Misdirection can’t hide Nat attacks on education

21 comments on “Misdirection can’t hide Nat attacks on education ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Lanthanide 1

   1 June 2010 at 12:41 pm

   “the universities simply can’t afford to pay for any more out of other sources.”

   Maybe if they were prohibited from spending all that money on advertising they could squeeze in a few more people. Similarly Primary and Secondary schools should not be allowed to advertise either, because there’s simply no need for it. There have been several billboards up around CHCH advertising schools (or publicly “congratulating” students for some extra-curricular activity).
   • Bright Red 1.1

     1 June 2010 at 1:30 pm

     totally agree on stopping them advertising. it’s madness for state-owned assets to compete against each other.
     • Lanthanide 1.1.1

       1 June 2010 at 2:27 pm

       It’s also ridiculous if they can’t fit any more students in. Why advertise to go study at a particular university if they don’t even have space for you?

       Clearly informational advertising in various media (open/tour days, term dates etc), and perhaps also some billboards put up on university property would be ok. But newspaper ads, TV ads and commercial billboards are a waste of money.
2. Bunji 2

   1 June 2010 at 1:36 pm

   “He’s so good at distraction he could be a rodeo clown.” – love it! It’s just so true…

   You forgot to mention the complete destruction of ACE – it’s not new, but it’s still this government’s destructive consequences.
   Tolley’s folly knows no bounds.
3. Pat 3

   1 June 2010 at 1:39 pm

   Allowing childcare centres to employ some non-qualified staff provides good employment opportunties for mothers to earn a parttime income by working in the centre, without needing to spend the time and money required to get qualified. It also allows childcare centres to utilise a resource that has always been available to them in the past (parents) and still maintain a standard of education as set by the other qualified staff.

   Requiring 100% qualified staff in childcare centres was an overkill.
   • Lanthanide 3.1

     1 June 2010 at 2:28 pm

     It wasn’t required that they have 100%. A centre could very well choose to have just 60% staff qualified if they liked, and pass on the savings/employment opportunities to the parents.

     They were given extra money to help pay for the qualified staff if they were over 80% qualified. Likely some of this extra money went towards the facility itself, and not straight into the salaries for the staff, but I don’t see that there’s anything particularly wrong with that (especially as salary rises would eventually eat it up anyway).
   • snoozer 3.2

     1 June 2010 at 2:30 pm

     “Requiring 100% qualified staff in childcare centres was an overkill”

     they weren’t required, there was just a higher govt subsidy for centres with over 80% qualified. Centres have always been permitted to hae fewer than 80% qualified..

     See, Pat, you don’t even understand the issue but you’ve got a firm opinion. It’s impressive.
   • Craig Glen Eden 3.3

     1 June 2010 at 4:17 pm

     oh great idea Pat and while we are at it lets not feed the children and then we can get them working in small places that adults cant fit in, maybe cleaning chimneys or picking fruit with their little hands.
4. Policy Parrot 4

   1 June 2010 at 2:08 pm

   Under National, the education sector be getting a vasectomy as well.
   All the parts look how they are supposed to, and apparently work, but the essence of their function is gone.
   • Jim Nald 4.1

     15 June 2010 at 5:25 pm

     True. Welcome to the Vasectomised State.
5. RedFred 5

   1 June 2010 at 2:14 pm

   @Pat

   As a parent of two preschoolers I find your comments disturbing.

   My three year just started Kindergarten; I want him and all the other small human beings in NZ the opportunity to learn at the optimum. They are at the age when they learn the most they will ever learn. All the teachers should be appropriately qualified to give our future citizens the best start not this poor excuse for an education policy and for that matter a Minister of Education.
6. tc 6

   1 June 2010 at 2:23 pm

   Once again the msm show how under the thumb of their management they are…..just show up and ask the question, no matter if he doesn’t answer it, job done don’t forget to highlight his awesome sense of humour now run along lackeys.
7. pollywog 7

   1 June 2010 at 5:27 pm

   I’ve read some stuff on line about the ‘need’ to cap or limit the number of graduates because there isn’t room in the job market to employ them in their chosen fields.

   …with the easiest way to do that being to drive the cost of education up so only the rich/ruling class can graduate and perpetuate/protect the high earning money cycle.

   BTW has the arse has fallen out of the law/accounting financial oriented degrees yet ?
8. Fabregas4 8

   1 June 2010 at 7:42 pm

   National Standards again – the Government is currently ‘mapping’ the assessments that schools use against the National Standards so that they can be used as a series of National Tests. Exactly what they say the National Standards are not!
9. Fisiani 9

   2 June 2010 at 10:07 am

   So National is carefully taking steps to control the ongoing cost blowout of the last 5 years in early childhood education and not cutting a single child’s place. Excellent.
   National is increasing spending on education and new school construction continues. Excellent
   National is insisting on tertiary students working hard and getting results. Excellent
   National is forging ahead with National Standards to inform parents better about how their child is learning. Excellent
   Anne Tolley and Stephen Joyce are excellent.
   • A Nonny Moose 9.1

     2 June 2010 at 11:10 am

     Better check where those MoE staff are reading on their morning tea breaks.
10. Bright Red 10

    2 June 2010 at 10:30 am

    Forcing ECE centres to reduce the quality of staff or pass on costs to parents: Not excellent
    Underfunding teachers: not excellent
    Cutting ACE: not excellent
    Not funding enough places at uni: not excellent
    Not understanding national standards and pushing them through when the international research shows they encourage teaching to the test: not excellent
    • Fisiani 10.1

      2 June 2010 at 12:18 pm

      Typical left wing thinking (no, thinking actually involves intelligence). Spend more. Tax more. Borrow more. Impoverish more. Make dependant on a Labour government more.
      Centrist logic. Spend less. Tax less. Borrow less. Grow the economy. Give more freedom of choice.
      • Giarne 10.1.1

        15 June 2010 at 5:13 pm

        So what have you to say Fisiani when we spend a lot less than other OECD countries on ECE. If we want to eventually pay less in incarceration, health, and other social spending areas then we will put a larger percentage into ECE and education generally. Yes, its the long view here, not short term gains on tax cuts.

        Do I want my stupid tax cut being paid for by gutting education? Hell NO, I’d rather it was going where it was needed and used to give us back the highest returns.

        $1 spent in ECE equals at least $10 back in increased productivity, increased earnings of parents who can return to work earlier and savings in other budget areas down the track. This doesn’t include some of the warm fuzzy social benefits that are difficult to put into dollar amounts. There is UK research to back this up and other research also.

Links to post

1. Hands up for Learning » 2 June: posted on 2 June 2010 at 11:35 am
2. Assets the big issue for 2011 « The Standard: posted on 22 June 2010 at 12:12 am

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS