Is Key going where Gove’s gone?

Written By: - Date published: 1:33 pm, October 31st, 2011 - 78 comments
Categories: privatisation, schools, uk politics - Tags:

National has announced that the money gained from selling assets will go into a Future Fund and be spent on modernising schools. Is the sort of future they have in mind like the so-called “free schools” now being set up by the Conservatives in Britain under Education Minister Michael Gove?

Make no mistake, the right is very interested in the future of education. Their vision is for profit-making schools; they’d be better called the “free to make money schools” – another cash cow for private interests, who get to control the curriculum as well. Here is Fraser Nelson in the right-wing Spectator:

Gove originally envisaged taking a Swedish laissez-faire approach, granting a licence to almost any school which applies and leaving the market to judge if it was good enough. But he was put off by the experience of the Charter Schools in the US, where bad new schools came to threaten the whole project. So, of the 280 applications to open an English free school next year, 160 have been rejected and the rest asked to interview. Perhaps as few as 80 will be approved.

Yet Sweden, the lodestar for the whole project, started off with a few dozen schools and ended up with several hundred. The new schools quickly organised themselves into chains and set up wherever demand was strongest. But they did so because most were companies, operating for a profit. This idea, taboo only two years ago, has become a live argument inside the Conservative high command. Gove is reluctant, believing he is fighting on enough fronts without being accused of privatising schools. New schools face many obstacles, he says, most of them bureaucratic. The profit motive would not change that.

But increasingly, some of those around David Cameron believe that the only way Gove can accelerate his plan is to bring in profit-seeking chains like International English Schools and Cognita. And if it creates a political stink, so be it. The need for new schools is too great — and the prospect of the angry Mums’ Army at the ballot box too fearsome. But Nick Clegg, a great supporter of schools reform so far, has been given the power of veto — and has made clear he will use it to stop profit-making schools. This is where the argument may end, for now.

It would be the greatest irony but no surprise if our public assets were sold down by National in order to pay for private interests to get a stake in the school system here. We shouldn’t be under any illusions that we are just dealing with a short-term agenda.

78 comments on “Is Key going where Gove’s gone? ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Campbell Larsen 1
    31 October 2011 at 2:05 pm

    The writing is on the wall – talk of leak prone schools and earthquake prone schools (and i’m not talking about just in ch-ch) is all just an excuse to turn these freehold govt properties into debt laden PPP’s and to further engorge construction industry big boys already feasting on fat govt contracts.

  2. Puddleglum 2
    31 October 2011 at 2:31 pm

    Agreed. I can’t see why National wouldn’t try something like this given that they’ve made such inclinations and plans pretty clear.

    The other aspect of this ‘ring fencing’ is that all the much-touted school modernisation ‘benefits’ amount to about $1.5bn, yet the expected haul is supposedly upwards of $5bn.

    Mana thinks its about irrigation. 

  3. Rusty Shackleford 3
    31 October 2011 at 2:44 pm

    I think it’s a bit of a jump to link asset sales with school privatisation.

    On privatisation; what is the big deal? If someone else can do it for better and cheaper, then wouldn’t it be good for society to let them do it? Competition gives us ever improving and cheapening refrigerators, computers and cars. Why wouldn’t it do the same for education?

    • Draco T Bastard 3.1
      31 October 2011 at 2:59 pm

      Because it can’t you moron. What produces good education is research, training and more than enough schools and teachers. A school is also a natural monopoly as it caters to a defined geographic area. Having two schools in the same area providing the same service just ups the costs for no benefit and so we’ll get one school that has monopoly profits instead if we go to private for profit schools. And, as we don’t a need to pay the profit it’s just another dead weight loss.

      The only point where competition might actually provide a benefit for the added cost (competition is always more expensive due to massive duplication) is in the research and that would be government funded anyway and done through the universities.

      • Rusty Shackleford 3.1.1
        31 October 2011 at 3:08 pm

        DTB, I’m sitting in a public school. I can look out the window and see no less than six private learning institutes offering services such as English education, piano tutoring, math tutoring and there is even one that offers tuition in something called badok (some form of Asian chess?). Education means different things to different people. Therefore there is no more a “natural” monopoly in education than there is a monopoly on the choices of food we eat. Would a govt monopoly on food production and distribution lead to a good outcome?

        The govt can offer some minimum level if they want to. But, why do they have to crowd out the innovation that inevitably results from competition? The South Korean system shows that well, despite the public sector’s (read teachers union) repeated attempts to destroy that competition.

      • Bazar 3.1.2
        31 October 2011 at 3:21 pm

        Lot of moron calling Draco, you seem stressed.

        Also schools often aren’t a natural monopoly, due to the fact that you get a choice of schools you can send your kids to.

        Perhaps in rural areas they are a natural monopoly due to low populations, but the blanket statement “schools are a natural monopoly” isn’t accurate.

        Also having the schools compete for grades could have many benefits for education, it could also have many problems as well. But that’s another issue closely tied to implementing “national standards”

        Finally, just so you don’t miss it, i’ll point out this reply. Just 1 weekend and its just about fallen off the front page
        http://thestandard.org.nz/nationals-plan-to-screw-workers-some-more/#comment-392759

      • Ari 3.1.3
        1 November 2011 at 1:09 am

        You’re missing some other important factors that make for good education:

        Students that aren’t distracted by being hungry or problems at home.

        Parents are encouraged to show their kids that learning is important and valued.

        A good balance between assessment, which encourages rote learning and a brute-force hard work style, and unassessed work, which encourages creativity and innovation.

        Teachers that give all or at least most students a chance to succeed on their own terms.

        Staff and administrators who support teachers and help reduce their workload.

        Honestly, these things actually matter much more than class size does, and they’re far easier to make improvements to in comparison. Ironically, the best way to broadly raise school performance would be to fight poverty and ensure that all young kids are being fed. It’s easier to implement than “National Standards”, and it’ll result in far more dramatic leaps in performance. It will probably even improve things for some of the kids who don’t directly experience poverty, because teachers will need less time and energy to deal with putting out fires from the kids who do.

        Of course, National would never implement such a policy, because when their base talks about improving education, they mean in private schools.

    • McFlock 3.2
      31 October 2011 at 2:59 pm

      Lol. It might. But when I look at a teacher, I’d like to see more than a used car dealer.

      Basically it relies, like most free market theory, on perfect information – I need to know that the slick commission sales person isn’t just selling me a pile of shit for as much as possible. Difficult to do with something as long term and abstract as an education. So the state needs to step in and provide a guaranteed minimum standard – which it can only do if it’s well funded.

      • Rusty Shackleford 3.2.1
        31 October 2011 at 3:10 pm

        Govt bureaucrats have perfect info?

        The US system is extremely well funded, yet they aren’t getting any return in quality on the cash they have spent. I can’t really comment on the NZ system. Maybe it is cheap and perfect. I don’t know.

        • KJT 3.2.1.1
          31 October 2011 at 3:20 pm

          No they do not.

          They should do what the Fins do (The worlds best performing education system) and leave it to Teachers. After making sure they are well trained and funded.

          Why follow the UK or USA model when our results are already much better than theirs.

          Sweden’s results are heading down the tubes since they adopted a market model.

          • Rusty Shackleford 3.2.1.1.1
            31 October 2011 at 3:29 pm

            It would be preferable to let people themselves decide what they would like to get out of education. Choosing the amount and quality they deem fit. Teachers have proven themselves to be no better than the used car salesman alluded to before.

            • McFlock 3.2.1.1.1.1
              31 October 2011 at 3:36 pm

              “Poorly funded teachers expected to deal with large classes, malnourished children, and arbitrary reporting guidelines demanded by a cabinet minister against expert advice have proven themselves to be no better than the used car salesman alluded to before.”

              FIFY

              • Rusty Shackleford …
                31 October 2011 at 3:43 pm

                I don’t even really disagree with your editing. But, I would counter by saying that many of these problems stem from past attempts by govts to “fix” social problems.

                A. Poorly funded teachers (in what way?)

                B. expected to deal with large classes (large class size has nothing to do with student achievement. The stats back me up on that)

                C. malnourished children (well… I don’t think they aren’t getting enough to eat. I though we were in the midst of an obesity epidemic? However, I see your point. If kids are coming to school after eating the USDA approved “heart healthy” bowl of coacoa puffs in skim milk instead of “artery clogging” bacon and eggs, then it is no wonder they are starving for nutrients.)

                D. arbitrary reporting guidelines (agree. It should be up to parents and schools how they measure their kids achievement.)

                • Colonial Viper …
                  31 October 2011 at 3:54 pm

                  B. expected to deal with large classes (large class size has nothing to do with student achievement. The stats back me up on that)

                  Funny how all the private schools advertise the benefits of having smaller class sizes, to the wealthy parental markets they tap into.

                  • Rusty Shackleford …
                    31 October 2011 at 3:57 pm

                    That isn’t really surprising. I’m sure as a student you preferred smaller classes. As a teacher, I prefer larger classes because I prefer to lecture than interact with the students. It also means that I (and by definition all teachers) make more money.

                    • McFlock …
                      31 October 2011 at 4:31 pm

                      I note that none of your ascribed motivations for teachers wanting to increase class sizes include “quality of education”. Which is the entire problem – the motivations of sales staff are not to provide the best quality possible, but to get the most money. One does not necessitate the other.

                    • Rusty Shackleford …
                      31 October 2011 at 4:49 pm

                      But, the same is true of public education. Funneling in more money doesn’t automatically mean better quality. The US experience attests to this.

                    • McFlock …
                      31 October 2011 at 4:53 pm

                      “But, the same is true of public education. Funneling in more money doesn’t automatically mean better quality. The US experience attests to this”

                      Again, evidence?

                      But you slide, again. The motivation of increasing funding to public education is to provide better education. If it fails, then it is a failure. The motivation of a free-market teacher extracting more money from parents is to get more money from parents. Even if the kids learn shite, the teacher’s company is a success.

                    • Rusty Shackleford …
                      31 October 2011 at 4:55 pm

                      http://reason.com/archives/2011/02/22/losing-the-brains-race

                      You’re assuming that families have zero ability to discern good or bad education. Little Billy can’t read? Kind of a dead give away.

                    • KJT …
                      31 October 2011 at 5:09 pm

                      An education is a lot more than learning to read.

                      And I have already read Von Mises. The Austrian school of economics is as discredited by reality as the Chicago school.

                      NZ students, until recently, were capable of assessing economists. US ones are not taught to think.

                    • Rusty Shackleford …
                      31 October 2011 at 5:15 pm

                      Education means different things to different people. There isn’t a one size fits all model.

                      “The Austrian school of economics is as discredited by reality as the Chicago school.”
                      I’m not sure what your opinion has to do with the production and provision of education.

                      It would surprise me if the average NZ high schooler could name a contemporary economist.

                    • McFlock …
                      31 October 2011 at 5:21 pm

                      “You’re assuming that families have zero ability to discern good or bad education. Little Billy can’t read? Kind of a dead give away.”

                      Again, bullshit. I’m asserting that by the time little Billy is that far behind the 8-ball that yeven your sales-teacher can’t convinvce mum and dad that it’s really Billy, oh and we can provide a teacher’s aide for him at little extra charge, it’s worse than a ministry hauling the principal over the coals because their clear and reasonable reporting requirements are falling short (NOT an arbitrary 11+ test). That way little Billy still learns to read in the first place.

                      You’re beginning to piss me off with your slides and your lies.

                    • McFlock …
                      31 October 2011 at 5:39 pm

                      “The market gets stuff wrong all the time. It’s just on average cheaper, better and less violent/coercive than having a self appointed intellectual elite do the work for us.”

                      Once again you misrepresent the position (“self-appointed intellectual elite”? “People appointed by people overseen by parents on the BoT (or even by the BoT itself), and a ministry which reports to democratically-elected representatives”, more like) and religiously claim that your way is the better way “on average”. You provide no evidence for your claim, but slide in “on average” so that if someone provides a counter-example you can go “oh, but on average“.

                      You are so full of shit it’s not even funny, but I really think you might be completely oblivious to that fact.

                  • KJT …
                    31 October 2011 at 5:20 pm

                    If you don’t know what economic thought has to do with the privatisation of education then you don’t know what the fuck you are talking about.

                    It is the Chicago schools myths you are constantly repeating.

                    Like the crap about the “market” always knows best.

                    Even they put caveats on that one.

                    Finland and New Zealand. State run. Best in the world. Gettit.

                    Why does NACT want to fix what ain’t broke.

                    And my son can name a contemporary economist.

                    • Rusty Shackleford …
                      31 October 2011 at 5:28 pm

                      The market gets stuff wrong all the time. It’s just on average cheaper, better and less violent/coercive than having a self appointed intellectual elite do the work for us.

                    • Ari …
                      1 November 2011 at 1:18 am

                      The problem is that you need regulation to even HAVE a “market”. Without regulation your competition gets trampled all over by plutocrats, corruption, expansionists, vulgar marxists, basically anyone who can cheerlead destroying regulation and pretend it’s about free-market capitalism, one of the world’s most popular fictions.

                      And honestly, I’d settle for a “self-appointed intellectual elite” if it meant avoiding the terrible No Child Left Behind rubbish that the National Government is calling National Standards.

                • McFlock …
                  31 October 2011 at 4:27 pm

                  A. As in being poorly paid, equipped with substandard equipment and so on.

                  B. Stats only back you up if you reference them.

                  C. Obesity != “not malnourished”. Coke is cheaper than milk in NZ. Check your local supermarket.

                  D. Schools and parents choosing reporting guidelines put it back into the territory of used car dealers, not to mention ruining consistency for employers and parents alike.

                  You are beginning to make unsubstantiated claims for which you alledge there s ample evidence. You might try referencing some. Preferably something competently peer reviewed, none of that miserly.org shite.

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  31 October 2011 at 5:00 pm

                  C. malnourished children (well… I don’t think they aren’t getting enough to eat. I though we were in the midst of an obesity epidemic?

                  Obese and Malnourished

                  The Problem Is In The Food!

                  A recent analysis of a range of staple foods in Canada including potatoes, tomatoes, bananas, apples, onion, broccoli etc, was commissioned by The Globe and Mail and CTV news. The results were predictable to some and a shock to others. Let’s use potatoes as an example. This is what the analysis found:

                  Over the last 50 years the potato has lost:

                  100% of its Vitamin A
                  57% of its Vitamin C and iron.
                  28% of its Calcium.
                  50% of its riboflavin
                  18% of its thiamine

                  Problem? IMO, Factory farming and artificial fertilisers. Or, to put it another way, doing things cheaper to make a profit.

                  • Rusty Shackleford …
                    31 October 2011 at 5:05 pm

                    Erm, and feeding millions of people. It’s a shame potatoes aren’t as nutritious as the used to be .But, it is better than the alternative. I hope that businesses will turn to producing crops that have more vitamins.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      31 October 2011 at 6:29 pm

                      The point that you seem to miss is that millions of people are starving even though they have food.

                      But, it is better than the alternative.

                      In what way is it better than there being less people?

                    • Rusty Shackleford …
                      31 October 2011 at 6:32 pm

                      I fundamentally don’t believe less people = better. I find the whole notion to be distasteful.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      31 October 2011 at 9:49 pm

                      I fundamentally don’t believe less people = better. I find the whole notion to be distasteful.

                      That’s because you’re stupid and believe the illogical people good, more people better paradigm of the religious idiots. I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised by this, you also believe the illogical free-market works.

                      The Earth cannot support the 7 billion humans presently inhabiting it. Scientific research indicates a maximum of between 1 and 2 billion.

                  • higherstandard …
                    31 October 2011 at 5:12 pm

                    You link to a bodybuilding site trying to truck saps inot purchasing their vitamins as reliable evidence – you really are a drip.

                    http://www.ajcn.org/content/early/2009/07/29/ajcn.2009.28041.abstract

        • McFlock 3.2.1.2
          31 October 2011 at 3:25 pm

          “Govt bureaucrats” (aka “public servants”, but I guess that’s just an example of perspective shaping language) have a lot better info than a parent going around school open days or relying on league tables.

          The US system, among other issues, uses league tables and SAT to “evaluate” a child’s education. Which is idiotic, but that’s what you get. I also think you’ll find that some areas are better funded than others, leading to a “well funded” average but geographical or demographic inequalities.

          • Rusty Shackleford 3.2.1.2.1
            31 October 2011 at 3:35 pm

            The planners have much less/worse information than every participant in the market have collectively.

            How can any group of people know what is best for every single person in any given market? There are a million different variations of outcome and it is impossible to know what they will be ahead of time. People working in their own self interest have a much better record of achieving mutually beneficial outcomes than top down central planning does.

            • McFlock 3.2.1.2.1.1
              31 October 2011 at 3:53 pm

              Lol. Abandoned praising the US system, have you?

              “The planners have much less/worse information than every participant in the market have collectively.”
              Evidence?

              “How can any group of people know what is best for every single person in any given market? There are a million different variations of outcome and it is impossible to know what they will be ahead of time. People working in their own self interest have a much better record of achieving mutually beneficial outcomes than top down central planning does.”

              Evidence that this applies to education?
              Maybe like checking out OECD stats? Math competencies seem to put US a wee bit farther down the list than Norway or Finland. Have fun.

              • Rusty Shackleford …
                31 October 2011 at 3:55 pm

                You have to learn how to read. I expressly criticised the US system. It is expensive, calcified and not improving.

                “The planners have much less/worse information than every participant in the market have collectively.”
                Evidence?
                The 20th Century.

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  31 October 2011 at 3:58 pm

                  You have to learn how to read. I expressly criticised the US system. It is expensive, calcified and not improving.

                  And yet it’s the US system that you want us to emulate.

                  “The planners have much less/worse information than every participant in the market have collectively.”
                  Evidence?
                  The 20th Century.

                  Um, no, the 20th century did not show that as the GFC proved.

                  • Rusty Shackleford …
                    31 October 2011 at 4:01 pm

                    Where have I said I want to emulate the US system? I don’t think I have advocated any particular country’s system. Only a movement towards more competition.

                    The great financial crisis was a failure of the planners. The Fed/central banking and fractional reserve banking caused the GFC. These are govt institutions.

                    • McFlock …
                      31 October 2011 at 4:48 pm

                      You didn’t. In fact, you advocate nothing. But you held up the US system as disproving that “govt bureaucrats have perfect info”, on the grounds that the US system is “extremely well funded”, “yet they aren’t getting any return in quality on the cash they have spent.”.

                      An unsupported claim to support an assertion that nobody made. Honestly, you’re a complete waste of space, throwing around polemical statements and providing nothing more than slogans and semi-religious aphorisms akin to Mao’s little red book.

                      Oh, you sit an jerk off, but you never follow through put something in the cup.

                      I tried to be civil, by the way, but you’re the only one to whip it out for the circle-jerk. I think you might have misunderstood the event description – it’s a cocktail party.

                    • Rusty Shackleford …
                      31 October 2011 at 4:53 pm

                      http://reason.com/archives/2011/02/22/losing-the-brains-race

                      Here is some data on the US experience.

                    • McFlock …
                      31 October 2011 at 5:01 pm

                      FINALLY!

                      Now, a few questions – Was that public expenditure only, or public&private expenditure combined? Variance wasn’t included – have the teacher:student ratios improved across the board, or are more students in larger classes and a few students in smaller classes excel? What factors were used to control for system-gaming and teaching to the SATs rather than plain “teaching?

                      Because so far it’s as useful as the corellation someone demonstrated between the migration rate in swans over northern Europe and the human birth rate there. Granularity was too big and the analysis failed to take into acount some significant factors.

                    • KJT …
                      31 October 2011 at 5:29 pm

                      Because more “competition” has worked so well in the USA.

                      The GFC was caused by the removal of regulation such as the Glass Steagal act and the proliferation of unsustainable financial Ponzi schemes this enabled.

                      And a financial system that cuts peoples wages, so the banks can then lend their earnings back to them at interest.

                      A lack of central control allowing the greedy free rein.

                    • Rusty Shackleford …
                      31 October 2011 at 5:33 pm

                      The Fed. Have you heard of it?

                • Colonial Viper …
                  31 October 2011 at 4:23 pm

                  Rusty you still promulgating the idea of rational, future knowing market actors?

                  Its bullshit, especially in todays gamed financial markets.

                  • Rusty Shackleford …
                    31 October 2011 at 4:29 pm

                    Heavens, no. Individual actors in a free market do not know the future with any certainty. However, as a group (for a variety of reasons) they are far better at it than a self appointed intellectual elite.

                    Free people as a group make much better choices because there are consequences to their actions. A person who sets up a business and fails loses his shirt. A group of govt people who set out to do something just claim to be “under-funded” if they fail.

                    • McFlock …
                      31 October 2011 at 4:35 pm

                      I love the way socialists are supposedly the collectivists and freemarketeers the individualists. FFS, socialists care if an individual starves. Not so the free market idealogue.

                    • Rusty Shackleford …
                      31 October 2011 at 4:39 pm

                      Mao, Stalin. They loved to starve people. Kim Jong Il.

                      The market does a pretty good job of feeding people. Central planning doesn’t.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      31 October 2011 at 4:40 pm

                      Rusty there is no evidence which says that a group of market actors know any better than just one market actor.

                      There is no collective “ESP” or “collective intelligence” which occurs.

                      Example: every single major investment bank got fucked by their derivatives trading.

                      They were just as dumb in a group as they were individually.

                    • Rusty Shackleford …
                      31 October 2011 at 4:43 pm

                      “…there is no evidence which says that a group of market actors know any better than just one market actor.”

                      Why have more market based economies flourished compared to more centrally planned ones?

                      Corporatism is a form of central planning as well. This being the case, is it any wonder the banks imploded and needed to be bailed out by the bankers?

                    • McFlock …
                      31 October 2011 at 4:50 pm

                      Basil Zaharoff. Eric Prince. Sandline International. Monsanto. The Amazonian rain forest felling.

                    • McFlock …
                      31 October 2011 at 4:54 pm

                      Nestle. Coca Cola. BHP.

                    • Rusty Shackleford …
                      31 October 2011 at 4:59 pm

                      I’m not sure why you are randomly listing companies and people. I had to google Basil Zarahoff, and look what pops up as the second result. http://mises.org/daily/2687 A little bio by a man named John T. Flynn. Flynn’s book on FDR is a must read http://mises.org/resources/3429/The-Roosevelt-Myth

                    • McFlock …
                      31 October 2011 at 5:04 pm

                      Just various merchants of death and/or shall we say “merchants who experienced periods of ethical scarcity”.

                    • Rusty Shackleford …
                      31 October 2011 at 5:07 pm

                      FDR ordered crops be plowed under, pigs slaughtered and prices prevented from falling at a time of hunger and falling incomes. Better add him to the list.

                    • McFlock …
                      31 October 2011 at 5:13 pm

                      Meh – FDR is debatable, what with providing jobs that the free market couldn’t. Mao’s a gimmee, I grant you. Killed as many people as GM and Krupp.

                    • Rusty Shackleford …
                      31 October 2011 at 5:19 pm

                      Unemployment stayed in the double figures for much of FDR’s reign.

                      Krupp didn’t kill a single person, that I know of (he may have). He sold weapons to govts, who used them to kill people. A good argument for limiting govt if ever there was one. We want to keep men like Krupp and Basil Z as far away from centralised pockets of power as we possibly can.

                    • McFlock …
                      31 October 2011 at 5:27 pm

                      “Unemployment stayed in the double figures for much of FDR’s reign. “

                      True that. The free market seriously fucked the economy.

                      “Krupp didn’t kill a single person, that I know of (he may have). He sold weapons to govts, who used them to kill people. A good argument for limiting govt if ever there was one. We want to keep men like Krupp and Basil Z as far away from centralised pockets of power as we possibly can.”

                      They sold weapons to damned near anyone, and made it a fuckload easier to kill millions.
                      Sandline? Prince? They sold/sell to anyone, too.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      31 October 2011 at 5:28 pm

                      Rusty you’re full of it,

                      The market does a pretty good job of feeding people. Central planning doesn’t.

                      46M people in the US on Govt provided food stamps, that’s your standard of “pretty good” huh?

                      And it’ll get better you reckon if the Govt stops providing the food stamps because the market will provide?

            • Draco T Bastard 3.2.1.2.1.2
              31 October 2011 at 3:54 pm

              People working in their own self interest have a much better record of achieving mutually beneficial outcomes…

              And where are those people getting their information from? Individuals working with no information are going to make real bad mistakes and yet that seems to be the system that you want to be in place. One which is completely irrational.

              …than top down central planning does.

              Only you RWNJs are talking about top down planning. You know, such top down planning as National Standards and league tables that allows the parents to decide what is best for the child. Everyone else is talking about a flexible educational environment that trains the teachers to recognise and respond to the needs of the child based upon practices that are researched and then passed out through a network of people and structures (otherwise known as a government department) set up to do that.

