NRT: Charter schools are corrupt

Written By: - Date published: 2:08 pm, July 25th, 2016 - 318 comments
Categories: Abuse of power, act, corruption - Tags: , , ,

I/S at No Right Turn:

Charter schools are corrupt

ACT appears to be using charter schools to channel public money to government donors and cronies:

A trust with close ties to the Government – including former All Black and National Party supporter Michael Jones – was given a $500,000 charter school contract without going to tender.

The E Tipu E Rea Trust, a new body set up to promote and support the controversial schooling model, was awarded the funding directly despite education officials acknowledging it “may not result in the most capable entity being selected”.

Opposition parties are now accusing the Government of cronyism, saying it’s giving its “mates” public money to push Act Party policy, and disregarding what’s best for children.

The trust also includes ACT donor and crony Jenny Gibbs, and former Maori Party co-leader Tariana Turia (who is being well taken care of by National in her political retirement). The money was awarded despite a clear conflict of interest with Jones, who owns a charter school.

This is simply a corrupt abuse of public funds by the government to line its friends pockets. It is not how government is supposed to work in this country, and those responsible need to be held to account for it. As for the trust, if charter schools want “support and promotion”, maybe they should pay for it themselves?

318 comments on “NRT: Charter schools are corrupt ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. TC 1
    25 July 2016 at 3:02 pm

    they are exempt from the OIA and the assets purchased with taxpayer funds stay in the venture if the school fails.

    Once I learnt that I just assumed national would do what they do best. Cronyism and rewarding backers with public money, too bad if public schools miss out.

    • Draco T Bastard 1.1
      25 July 2016 at 4:46 pm

      Once I learnt that I just assumed national would do what they do best. Cronyism and rewarding backers with public money, too bad if public schools miss out.

      QFT

  2. maninthemiddle 2
    25 July 2016 at 3:05 pm

    “they are exempt from the OIA…”
    Of course they are…they aren’t part of the government. This is exactly the same as for over 5,000 other educational organisations.

    ” and the assets purchased with taxpayer funds stay in the venture if the school fails.”
    Says who?

    Partnership schools are working, by any objective measure, and if one fails, they are allowed to close. That should be the outcome for our underperforming public schools.

    • Macro 2.1
      25 July 2016 at 3:28 pm

      Partnership schools are working, by any objective measure, and if one fails, they are allowed to close. That should be the outcome for our underperforming public schools.

      F**k your stupid!!

      Partnership schools are not working, despite having millions of taxpayer money thrown at them, on any measurement!
      If public schools were to receive the same funding per student as charter schools, they would be swimming in cash, could hire hundreds more teachers, and with a much improved teacher : student ratio there would be no child left behind in our public schools.
      If you closed public schools because they were under performing – then what? – send the kids out to sweep chimneys?

      • Psycho Milt 2.1.1
        25 July 2016 at 4:07 pm

        By “working,” he means they’re helping the government undermine teacher unions and the public education system, while directing cash into the pockets of NACT cronies. I think we can all agree they’re “working” in that sense, it’s just not the criteria for “working” that most of us would use.

      • maninthemiddle 2.1.2
        25 July 2016 at 4:54 pm

        “If public schools were to receive the same funding per student as charter schools, ”

        Do you deliberately spout lies? Public schools receive MORE money per pupil than partnership schools. Fact.

        http://www.education.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Ministry/Initiatives/Partnership-schools/StatePartnershipSchoolsFunding.pdf

        • Stuart Munro 2.1.2.1
          25 July 2016 at 7:53 pm

          Festering cesspits of corruption – fruitful ground for a brutal and exemplary public audit once some senna or purgative drug has scoured Bill English hence.

        • mpledger 2.1.2.2
          26 July 2016 at 12:53 pm

          Charter Schools get paid for a minumum number of students. If they don’t get the minimum number of students, they still get paid for the minimum number of students. (If they get more than the minimum they get paid for those.)

          IIRC At least three schools are have enrollments below the minimum.

      • srylands 2.1.3
        25 July 2016 at 5:09 pm

        “If public schools were to receive the same funding per student as charter schools, they would be swimming in cash, could hire hundreds more teachers, and with a much improved …”
        ____

        What the hell? The premise is wrong and the conclusion is wrong.

        Charter schools do not receive more money than public schools.

        Improving the student/teacher ratio is an inefficient, expensive, and uncertain way to attempt to lift achievement.

        http://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/media-speeches/speeches/economicleadership/sanz-evidence-mar12.pdf

        I expect the Government will accelerate its charter school roll out during national’s 4th term. Personally I would like to see 25% of all students attending charter schools. An alternative sector of that size would begin to break the influence of the PPTA and NZEI on teacher remuneration and on school management.

        • Macro 2.1.3.1
          25 July 2016 at 6:43 pm

          What the hell? The premise is wrong and the conclusion is wrong.

          Charter schools do not receive more money than public schools.

          You wouldn’t know a premise if you fell over one!
          The link you make is total funding – and that shitlands is a false equivalent.
          If you can’t see the difference then you are more of and imbecile than I give you credit. If you can see the difference then you are a lying toad.
          Charter schools are funded thousands of dollars more per student than public schools – end of story.
          As for your “argument” re pupil teacher ratios – you obviously have now fucking idea about education other than the fact that once you attended a school. NZ classrooms are now way understaffed and under resourced. That is why those who can afford it send their little dears to private schools where they have far less children in the classrooms.

          • NZJester 2.1.3.1.1
            25 July 2016 at 8:00 pm

            To be fair less charter school money is spent on the actual student themselves than a student in an underfunded public school. They tend to have lower numbers of real teachers so that the education side of the school costs them less in wages than what a public school pays. Most of that extra cash is going into the pockets of the so called investors and management of the charter schools.
            Within a short amount of time any money they did put in to start with was paid back and then it is all just pure profit for them. They make the sort of investment returns that even a Ponzi scheme could not afford to tell their investor they would get back for fear people would see through the lies.

            • Macro 2.1.3.1.1.1
              25 July 2016 at 9:07 pm

              “To be fair less charter school money is spent on the actual student themselves than a student in an underfunded public school. They tend to have lower numbers of real teachers so that the education side of the school costs them less in wages than what a public school pays. ”
              Yes that is a fair point.
              Maybe we should just staff all our schools with baby minders…
              Like the Dames Schools of old England. Oh yeah! That’s what Charter schools are!

        • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1.3.2
          25 July 2016 at 7:56 pm

          When duped trash like MitM cite lies, it’s because they don’t know any better.

          National Party trougher “advisers” on the other hand, we can safely assume are lying out of self-interest and low character. For money. You really are scum, S Rylands.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 3.1
      25 July 2016 at 3:45 pm

      Dupes, swallowing National Party lies since forever.

      Either that or shit at Maths, but does anyone really care about such nuances?

    • Siobhan 3.2
      25 July 2016 at 3:46 pm

      Why not just have a well resourced public school system for all pupils.

      Simple.

      • maninthemiddle 3.2.1
        25 July 2016 at 4:55 pm

        Simple. Because that hasn’t worked for some pupils in the past. Partnership Schools are delivering for those pupils, at a lower cost, where public schools have failed.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 3.2.1.1
          25 July 2016 at 9:09 pm

          The single most influential factor in educational achievement is household income. That’s just one of the reasons the OECD and many others are ringing alarm bells about this shit government.

          The lying Prime Minister started lying to Parliament about literacy and numeracy rates way back in 2007, before the lying trash even took office.

          His lies were well documented (cf: Prof Terry Crooks et al) and roundly condemned, except by spineless gullible puppet parrots. Like you.

          $500,000 to that Gibbs leech, snout in the trough.

          • maninthemiddle 3.2.1.1.1
            25 July 2016 at 9:30 pm

            “The single most influential factor in educational achievement is household income. ”

            RUBBISH.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 3.2.1.1.1.1
              25 July 2016 at 9:35 pm

              For example, this is why the OECD warned recently that in New Zealand, “Children from disadvantaged backgrounds have considerably worse education outcomes than others.”

              When they aren’t spoonfeeding lies to witless dupes like you, the government that dribbles down your chin agrees:

              Poverty during the early years of childhood can be particularly detrimental, with negative educational effects persisting at least into the middle years of schooling, even if family incomes improve. The relationship between income and education outcomes is not linear; increases in household income have significantly greater impacts on education outcomes for children in low-income families than outcomes for children in high-income families.

              You have no idea what any of this means.

              • maninthemiddle …
                26 July 2016 at 9:22 am

                Nothing you have posted supports your contention that ‘household income’ is the single most influential factor. There are many factors that effect educational outcomes, including useless parenting, drug and alcohol abuse, poor diet (possible in any socio-economic group) and so on. You forget the funding model we deploy is based on Deciles…look it up…it provides schools in poorer areas with more money. The wealthier pay for that too.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  26 July 2016 at 9:53 am

                  Do you think naming the single most influential factor implies it’s the only factor? Reading is a skill: as I said: you have no idea what any of this means.

                  But you’re sure it can’t be true because rah rah rah taxes!

                  • maninthemiddle …
                    26 July 2016 at 10:14 am

                    “Do you think naming the single most influential factor implies it’s the only factor?”

                    I’m waiting for you to post any evidence it is the ‘single most influential factor’.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      26 July 2016 at 1:36 pm

                      “You’ll have to learn to read first.”

                      From your own source…

                      “Although parental income generally has only a small to modest effect on any particular outcome…”

                      Where does this report substantiate your claim OAB? I’ve caught out Stuart twice recently…now you as well?

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      26 July 2016 at 1:58 pm

                      That’s because you have trouble reading, and think cherry-picking and pwned are arguments.

                      On Earth, they simply indicate your bad faith.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      26 July 2016 at 2:10 pm

                      “That’s because you have trouble reading, and think cherry-picking and pwned are arguments.”

                      “Although parental income generally has only a small to modest effect on any particular outcome…”

                      Where does this report substantiate your claim OAB?

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      26 July 2016 at 2:12 pm

                      You didn’t even read it, did you?

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      26 July 2016 at 2:26 pm

                      A discussion document such as this isn’t a series of unrelated sentences like “The size of the effect of income differs across different outcomes: it appears to have its largest effect on cognitive test scores and educational attainment.”

                      Read the whole to get a full impression of the information it contains.

                      It’s one document however. Elsewhere, the government that dribbles down your chin notes that

                      Poverty increases the likelihood of poor nutrition and other health problems, housing transience, unstable parent and caregiver relationships, negative peer group influences and other factors known to impact on educational achievement.

                      Which explains why it’s the most influential factor: because it influences so many others.

                      Obviously you disagree because rah rah rah taxes bludgers!

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      26 July 2016 at 3:18 pm

                      “Which explains…” but doesn’t in any way shape or form support your contention. In fact it refutes it…

                      “Although parental income generally has only a small to modest effect on any particular outcome…”

                      I’m calling you out OAB. You’ve screwed up, and I’ve caught you out.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      27 July 2016 at 6:07 pm

                      Cherry-picking is lying, liar.

                      For example, I could quote the sentence:

                      …it appears to have its largest effect on cognitive test scores and educational attainment.

                      And that would no more be a summation of the article than your cherry-picking. Luckily for me, I don’t rely on bad faith point scoring and lies to argue my point, liar.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      28 July 2016 at 11:40 am

                      “For example, I could quote the sentence:
                      …it appears to have its largest effect on cognitive test scores and educational attainment.”

                      You could, and it would still make you a liar. It has ITS largest, not THE largest. You are either thick or utterly morally bankrupt.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      28 July 2016 at 12:14 pm

                      Whatever. The paragraph cited at 2:26 on the 26th clearly illustrates why household income is the most influential factor in education achievement. I’ve provided other supporting material. although I haven’t even got to Jonathon Boston’s excellent work yet.

                      You have provided precisely nothing: the fact is your only basis for disagreement is the source of the information, and your argument consists of “no it isn’t”.

                      PS: your last comment (like all your others) is complete bullshit: a total fail. You seem to think that to make my case I have to find the exact quote replicated somewhere 🙄

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      28 July 2016 at 2:24 pm

                      “The paragraph cited at 2:26 on the 26th clearly illustrates why household income is the most influential factor in education achievement. ”

                      No, it doesn’t. The entire article affirms my view, that income may be AN issue, but it is far from the most significant. You cited this article, and you have failed.

                      “Although parental income generally has only a small to modest effect on any particular outcome…”

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      28 July 2016 at 2:59 pm

                      Poverty affects all the other factors listed, hence, “most influential”. I’m glad I can clear that up for you.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      28 July 2016 at 3:55 pm

                      Further reading on the subject includes, and is not limited to:

                      Improving educational performance: why tackling child poverty must be part of the solution Johnathon Boston, 2013.

                      The impact of poverty on educational outcomes for children Ferguson et al 2007.

                      The OECD says “probably”.

                      So as you can see, citations abound.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      28 July 2016 at 4:40 pm

                      Oh, and just to demonstrate how stupid and dishonest it is to cherry-pick, and quote-mine, here is the full paragraph you snipped a few words from:

                      Although parental income generally has only a small to modest effect on any particular outcome, it contributes to many aspects of children’s well-being. This means that income gains have the potential to make a significant cumulative difference to the lives of children.

                      Reading the whole paragraph gives the opposite impression than the one you were aiming for. I’ve been saving that up, and it still doesn’t convey the meaning of the whole article.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      29 July 2016 at 9:49 am

                      “Poverty affects all the other factors listed, hence, “most influential”.”

                      That’s your opinion. No-where in your reference does it say that.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      29 July 2016 at 9:52 am

                      “So as you can see, citations abound.”

                      Not if you’re being honest. Your links (and BTW I could cite many with a contrary perspective) are POVERTY. Your claim was about INCOME.

                      Are you a liar, or just thick?

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      29 July 2016 at 9:53 am

                      “Although parental income generally has only a small to modest effect on any particular outcome, it contributes to many aspects of children’s well-being. This means that income gains have the potential to make a significant cumulative difference to the lives of children.”

                      And where does that mention income being THE most significant factor? That’s right, it doesn’t. In fact that paragraph doesn’t even mention education.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      29 July 2016 at 12:07 pm

                      Reading:
                      noun
                      1. the action or skill of reading.

                      Whole:
                      adjective
                      1. all of; entire.

                      Convey:
                      verb
                      2. to communicate; impart; make known:

                      Meaning:
                      noun
                      1. what is meant by a word, text, concept, or action.

                      Get some English comprehension lessons: you clearly have no understanding of “convey the meaning of the whole article”.

                      I note you’ve started yelling. Choke on it.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      29 July 2016 at 12:12 pm

                      That’s your opinion.

                      Gosh really? What a revelation! It’s an opinion. One that’s based on multiple citations and lines of evidence, and is shared by many many experts in the field.

                      You on the other hand, believe it’s not true because I said it.

                      McFlock is right: you really are a stupid piece of shit.

            • UncookedSelachimorpha 3.2.1.1.1.2
              25 July 2016 at 11:08 pm

              That’s a well considered argument you’ve got there, man in the muddle.

              Unfortunately you are mostly wrong – higher household income is associated with improvements in most or all measures of educational attainment, although could be arguable whether it is the ‘most influential factor’, if you want to split hairs.

      • Stuart Munro 3.2.2
        25 July 2016 at 5:21 pm

        Because it creates no sinecures for middlemen – or is it ‘maninthemiddlemen’.

      • srylands 3.2.3
        25 July 2016 at 5:25 pm

        Right. Simple is it?

        Between 2002 and 2008, under the last Government, nominal school funding per student increased by 41%, at enormous cost.

        https://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/__data/assets/excel_doc/0006/84075/Per-student-funding-2002-2015.xlsx

        And yet over this period, education achievement stagnated:

        https://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/86814/PISA-2009-Our-21st-century-learners-at-age-15.pdf

        So you think if only the last labour Government had increased education funding by even more, it would have made a difference?

        I can assure you that internationally there is no correlation between expenditure on education and outcomes.

        It is not as you have suggested ‘simple’. It is not simple at all.

        • maninthemiddle 3.2.3.1
          25 July 2016 at 5:28 pm

          Indeed, it is far more complex. A combination of private and public provision works well, as it does in whole raft of other sectors of the economy.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 3.2.3.2
          28 July 2016 at 6:48 pm

          Household income is the most important factor in educational achievement, not government spending. Sure, if the government somehow* could figure out a way to boost the household income of the bottom quintile, that would be swell.

          *personally, I think legislative efforts that favour pre-distribution are more efficient than those that favour re-distribution. In practical terms, the freedoms of speech and expression are your friends.

          In the short term though, some good old-fashioned Socialism is probably the only solution to this right-wing-policy-predictable-outcome. The government needs to urgently house the homeless and restore peace-of-mind to the precariat.

    • r0b 3.3
      25 July 2016 at 3:52 pm

      Charter schools get significantly more money per pupil
      http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/education/73264578/Government-funding-of-charter-school-rolls-questioned
      http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1511/S00402/charter-school-funding-the-updated-facts.htm

      And the left is not telling lies about them, that NRT piece is based on an article in The Herald
      “Trust given $500,000 charter school contract without going to tender”
      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11680820
      That’s simply a fact.

      • maninthemiddle 3.3.1
        25 July 2016 at 4:56 pm

        You can either believe media data based on incomplete rolls, or you can read the official data.

        http://www.education.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Ministry/Initiatives/Partnership-schools/StatePartnershipSchoolsFunding.pdf

        The choice is ours.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 3.3.1.1
          25 July 2016 at 5:00 pm

          The link outlays exactly how the Ministry lies. No wonder you can’t address the points it raises.

          the Ministry ignored the reality that actual property costs were nearly half a million dollars less than what the school was funded for… the adjusted funding for the charter secondary school was then divided by a projected roll number of 300 rather than using the actual school roll…the funding for the charter schools was adjusted to remove two components produced by the funding model: “Property & Insurance” and “Centrally Funded Services”…

          Cooking the books is the only way you can pretend success. It’s because you’re useless and dishonest, chiefly with yourself.

          • maninthemiddle 3.3.1.1.1
            25 July 2016 at 5:15 pm

            The Ministry isn’t lying. The ‘actual school roll’ is not used when comparing public school start ups, so why should it be used for partnership school start ups? It’s dishonest. Which probably suits your narrative. But when compared apples for apples, Partnership Schools cost less per pupil.

            • In Vino 3.3.1.1.1.1
              25 July 2016 at 5:42 pm

              Yeah, Crab-apples to Granny Smiths. You are not at all convincing, Maninthemiddleoftheextremeright.

              For a long time now the Ministry has had the role of covering the Govt’s backside, unlike the old Department of Education. Whenever anyone comes up with figures damning to the Govt., the Ministry will make a great effort to come out with other figures that fudge the issue and make the Govt. look OK. The Ministry is neither impartial nor trustworthy

              • maninthemiddle …
                25 July 2016 at 6:16 pm

                Oh, of course not. The MoE is the lackey of this ultra-right, skin head, gay hating, child eating government. Look…flying pigs….

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  25 July 2016 at 9:02 pm

                  The gradual corruption of official information has been widely reported in a variety of media. It is not confined to the MoE.

                  All you need to do is start squealing like a liar that “Labour did it too”, before I rub your face in the fact that that doesn’t excuse this shit government from doing the same and worse.

                  Your excuses are empty.

                  • maninthemiddle …
                    25 July 2016 at 9:28 pm

                    Tin. Foil. Hat.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      25 July 2016 at 9:36 pm

                      Lying innumerate illiterate clown.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      26 July 2016 at 9:23 am

                      Still waiting for you to give an example….

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      26 July 2016 at 10:01 am

                      The words highlighted in blue are called ‘links’. You won’t understand the information in the articles they ‘link’ to, so whatever you do don’t ‘click’ on them let alone read them.

                      And don’t follow up any of the information they contain either.

                      Toodles.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      26 July 2016 at 10:17 am

                      “The words highlighted in blue are called ‘links’. ”

                      Neither of which have anything to do with this topic.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      26 July 2016 at 11:38 am

                      I’ll join the dots for you: far from being “tin-foil-hat” territory, the fact that government departments have become increasingly partisan has been widely reported.

                      The MoE, for example, adjusting data to remove “Property & Insurance” and “Centrally Funded Services”…” from the propaganda sheet you’re pretending has some currency.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      26 July 2016 at 1:39 pm

                      “I’ll join the dots for you: ”

                      Explaining is losing. You can’t refute the MoE data, so you cast aspersions. Sad.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      26 July 2016 at 1:42 pm

                      Once again, refusing to address the substance of the rebuttal is not winning. pwnboy. It’s also tiresome and lame.

                    • McFlock …
                      26 July 2016 at 1:47 pm

                      mitm: [bullshit claim]

                      good-faith commenter: [presents facts that demonstrate bullshit claim to be false]

                      mitm: [bullshittingly asserts that presented facts support bullshit claim]

                      good-faith commenter: [logically refutes assertion by explaining basic English or math]

                      mitm: “explaining is losing”.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      26 July 2016 at 1:53 pm

                      No, McFlock. The opposition to the MoE stats is based on their use of full rolls. Yet that is precisely the same basis that opponents of Partnership Schools use to report on new state schools. This is about consistency, and about me highlighting you;re and OAB’s dishonest misrepresentation.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      26 July 2016 at 2:04 pm

                      http://www.fletcherconstruction.co.nz/projects.php?id=380&action=search&projectname=Ormiston%20Senior%20College

                      New state school…cost $50m.

                      “Ormiston Senior College is a decile 10, Co-Educational Secondary school, located in Auckland. The school has 396 Year 11-15 students including 8 international students. The school receives $3,313,403.55 in direct government funding, which translates to a budget of $8,367.18 per student.”

                      The school opened with a capacity of 1000 students.

                      Should we divide the funding by 396 or by 1000?

                    • McFlock …
                      26 July 2016 at 2:25 pm

                      Now you’re just cut and pasting identical comments.

                      Which seem to indicate that you believe “projected roll” and “capacity” are as interchangeable as you believe “median” and “mean” to be. Why would anyone calculate the cost per student on “capacity” – surely additional costs in teacher and administration hours would increase the funding?

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      26 July 2016 at 3:16 pm

                      “Why would anyone calculate the cost per student on “capacity” ”

                      So on that basis, the cost per pupil at Ormiston State School is far higher than at a Partnership School. So I could, on your logic, argue that Partnership Schools are far more cost effective than State Schools. But I won’t use Ormiston, other than to show the stupidity of your argument.

                    • McFlock …
                      26 July 2016 at 3:31 pm

                      So on that basis, the cost per pupil at Ormiston State School is far higher than at a Partnership School.

                      No, on that basis the cost of Ormiston is $8,367.18 per actual student (396 students). Significantly less than a charter school’s funding per actual student.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      26 July 2016 at 3:54 pm

                      “No, on that basis the cost of Ormiston is $8,367.18 per actual student (396 students). Significantly less than a charter school’s funding per actual student.”

                      Wrong. The cost per student of a Partnership Schools at 50 pupils is $7,588.

                      http://www.education.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Ministry/Initiatives/Partnership-schools/StatePartnershipSchoolsFunding.pdf

                      And Ormiston cost $50m to build! $50m!!

                    • McFlock …
                      26 July 2016 at 4:21 pm

                      Lol
                      Only according to the publication that got the property costs and the actual roll wrong.
                      Oh, and compared 2013 state budgets vs students with 2014 charter school budgets and roll inflators – the primary school only had 46 students in 2014

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      26 July 2016 at 4:32 pm

                      Which Primary School? You;re rambling McF%%cked. The ‘publication’ didn’t get those indicators wrong. You’re reading too much union propaganda!!

                    • McFlock …
                      26 July 2016 at 5:19 pm

                      Which primary school? The only primary charter school open in 2014, dipshit. And I haven’t even checked whether they were comparing a contributing charter school with a full primary state school.

                      Fuck “union propaganda”, fucko – I’m working of the ministry of education website, you stupid piece of shit. And the best that the charter cultists can cook the books is to get figures that are almost the same as the state school’s per student expenditure. That’s like when your mother cheated on your exams for you and still only managed a C-.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      26 July 2016 at 5:20 pm

                      “The only primary charter school open in 2014”

                      Name it. (I’m so looking forward to this).

                      “I’m working of the ministry of education website, you stupid piece of shit. ”

                      No you’re not. You’re using an argument run by the teacher unions to preserve their privilege.

                      Oh, and how does that $50m compare per pupil with the cost of a new Partnership School, McFl^&ed?

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      26 July 2016 at 5:33 pm

                      Ormiston Senior College, opened in 2011 with capacity of 1,000. The school cost $50m to build, and currently has 502 students. That’s 502!

                      A Partnership School with the same roll would have cost the government less than $1m. http://www.education.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Ministry/Initiatives/Partnership-schools/FundingForPartnershipSchools.pdf

                    • McFlock …
                      26 July 2016 at 5:44 pm

                      Name it

                      lol

                      Rise up. Rise up, and seek a NZ government website that lists charter schools by type and when they opened. Even a fuck-useless moron like yourself could do that. Rise up, little man in the middle, rise up and try to engage your brain!

                      Anyway I’ve just realised that you used the primary school figure ($7,588) from the bullshit infographic to compare with ormiston senior college, lol. And ormistons per student calculation ($8,367.18) is not just more than a grand lower than your bullshit infographic ($9,594), it’s lower than the charter school’s “full roll” per student costs.

                      As for your $50 mil, that was in the price deducted from the charter school side of the infographic. “Property and insurance costs”($8,452).

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      26 July 2016 at 5:47 pm

                      “As for your $50 mil, that was in the price deducted from the charter school side of the infographic.”

                      You really have no idea, do you.

                      http://www.fletcherconstruction.co.nz/projects.php?id=380&action=search&projectname=Ormiston%20Senior%20College

                    • McFlock …
                      26 July 2016 at 5:49 pm

                      Lol
                      migraine-in-the-middle thinks that Ormiston Senior School was burned down after one year, and they spent another $50million building a new school.

                      So, fucko, now we all know that you’ve never seen a grownup budget in your life, you’ve never managed so much as a stationery cupboard, and you still think incredibly highly of your woefully inadequate abilities.

                      A second the call someone made earlier to Dunning-Kruger.

                    • McFlock …
                      26 July 2016 at 5:51 pm

                      ever hear of capital expenditure or depreciation?

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      26 July 2016 at 5:54 pm

                      “took the bait”

                      Bad faith commenter exposes own character in own words.

                    • McFlock …
                      27 July 2016 at 11:08 am

                      Bad faith commenter exposes own character in own words.

                      To be fair, for a while there I thought that mediocrity in the midsection was a bot that took a random passage from the previous comment and language-mapped a randomised tangential response with a pwned claim attached.

                      How much of a stupid douchebag does a person have to be to fail a Turing Test 🙂

                    • McFlock …
                      27 July 2016 at 11:12 am

                      Oh I’m so glad you took the bait.

                      So am I – you’ve deftly proved that the “union propaganda” was correct, that the figures you were comparing with Ormiston Senior were from a primary school 1/6 the size, that the figures in the infographic you keep clutch&pasting with desperation are actually bullshit anyway, and that you’re a bad-faith fucking douchebag.

                      Well played, fucko, well played.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      28 July 2016 at 2:26 pm

                      “Nor did Ormiston cost $50mil for a single year’s operation. ”

                      Quote where I said it did.

                      Ormiston cost $50m to build. It costs under $1m of taxpayers money to build a Partnership School. Ormiston currently only has around 500 pupils. What a waste of money.

                      Oh, and here’s another state school failure…http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11682199.

                    • McFlock …
                      28 July 2016 at 2:49 pm

                      Which 400-student charter secondary school cost a million dollars to build?

                      links pls.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      29 July 2016 at 9:48 am

                      “Which 400-student charter secondary school cost a million dollars to build?”

                      Where did I claim they did?

                      You see you need to learn to read. I said they cost the ‘taxpayer’ that. The rest is funded by the PS.

                    • McFlock …
                      29 July 2016 at 12:56 pm

                      Dude, you misread your own link.

                      The “property support” portion is “an annual sum for property that will allow the sponsor of a Partnership School”. That’s not building the building for a million dollars, that’s “site works costs and the cost of constructing the building(s), including a furniture and equipment grant (capital costs); 40 years of operations grant property funding (maintenance costs), 30 years of five year agreement funding (modernisation costs)”.

                      That’s not building the school for a million dollars. That’s paying the school a million dollars a year only for its buildings, for 40-odd years. That’s almost the cost of Ormiston school’s construction, for a school capacity that’s half the size.

                      [slow clap]

                      Your own links once again demonstrate that you’re an idiot.
                      Seriously, learn to amortize capital expenditure. It’ll help you if you want any position of responsibility after you leave school.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      31 July 2016 at 9:21 pm

                      “Dude, you misread your own link.”

                      “That’s not building the school for a million dollars…”

                      No. Yes, it is. The schools COST $50m to build.

                      http://www.fletcherconstruction.co.nz/projects.php?id=380&action=search&projectname=Ormiston%20Senior%20College

                      Your lies don’t disguise.

                    • McFlock …
                      1 August 2016 at 12:48 pm

                      So I see you’re just back to your idiot-bot imitation.

                      Dipshit, the link you put forward to say that a charter school could get buildings for 500 students for less than a million dollars actually said that they could do it for that sum per year for 30 to 40 years.

                      About the same cost as Ormiston, which is for a thousand students, not 500.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      1 August 2016 at 2:47 pm

                      “Dipshit, the link you put forward to say that a charter school could get buildings for 500 students for less than a million dollars actually said that they could do it for that sum per year for 30 to 40 years.”

                      No, it didn’t.

                      “About the same cost as Ormiston, which is for a thousand students, not 500.”

                      How many pupils does Ormiston have? That’s right, around 500. If you want to use it’s POTENTIAL roll, you need to show some consistency and do the same for PS funding. But you won’t. Because your’e inherently dishonest.

                    • McFlock …
                      1 August 2016 at 3:12 pm

                      “Dipshit, the link you put forward to say that a charter school could get buildings for 500 students for less than a million dollars actually said that they could do it for that sum per year for 30 to 40 years.”

                      No, it didn’t.

                      “an annual sum for property that will allow the sponsor of a Partnership School” that includes “site works costs and the cost of constructing the building(s), including a furniture and equipment grant (capital costs); 40 years of operations grant property funding (maintenance costs), 30 years of five year agreement funding (modernisation costs)”.
                      Oh, yes it is, fucko.

                      “About the same cost as Ormiston, which is for a thousand students, not 500.”

                      How many pupils does Ormiston have? That’s right, around 500. If you want to use it’s POTENTIAL roll, you need to show some consistency and do the same for PS funding. But you won’t. Because your’e inherently dishonest.

                      Lol.
                      But the link you pasted here shows quite clearly that it’s costing is based on the school’s maximum roll, and that “the amounts above may alter if a school is not proposing to reach its maximum roll in the first few years”.

                      So the Ormiston building cost should likewise be according to maximum roll.

                      You’re getting yourself confused between the operation costs of educating each actual student (public sector is cheaper), the operationl costs of teaching each student in the maximum possible roll (public sector is cheaper), and the costs of building establishment and operation over the lifetime of the building (public sector is cheaper).

                      All because you can’t face the fact that the links you supplied actually demonstrate that the public sector is cheaper when the real figures are used.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      1 August 2016 at 5:24 pm

                      {“an annual sum for property that will allow the sponsor of a Partnership School” that includes “site works costs and the cost of constructing the building(s), including a furniture and equipment grant (capital costs); 40 years of operations grant property funding (maintenance costs), 30 years of five year agreement funding (modernisation costs)”.}
                      You have to be one of the most dishonest people I know. Your quote is a conflation of several sections of the reference. The first part “an annual sum for property that will allow the sponsor of a Partnership School” continues “to, for example, rent
                      facilities for a school based on a formula already used in the school system for some schools.”.. RENT You fuckit.

                      “You’re getting yourself confused between the operation costs of educating each actual student (public sector is cheaper), the operationl costs of teaching each student in the maximum possible roll (public sector is cheaper), and the costs of building establishment and operation over the lifetime of the building (public sector is cheaper).”

                      Hahahaha………..

                    • McFlock …
                      1 August 2016 at 5:39 pm

                      You don’t know me. You don’t even know your own material, or basic English.

                      The Crown believes funding Partnership Schools on the basis of Cash for Buildings provides equivalence with the property support for state schools where property is leased. It is a formula that is already known by the school sector. It provides sponsors with flexibility –if they wish, they could use this funding stream with other money to build their own school..

                      As I said, you don’t even know your own material, you stupid piece of shit. A charter school can get up to a million dollars a year for 40 years to build a school that can take 500 students a year, while Ormiston senior cost one and a quarter million a year for the same period for a school twice that size.

                      You stupid, stupid little tool.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      1 August 2016 at 5:46 pm

                      “The Crown believes funding Partnership Schools on the basis of Cash for Buildings provides equivalence with the property support for state schools where property is leased. It is a formula that is already known by the school sector. It provides sponsors with flexibility –if they wish, they could use this funding stream with other money to build their own school..”

                      WITH OTHER MONEY….

                      Oh and you forgot to quote this:

                      “It is assumed that many Partnership Schools will rent premises.”

                      and…

                      “It is intended to use the Cash for Buildings funding model as the basis for the property support funding stream for Partnership Schools. Cash for Buildings gives state schools the option of receiving annual cash payments instead of new buildings when they become entitled to additional space. ”

                      STATE.

                      You are a useless, lying shit.

                    • McFlock …
                      1 August 2016 at 5:59 pm

                      English lessons for mitm #307-309:

                      “many” is not the same as “all”.
                      “they could use this funding stream with other money” also includes “this stream”, so the charter school can spend even more than a million dollars a year on property. In other words charter schools are not restricted to a million dollars a year in total funding, just public funding.

                      “funding Partnership Schools on the basis of Cash for Buildings provides equivalence with the property support for state schools where property is leased.”
                      […]
                      “It is intended to use the Cash for Buildings funding model as the basis for the property support funding stream for Partnership Schools.”

                      “equivalence” and “as the basis for” mean that the “property support funding stream” for partnership schools is the same as the CfB is for state schools.

                      Once again your own clutch&pasting proves that your assertion does not match reality. I literally contradicted your previous using only the contents of that comment. You’re a fool.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      1 August 2016 at 6:19 pm

                      ““many” is not the same as “all”.”
                      The entire paragraph is about renting. You dishonestly selectively quoted. Caught out.

                      “…so the charter school can spend even more than a million dollars a year on property…”
                      As can state schools.

                      ““equivalence” and “as the basis for” mean that the “property support funding stream” for partnership schools is the same as the CfB is for state schools.”
                      EXACTLY. For renting! You stupid f&%k.

                    • McFlock …
                      1 August 2016 at 6:31 pm

                      ““many” is not the same as “all”.”
                      The entire paragraph is about renting. You dishonestly selectively quoted. Caught out.

                      No, the entire paragraph is about funding the buildings and properties a school operates in. Renting was an example of how a charter school would acquire the use of such property, and it was assumed that this would be the initial method for “many” but not “all” charter schools. Charter schools were explicitly permitted to use that funding for purchase and construction, as well as renting.

                      “…so the charter school can spend even more than a million dollars a year on property…”
                      As can state schools.

                      Not on the CfB basis of a secondary school for 500 student capacity.

                      ““equivalence” and “as the basis for” mean that the “property support funding stream” for partnership schools is the same as the CfB is for state schools.”
                      EXACTLY. For renting! You stupid f&%k.

                      Renting was an example. Not a restriction. They don’t have to rent. If they wish, they can use that funding to build their own school, I think I read somewhere…

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      3 August 2016 at 1:16 pm

                      “The same school you used as bait. I’ll tell you if you admit that you have forgotten what you wrote.”
                      We’re talking about the MoE example. You really are stupid.

                      “No, one that is irrelevant to your claim “I’m saying it cost $50m to build a school to teach the same number of pupils the government could have had a PS build for $1m.” ”
                      It’s entirely relevant. That school cost $50m and only has around 500 pupils.

                      “This is false, the million dollars is an annual sum for the next 40 years according to your own sources. ”
                      You really are dopey.

                      “Partnership schools receive much the same funding as comparable state schools. ”
                      “All new schools, regardless of type, are funded for certain fixed costs regardless of student numbers. ”

                      http://www.education.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Ministry/Initiatives/Partnership-schools/StatePartnershipSchoolsFunding.pdf

                      I have exposed your dishonest comparisons over and over McF*&k.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      12 August 2016 at 6:01 pm

                      ‘Not according to your data”
                      “Accordng to the MoE data.

                      “1. only from the state (according to inflated projections), and whatever the charter organisation puts in. E.g. the organisation can take the state equivalent funding to buy a building, and also pay for additional bells and whistles from their own funds.”
                      So the state funds PS’s and SS’ the same. Thanks for acknowledging that. It’s about time.

                      “2. State schools are subject to zoning. Charter schools aren’t.”
                      So? State schools can get students out of zone. By ballot, just like Partnership Schools.

                      “Oh, how did South Auckland Middle school do in it’s first year SSEE performance target? Nice way to cherry-pick students, that.”
                      How is it doing NOW?

                      “it sure wasn’t.”
                      Did you even read the article? I was about to use the same to rub your nose in it. The article says nothing about a prohibition, in fact it says the MoE is pursuing the return of the farm. READ IT you Fwit.

                    • McFlock …
                      12 August 2016 at 6:16 pm

                      So the state funds PS’s and SS’ the same. Thanks for acknowledging that. It’s about time.

                      lol. Yeah, I forgot you liked to ignore all the bits of a sentence you don’t like. “For example” the bit about inflated rolls. Not even getting to the discussion about inflated property costs being deducted from the funding.

                      “2. State schools are subject to zoning. Charter schools aren’t.”
                      So? State schools can get students out of zone. By ballot, just like Partnership Schools.

                      lol
                      and if a very high needs kid (i.e. likely to do badly in reading etc) from within the zone gets enrolled?

                      “Oh, how did South Auckland Middle school do in it’s first year SSEE performance target? Nice way to cherry-pick students, that.”
                      How is it doing NOW?

                      What, how is it doing after it got rid of the worst students, if it used that as a mechanism to cherry-pick students? Lol I’m sure it’s fabulous lol.

                      “it sure wasn’t.”
                      Did you even read the article? I was about to use the same to rub your nose in it. The article says nothing about a prohibition, in fact it says the MoE is pursuing the return of the farm.

                      “Parata said in the case of state schools the ministry owns the land and assets but in this case the ministry would have to go into “commercial negotiations”.”

                      READ IT you Fwit.

                      lol
                      It said that the MoE was going to go into commercial negotiations in order to recoup assets that are owned by someone else with no contractual obligation to reimburse the MoE if the school was closed. Yeah, good luck with that. “Hi, I know it wasn’t in the contract and you have absolutely no reason to do this, but can I have a million bucks back please?” is a “commercial negotiation” that has never worked anywhere, anytime.

                  • maninthemiddle …
                    26 July 2016 at 5:53 pm

                    “migraine-in-the-middle thinks that Ormiston Senior School was burned down after one year, and they spent another $50million building a new school.”

                    Not at all. I’m saying it cost $50m to build a school to teach the same number of pupils the government could have had a PS build for $1m.

                    • McFlock …
                      26 July 2016 at 5:57 pm

                      more bullshit.
                      Off for the night. Go fuck yourself.

                    • McFlock …
                      27 July 2016 at 11:05 am

                      I’ll take that as you’ve run out of bs.

                      Not while you’re around. You’ve an unlimited supply.

                      The fact is that while insulting you (and watching you suddenly change tack without acknowledgement whenever you finally realise that you’ve made elementary mistakes in math or the English language) might be a moderate distraction while waiting for various systems to complete their cycle, I choose not to let your poisonous ignorance infect my personal life. I made a conscious decision not to take your drivel home with me. I don’t even discuss it with anyone, because the only thing more boring than my work stories is to describe the latest example of an online fool who thinks he’s a free-market superman when really he’s just a deluded peon. When you leave school and enter the real world there’s a good chance you’ll find this out.

                      If you think a full school designed for up to a thousand pupils can be constructed for a million dollars, you’re an idiot.

                      If you think that the full school cost isn’t included in your bullshit infographic, when building costs are quite clearly deducted from the charter schools’ costs, you’re an idiot.

                      In short, you’re an idiot.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      28 July 2016 at 11:36 am

                      “If you think that the full school cost isn’t included in your bullshit infographic, when building costs are quite clearly deducted from the charter schools’ costs, you’re an idiot.”

                      And that sums up your total ignorance. The building costs ARE deducted from the comparative costs because Partnership Schools build their own facilities. And they don;t cost the tax payer $50m you ignoramus.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      28 July 2016 at 11:39 am

                      “you’ve deftly proved that the “union propaganda” was correct, ”

                      This is how the dishonest left work. They lose the debate, and then twist the argumentation.

                      Partnership Schools are here to stay because they are successful, because they cost less per pupil to operate and because they cost the taxpayer far less to build. Suck that up.

                    • McFlock …
                      28 July 2016 at 12:37 pm

                      And that sums up your total ignorance. The building costs ARE deducted from the comparative costs because Partnership Schools build their own facilities. And they don;t cost the tax payer $50m you ignoramus.

                      Lol

                      Nor did Ormiston cost $50mil for a single year’s operation. Seriously, if you want to be anything other than a shift leader in a fast food joint, you really need to learn how to amortize capital costs over the expected lifetime. Stay in school, when you hit year 12 they might discuss it.

