a disaster that it
should never be tried ?
thanks,
Malcolm
John Holley
In article <4r9nf5$n...@cc-server9.massey.ac.nz>, Psy...@massey.ac.nz
(Malcolm Loudon) wrote:
Simple, bulk funding spells the end of free education. If you don't
believe me look at Kindyies in NZ. They are now all bulk funded. After
salaries are paid (lower than primary school teachers, and hence causing
REAL BIG shortages in teachers) most Kindies only have enough money to
cover roughly 1/3 of operational costs.
This means all public kindies in NZ "charge" fees of $1-$2/session just to
get by.
The net effect? Children in better socio-economic areas get better
pre-school education.
And before someone jumps in and starts rabbiting about "free markets", go
and ask a local Kindy teacher just what things are like.
John
--
John Holley Systems Engineer,CED Distributors Ltd.
j.ho...@apple.co.nz Private Bag 47-902, Ponsonby
+64 9 375 4820 (ph) Auckland, New Zealand
+64 9 309 3572 (fax) New Zealand distributor for Apple
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Malcolm Loudon
>
>Simple, bulk funding spells the end of free education. If you don't
>believe me look at Kindyies in NZ. They are now all bulk funded. After
>salaries are paid (lower than primary school teachers, and hence causing
>REAL BIG shortages in teachers) most Kindies only have enough money to
>cover roughly 1/3 of operational costs.
Can you explain WHY bulk funding spells the end of free education ?
Simply stating it as a fact does not answer my question ("what's
wrong with bulk funding ?"). Maybe I'm an eccentric but I like to
have *reasons* before I believe statements that are not self
evidently true.
Did the kindergarten recieve less money under bulk funding ?
If so, do you know how much less ?
In the recent case of Feilding Ag HS they would have received
$100,000 *extra* from bulk funding yet the teachers were still
fiercly against it. Why ?
Malcolm Loudon
D McLoughlin
Psy...@massey.ac.nz (Malcolm Loudon) wrote:
>
>
> I have been involved in a thread over in nz.gen about the teacher salary
> saga. There are many people there vehemently opposed to bulk funding
> of teacher salaries and yet to my mind it appears a good idea.
> The reasons I have seen so far against bulk funding seem pretty lame to me.
>
> Is there someone on nz.politics that can point out the error of my ways
> and explain to me why bulk funding will be such a disaster that it
> should never be tried ?
>
>
Bulk funding would be a disaster because:
* It would allow school principals and boards to set their own
teacher establishments according to their own needs,
rather than the Education Ministry in Wellington decreeing
how many teachers, deputy principals, etc, a school should
have.
* It would give principals and boards the freedom to hire extra
teachers out of their bulk budget rather than simply accepting
the number of teachers decreed by the Ministry of Education.
* Because it works on a system of averaging teacher wages,
it would give poorer schools that tend to have "cheaper: ie
less experienced teachers a bigger budget to attract more and
better teachers.
* It would allow principals and boards to pay teachers according
to merit, rather than the worst teacher being paid the same as
the best teacher.
* Most disastrously of all, it would in time make the teacher
unions, the PPTA and the NZEI, redundant. These hallowed
organisations employ some 40 staff each and have multi-million
dollar budgets. They exist solely to negotiate collective
employment contracts that decree a teacher in a small , all-Pakeha,
middle-class school in Southland must be paid the same as a
teacher in a large, multi-ethnic, impoverished school in South
Auckland. If all schools were bulk funded, teacher salaries
would be decided on merit by negotiation between principals and
their staff. There would be no need for the unions.
* It would give schools control over their own
destinies, rather than being controlled by the Ministry of
Education and the teacher unions. This would destroy the education
system as we know it. Therefore it must be stopped before it
spreads.
Malcolm, these are just a few of the reasons bulk funding would
be a disaster. I am sure that a thousand others will follow me
to point out even more lucidly what an evil idea bulk funding
is.
Regards
D McLoughlin
Howard Edwards
In article <4rc1lm$4...@cc-server9.massey.ac.nz> Malcolm Loudon,
Psy...@massey.ac.nz writes:
>In the recent case of Feilding Ag HS they would have received
>$100,000 *extra* from bulk funding yet the teachers were still
>fiercly against it. Why ?
Why don't you ask some Feilding Ag teachers?
Howard Edwards Ph: (64)(9)4439620 or
Dept of Statistics (64)(9)443-9641 (messages)
Massey University Albany Fax:(64)(9)4439640
Private Bag 102904, North Shore MSC email: H.Ed...@massey.ac.nz
NEW ZEALAND
http://fims-www.massey.ac.nz/stats/howard.html
John Holley
In article <4rc1lm$4...@cc-server9.massey.ac.nz>, Psy...@massey.ac.nz
(Malcolm Loudon) wrote:
> >
> >Simple, bulk funding spells the end of free education. If you don't
> >believe me look at Kindyies in NZ. They are now all bulk funded. After
> >salaries are paid (lower than primary school teachers, and hence causing
> >REAL BIG shortages in teachers) most Kindies only have enough money to
> >cover roughly 1/3 of operational costs.
>
> Can you explain WHY bulk funding spells the end of free education ?
> Simply stating it as a fact does not answer my question ("what's
> wrong with bulk funding ?"). Maybe I'm an eccentric but I like to
> have *reasons* before I believe statements that are not self
> evidently true.
Stately simply, funding from the Government has continued to drop in real
terms to the kindergartens under bulk funding. The facts are there to be
seen in the financial reports.
It is now NOT possible to provide free access to kindergartens in NZ
without significantly reducing operational expenses by on average 2/3s.
Now some of the operational expenses are things like electricity and
phones but also include art materials, music resources, tools etc.
Simple fact : If parents did not pay a "donantion" for each session their
children attend most Kindies would close.
>
> Did the kindergarten recieve less money under bulk funding ?
> If so, do you know how much less ?
I don't have the figures to hand, but I do know that in the Auckland area,
short falls in funding were met by increasing roll sizes.
At the same time, private child care facilities also get funding from the
government. Currently I believe the figure is about 70cents different
between what the Kindies receive per child per day versus what private
Kindies receive.
As the private kindies charge a lot more, they can offer better wages to
staff and are better resourced. Therefore, the better off in society can
guarantee a much better pre-school education for their children than those
who are poorer.
Heck, even with our "free" kindy, we will be $10 better off a week when my
daughter starts at school (it costs us $2 a day for my daughter to go o
kindy).
As an example, the kindy where my daughter goes to recently lost a teacher
to a private kindy. This relatively inexperienced teacher now receives a
salary similar to the head teacher of the kindy (who apart from teaching
has administrative and managerial responsibilities).
>
> In the recent case of Feilding Ag HS they would have received
> $100,000 *extra* from bulk funding yet the teachers were still
> fiercly against it. Why ?
There is a term : "bait and switch". The $100,000 is a inducement to
switch to bulk funding. No where has the government said it that the extra
level of funding will be maintained.
Malcolm Loudon
>Psy...@massey.ac.nz writes:
>>In the recent case of Feilding Ag HS they would have received
>>$100,000 *extra* from bulk funding yet the teachers were still
>>fiercly against it. Why ?
>
>
>Howard Edwards Ph: (64)(9)4439620 or
Funny you should ask that. I don't know any to ask but the local
newspaper went along to the meeting where the teachers
fought to have the board turn its decision to accept bulk
funding around. All they were able to report was that the
meeting was very emotional (tearful teachers) and that the
teachers claimed the school would be destroyed if bulk
funding were accepted. Needless to say that the principle and
board decided that keeping the teachers on side was more
important than any possible improved efficiency.
I guess the bottom line is I *would* like to ask but feel
a bit silly approaching them. Neurotic or what ?
Malcolm
Malcolm Loudon
>Bulk funding would be a disaster because:
>
>* It would allow school principals and boards to set their own
>teacher establishments according to their own needs,
>rather than the Education Ministry in Wellington decreeing
>how many teachers, deputy principals, etc, a school should
>have.
Disgraceful! What would principles and trustee boards know
about their school's needs ? Everyone knows that bureaus
know best. Next thing you know they will want to give parents
a say in their children's education! Perverts!
>* It would give principals and boards the freedom to hire extra
>teachers out of their bulk budget rather than simply accepting
>the number of teachers decreed by the Ministry of Education.
Outrageous ! The Ministry MUST maintain total control or we are
all doomed. If this goes on they will privatise the food
distribution industry and I will no longer be able to queue
for yesterday's bread at the communal supermarket. How will I
know what to buy if the Ministry stops sending me my shopping list ?
They are destroying our country! We must ACT! To arms! To arms!
>* Because it works on a system of averaging teacher wages,
>it would give poorer schools that tend to have "cheaper: ie
>less experienced teachers a bigger budget to attract more and
>better teachers.
Depraved ! Why should poor schools have better teachers ?
Its sick I tell you, sick!
>* It would allow principals and boards to pay teachers according
>to merit, rather than the worst teacher being paid the same as
>the best teacher.
Bloody fascists! The government has never paid on merit before,
why break with that glorious tradition ? Everyone knows that
pay should be based on how long you have worked at the job
not how well you do it. They're Nazis, that's what they are, Nazis!