    • KJT 3.3
      31 October 2011 at 3:12 pm

      Because.

      For the same reasons that competition has increased power prices.

      The costs of duplication of networks, advertising, profits and dividends, the race to be the cheapest for big customers loaded onto small consumers and the costs of rebuilding the infrastructure and human capability after the inevitable asset stripping and wage cutting

      • Rusty Shackleford 3.3.1
        31 October 2011 at 3:19 pm

        There isn’t any real competition in the electricity market, it is heavily regulated.

        • KJT 3.3.1.1
          31 October 2011 at 3:23 pm

          That is because privatisation/corporatism does not work for infrastructure.

          Even the pretense of competition is proving dysfunctional. Imagine how much worse it would be if we had unregulated power markets.

        • Draco T Bastard 3.3.1.2
          31 October 2011 at 3:55 pm

          Correct, there isn’t. That’s because it’s a natural monopoly.

          • Rusty Shackleford 3.3.1.2.1
            31 October 2011 at 4:04 pm

            As I’ve pointed out before, simply saying “natural monopoly” doesn’t magically create a mandate for central planning. Using your logic, you could extend any market to the level of “natural” monopoly. There is a giant literature on this. We can go into it if you want to. I have the time.

            • Draco T Bastard 3.3.1.2.1.1
              31 October 2011 at 5:09 pm

              State ownership != central planning.

              Especially if we have democracy where everyone has a say. In fact, you’re more likely to get central planning from your preferred capitalist ownership than from government ownership, ie, MS Windows.

              • Rusty Shackleford …
                31 October 2011 at 5:11 pm

                I guess we have differing definitions of central planning.

                • KJT …
                  31 October 2011 at 5:33 pm

                  Most of us here advocate a Democracy, which is the antitheses of both Authoritarian Government Dictatorships like China and authoritarian rule by corporate money which is the USA.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  31 October 2011 at 5:33 pm

                  World financial markets are centrally planned now mate. And thats the way they will stay if the powers that be have their way.

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  31 October 2011 at 6:34 pm

                  Yeah, your definition is anything that works on the principal of people working together and not kowtowing to the capitalists is central planning while dictatorship in the form of private business is never central planning despite all those businesses being centrally planned.

            • Colonial Viper 3.3.1.2.1.2
              31 October 2011 at 5:34 pm

              We can go into it if you want to. I have the time.

              Then why don’t you add some value mate. Instead of theorising shit.

  4. TonyP 4
    31 October 2011 at 3:01 pm

    Of course the govt have a piece of the puzzle in place already for this with the new boss of the Ministry Of Education. An englishwoman who has experience in bringing about “change” in education including the implementation of the Free Schools. An appointmnet that has not had much press notice.

  5. randal 5
    31 October 2011 at 3:05 pm

    kweewee is just another money drongo. ipredict he will lose this election and go back to where he came from.

  6. JS 6
    31 October 2011 at 3:42 pm

    I expect a big attack on teachers and teacher unions if National wins another term. Non-Unionised privatised charter schools such as the US has, or the new system the UK has whereby the government intervenes if it doesn’t like a school and sacks the staff and gets a private company to run it all. This could happen to those schools brave enough to continue resisting national standards. Key has mentioned new school buildings as ‘assets’ but nothing about teaching and learning being important.

  7. travellerev 7
    31 October 2011 at 3:50 pm

    Can I point out that since the international financial world is going to collapse the local house market is going to take an even bigger tumble and that all these rich builders who helped vote John Key in need some jobs while waiting it out and that this money is not going to be invested in schooling and opportunities for children to have a better education but much of it will be paid to these building companies and it will basically be job creation for building companies.
    Also I thought Bomber had an interesting take on the “Fund” they just came up with!

    • Colonial Viper 7.1
      31 October 2011 at 5:38 pm

      Declines in NZ house prices will occur but I reckon be very mild for the next few years, a few % reduction in nominal pricing p.a. combined with a few % loss p.a. eaten up by inflation.

      And in certain areas of Auckland etc. prices will keep going up and up as people seem to enjoy living like sardines.

      Situation changes if bank credit for mortgages dries up abruptly.

Links to post