                      “you’ve deftly proved that the “union propaganda” was correct, ”
                      This is how the dishonest left work. They lose the debate, and then twist the argumentation.

                      In other words, we listen to your points and then explain how you can’t do basic math.

                      Partnership Schools are here to stay because they are successful, because they cost less per pupil to operate and because they cost the taxpayer far less to build. Suck that up.

                      No matter how much you repeat that article of faith, it’ll still be wrong according to your own figures.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      28 July 2016 at 2:31 pm

                      “No matter how much you repeat that article of faith, it’ll still be wrong according to your own figures.”

                      Nope.

                      http://www.education.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Ministry/Initiatives/Partnership-schools/StatePartnershipSchoolsFunding.pdf

                      Learn to read, McF^&k, learn to read…oh this may help your dull mind…

                      “The fixed costs associated with any new school, such as for fit-out costs, insurance and staffing,
                      mean that average funding per student is often higher in new schools, regardless of type, than in
                      established schools.
                      • As any new school reaches capacity, its fixed costs can be split between more students. As this
                      occurs, average funding per student falls for these costs. Per-student funding rates gradually move
                      closer for all schools, of a similar size and decile, regardless of type.”

                      There. MIEFY.

                    • McFlock …
                      28 July 2016 at 2:41 pm

                      lol

                      An explanation of cost differences between old and new schools does not provide evidence that charter schools are cheaper than state school, which is what you asserted.

                      Fuck you’re a stupid piece of shit.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      29 July 2016 at 9:47 am

                      “An explanation of cost differences between old and new schools does not provide evidence that charter schools are cheaper than state school, which is what you asserted.”

                      You just don’t get it do you. I am calling YOU out on using biased data based on a new PS v’s an established SS. It seems you have at last admitted the error in your bias without actually understanding why! Incredible.

                    • McFlock …
                      29 July 2016 at 12:45 pm

                      You just don’t get it do you. I am calling YOU out on using biased data based on a new PS v’s an established SS. It seems you have at last admitted the error in your bias without actually understanding why! Incredible.

                      Is this you finally admitting that charter schools are actually more expensive than state schools, but offering by way of backhanded explanation the idea that it’s because they’re new schools?

                      Because all your previous bullshit seemed to say that charter schools were cheaper than public schools…

                      Oh, by the way, 50mil for a building designed for thirty years and a roll of 1000 is still less per student than the per student building write-off for the secondary charter school in the inforgraphic you now admit is wrong.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      31 July 2016 at 9:18 pm

                      “Is this you finally admitting that charter schools are actually more expensive than state schools, but offering by way of backhanded explanation the idea that it’s because they’re new schools?”

                      No. Partnership Schools cost less per pupil, when comparing a PS and SS at the same rolls. It’s incredible you have taken this long to grasp such a simple concept.

                      “Oh, by the way, 50mil for a building designed for thirty years and a roll of 1000…”

                      But what is the maths when that state school only has 500 pupils? Because that’s how many it has.

                    • McFlock …
                      1 August 2016 at 12:54 pm

                      No. Partnership Schools cost less per pupil, when comparing a PS and SS at the same rolls. It’s incredible you have taken this long to grasp such a simple concept.

                      Not really, given that your own links don’t agree with you.

                      “Oh, by the way, 50mil for a building designed for thirty years and a roll of 1000…”

                      But what is the maths when that state school only has 500 pupils? Because that’s how many it has.

                      Indeed. In the present tense. It’s called “projected requirements”, another thing that you’ll learn about when you leave school.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      1 August 2016 at 2:50 pm

                      “Not really, given that your own links don’t agree with you.”

                      Yes, they do.

                      “Indeed. In the present tense. ”

                      Indeed. Just as PS school funding is in the ‘present tense’.

                    • McFlock …
                      1 August 2016 at 3:17 pm

                      “Not really, given that your own links don’t agree with you.”

                      Yes, they do.

                      Well, when teacher helps you with the bigger words, you’ll figure out how wrong you are.
                      Until then, good luck with NCEA, fucko.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      1 August 2016 at 5:09 pm

                      “Well, when teacher helps you with the bigger words, you’ll figure out how wrong you are.”

                      You’ve been pointed to this before McFlock. Stop lying.

                      http://www.education.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Ministry/Initiatives/Partnership-schools/StatePartnershipSchoolsFunding.pdf

                    • McFlock …
                      1 August 2016 at 5:18 pm

                      Indeed, it was one of your earliest links, and if it hadn’t been demonstrably false it could have been your only link.

                      As it is, it got the school roll wrong for the primary and the property cost deduction woefully wrong for the secondary school, with the end result being that charter schools most definitely are not cheaper than public schools on a operational-income per student basis (actual or capactity roll). And your ormiston secondary link amortised over the same period as your other charter school funding pdf demonstrates that a secondary level charter school receives considerably more funding for building construction or leasing, on a per student basis, than what Ormiston achieved.

                      You provided the figures. Your failure to do math or look beyond your own fantasy means now you’re insisting that black is white and clearly labelled “annual costs” are simply a one-off payment.

                      Why did you even bother supplying evidence, when it’s so shonky as to make your position farcical, or (as in the case of construction costs) it demonstrates that your position is false?

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      1 August 2016 at 5:36 pm

                      “As it is, it got the school roll wrong for the primary and the property cost deduction woefully wrong for the secondary school,”

                      Bollocks.

                    • McFlock …
                      1 August 2016 at 5:43 pm

                      The school roll in the primary school was inflated based on a projection.
                      The secondary school did not really spend the full $700,000 on property costs.

                      Hence, not bollocks.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      1 August 2016 at 5:50 pm

                      “The school roll in the primary school was inflated based on a projection.
                      The secondary school did not really spend the full $700,000 on property costs.”

                      What link are you referring to? This was the link you mentioned http://www.education.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Ministry/Initiatives/Partnership-schools/StatePartnershipSchoolsFunding.pdf. If you’re suggesting there was a error in that, you’ll need to cite the MoE’s retraction.

                    • McFlock …
                      1 August 2016 at 6:06 pm

                      Dude, the ministry has all the annual school rolls online. It doesn’t need a retraction. The projection just overestimated what the roll turned out to be.

                      Come on, you’re so awesome at digging up pdfs that concern charter schools, prove to us that you’ve not been spoonfed them by some cynic with half a brain. What was the roll for the only primary charter school in june 2014, according to the ministry stats website?

                      Or are you some little schoolkid who gets his evidence off tory websites and then pretends to be the Great Right Hope who parrots bullshit that he doesn’t understand all over left-leaning blogs, then claims victory?

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      1 August 2016 at 6:21 pm

                      “Dude, the ministry has all the annual school rolls online. It doesn’t need a retraction. The projection just overestimated what the roll turned out to be.”

                      Huh? Which school was it based on?

                    • McFlock …
                      1 August 2016 at 6:34 pm

                      Huh? Which school was it based on?

                      Really? But you set a cunning trap with it as bait only a few days ago. Have you been huffing the butane again?