>* Most disastrously of all, it would in time make the teacher
>unions, the PPTA and the NZEI, redundant. These hallowed
>organisations employ some 40 staff each and have multi-million
>dollar budgets. They exist solely to negotiate collective
>employment contracts that decree a teacher in a small , all-Pakeha,
>middle-class school in Southland must be paid the same as a
>teacher in a large, multi-ethnic, impoverished school in South
>Auckland. If all schools were bulk funded, teacher salaries
>would be decided on merit by negotiation between principals and
>their staff. There would be no need for the unions.
No need for unions? Over my dead body mate! The PPTA is the
sole civilising force of the nation. Look what happened to
the Interisland ferries after the unions lost their grip -
the ferry take-away bars began opening at meal times !
Absolutly shocking I know, those poor cooks and stewards
having to sacrifice their own lunch hour to serve customers.
>* It would give schools control over their own
>destinies, rather than being controlled by the Ministry of
>Education and the teacher unions. This would destroy the education
>system as we know it. Therefore it must be stopped before it
>spreads.
Most definitly! After I post this article I intend to trash my
office and set fire to the neighbouring lecture theatre block
in protest. Bulk funding MUST be stopped ! Arise comrades, you
have nothing to lose but your marbles ! To the barricades !
>Malcolm, these are just a few of the reasons bulk funding would
>be a disaster. I am sure that a thousand others will follow me
>to point out even more lucidly what an evil idea bulk funding
>is.
>
>Regards
>D McLoughlin
No doubt! I am infinitly grateful to you for pointing out how
stupid I have been. To think that I once thought bulk funding
sounded like a good idea! The shame!
Regards
Comrade Malcolm
Eric Stevens
On 2 Jul 1996 23:01:41 GMT, D McLoughlin <dav...@iprolink.co.nz>
wrote:
> If all schools were bulk funded, teacher salaries
>would be decided on merit by negotiation between principals and
>their staff. There would be no need for the unions.
That's where I must disagree with you. There is always a need for
unions. But here is never a need for an entrenched bureaucracy
masquerading as a union, as is the PPTA.. The teachers would be well
rid of both it and the attitudes it fosters.
Eric Stevens
There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into
two classes, and those who don't. I belong to the second class.
Eric Stevens
On Tue, 02 Jul 1996 20:19:25 +1200, j.ho...@apple.co.nz (John Holley)
wrote:
>In article <4r9nf5$n...@cc-server9.massey.ac.nz>, Psy...@massey.ac.nz
>(Malcolm Loudon) wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have been involved in a thread over in nz.gen about the teacher salary
>> saga. There are many people there vehemently opposed to bulk funding
>> of teacher salaries and yet to my mind it appears a good idea.
>> The reasons I have seen so far against bulk funding seem pretty lame to me.
>>
>> Is there someone on nz.politics that can point out the error of my ways
>> and explain to me why bulk funding will be such a disaster that it
>> should never be tried ?
>
>Simple, bulk funding spells the end of free education. If you don't
>believe me look at Kindyies in NZ. They are now all bulk funded.
Kindergartens never were free. They have *always* relied on funds from
parents. They have never been part of the state system. The government
started giving them extra assistance some years ago and now they are
hooked on it.
Russell Brown
D McLoughlin wrote:
>
>
> They exist solely to negotiate collective
> employment contracts that decree a teacher in a small , all-Pakeha,
> middle-class school in Southland must be paid the same as a
> teacher in a large, multi-ethnic, impoverished school in South
> would be decided on merit by negotiation between principals and
> their staff. There would be no need for the unions.
David, are you seriously suggesting that that the teacher in South
Auckland would be paid *more* under bulk funding, purely because he or
she would be able debate his or her "merit" with a principal? You have
pointed out some of the genuine benefits of bulk-funding, but this point
is spurious. The biggest obstacle to the acceptance of bulk funding is
the widespread lack of faith in the government's goodwill. After the
experience of the kindergartens, where, as John Holley pointed out, real
funding has fallen, that lack of faith would appeared to be justified.
Add to that the fact that bulk funding was introduced with almost
contemptuous haste - basically thrown at kindergarten associations,
which didn't cope - and you've got to make a *damn* good case to
convince the people at the pitface. Had a kid at kindy lately? You'll
know what I mean.
> * It would give schools control over their own
> destinies, rather than being controlled by the Ministry of
> Education and the teacher unions.
>
Oh, lay off the teacher unions. Funny thing is, I've known a few
teacher, and *all* of the good ones, without exception, have been keen
members of their unions. Oh, and if you think the Ministry of Education
"controlling" education is such a bad idea, I would refer you to the
real-world example of Margaret Thatcher's abolition of the ILEA in the
mid-80s. Complete and utter shambles. The trend towards greater room to
move for schools is clear and welcome, but let's keep things in
perspective.
Cheers,
--
Russell Brown >>> rus...@idg.co.nz
News Editor @IDG >>> http://www.idg.co.nz/