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      2 August 2016 at 11:11 am

                      “Renting was an example. Not a restriction. ”

                      Renting was and is considered the most common scenario. You didn’t see the implication and made an arse of yourself.

                    • McFlock …
                      2 August 2016 at 11:59 am

                      Renting was and is considered the most common scenario.

                      Not the exclusive scenario, however. Indeed, the phrase was not even “most”: the actual quote was “It is assumed that many Partnership Schools will rent premises”. 40% might count as “many”, but is not “most”.

                      Once again you’re making shit up.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      2 August 2016 at 12:23 pm

                      “Really? But you set a cunning trap with it as bait only a few days ago. ”

                      You’re getting very confused. So I’ll ask again, in the MoE publication, what is the school?

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      2 August 2016 at 12:24 pm

                      “Not the exclusive scenario, however.”

                      No, but clearly one you missed.

                    • McFlock …
                      2 August 2016 at 12:35 pm

                      “Really? But you set a cunning trap with it as bait only a few days ago. ”
                      You’re getting very confused. So I’ll ask again, in the MoE publication, what is the school?

                      The same school you used as bait. I’ll tell you if you admit that you have forgotten what you wrote.

                      “Not the exclusive scenario, however.”
                      No, but clearly one you missed.

                      No, one that is irrelevant to your claim “I’m saying it cost $50m to build a school to teach the same number of pupils the government could have had a PS build for $1m.” This is false, the million dollars is an annual sum for the next 40 years according to your own sources. You are wrong. and stupid.

                    • McFlock …
                      3 August 2016 at 12:38 pm

                      Just as I thought – you’re a coward as well as a moron.

                    • McFlock …
                      3 August 2016 at 1:32 pm

                      lol
                      you call me “dopey” and you can’t even reply in the correct thread.

                      And it’s still the best response you’ve managed to come up with to face the inconvenient truth that “receiving annual cash payments instead of new buildings” does not mean a one-off payment of a million bucks.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      3 August 2016 at 3:44 pm

                      “you call me “dopey”…”

                      because you are. You have confused the schools, misrepresented the MoE data, and seem to live in some parallel universe where you apply one standard to state schools and another to others.

                      Partnership Schools are here to stay because they work, because they succeed where state schools fail.

                    • McFlock …
                      3 August 2016 at 4:01 pm

                      Keep reassuring yourself of that. It doesn’t match reality, but that doesn’t seem to give you pause for thought.

                      In the meantime, you still haven’t explained how “receiving annual cash payments instead of new buildings” equates to your claim that “I’m saying it cost $50m to build a school to teach the same number of pupils the government could have had a PS build for $1m”.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      9 August 2016 at 10:44 am

                      {“receiving annual cash payments instead of new buildings” equates to your claim that “I’m saying it cost $50m to build a school to teach the same number of pupils the government could have had a PS build for $1m”.}

                      Does this really need explaining? Seriously? Most, if not all, Partnership Schools rent buildings. When state schools rent they receive an annual cash payment. So do partnership schools. When state schools build buildings, they get given the money. Unlike partnership schools. Got it?

                    • McFlock …
                      9 August 2016 at 12:58 pm

                      Oh, you’re back. yay.

                      When state schools rent they receive an annual cash payment. So do partnership schools. When state schools build buildings, they get given the money. Unlike partnership schools.

                      Partnership schools do get given money when they build. From one of your own links:

                      It provides sponsors with flexibility – if they wish, they could use this funding stream with other money to build their own school.

                      Your source says literally the opposite of what you claimed. Yet again.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      9 August 2016 at 1:14 pm

                      “Partnership schools do get given money when they build.”

                      Yes. So? I said “When state schools build buildings, they get given the money.” THE money, meaning ALL the money.

                      “From one of your own links:
                      It provides sponsors with flexibility – if they wish, they could use this funding stream with other money to build their own school.
                      Your source says literally the opposite of what you claimed. Yet again.”

                      Again you show your profound ignorance of how this works. When a state school opens, the school is built entirely by public funds, provided in advance. When a partnership school builds a school, it is funded by a combination of state and non-state funding, hence the comment “they could use this funding stream with other money to build their own school.” WITH OTHER MONEY. My source exactly backs my claims. You simply are too ignorant to understand.

                    • McFlock …
                      9 August 2016 at 1:40 pm

                      Yes. So? I said “When state schools build buildings, they get given the money.” THE money, meaning ALL the money.

                      Charter schools get given the same amount of state funds as state schools to build or rent as they see fit. Charter schools can then spend additional funds if they wish.

                      The problem is that, as your links demonstrated, the funding was based on student role predictions that the charter schools don’t live up to, and when they spend less than their allowance on property they get to keep the leftovers. The leftover money that would have remained in the public purse were it not a charter school. So the actual cost per student for charter schools is significantly more than in the state school system.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      9 August 2016 at 1:57 pm

                      “Charter schools get given the same amount of state funds as state schools to build or rent as they see fit. Charter schools can then spend additional funds if they wish.”
                      Which means they can build better facilities.

                      “The problem is that, as your links demonstrated, the funding was based on student role predictions that the charter schools don’t live up to”
                      …as are the predictions for state schools. How do feel about funding this school http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/education/71646771/Salisbury-School-roll-down-to-two-for-2016.

                      “and when they spend less than their allowance on property they get to keep the leftovers.”
                      …and spent that on more facilities.

                      “The leftover money that would have remained in the public purse were it not a charter school.”
                      Again you suggest a> there is an excess and b> the partnership schools doesn’t re-invest that. You have provided no evidence for either assertion.

                      “So the actual cost per student for charter schools is significantly more than in the state school system.”
                      No, not according to the MoE. In fact as partnership schools involve non-government capital, the taxpayer is getting far better value for money.

                      Certainly better value than a school with 2 pupils.

                      The vast majority of partnership schools are not for profit. Many are specifically from groups that will benefit Maori and Pacifica. Your opposition is based on an educational elitism that is steeped in union control. It is last century thinking, and thankfully rapidly being overtaken.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      9 August 2016 at 2:11 pm

                      union

                      And there it is.

                      Right wingers: lying, hateful pieces of shit since forever.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      9 August 2016 at 2:24 pm

                      “union

                      And there it is.”

                      Yep. Teachers unions have opposed partnership schools for no valid reason. They have engaged in bullying and lies to undermine partnership schools. In so doing, they are putting at risk the betterment of at risk children. For the sake of their own ends. They are pathetic.

                    • McFlock …
                      9 August 2016 at 2:26 pm

                      “Charter schools get given the same amount of state funds as state schools to build or rent as they see fit. Charter schools can then spend additional funds if they wish.”
                      Which means they can build better facilities.

                      “The problem is that, as your links demonstrated, the funding was based on student role predictions that the charter schools don’t live up to”
                      …as are the predictions for state schools. How do feel about funding this school http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/education/71646771/Salisbury-School-roll-down-to-two-for-2016.

                      “and when they spend less than their allowance on property they get to keep the leftovers.”
                      …and spent that on more facilities.

                      So they spend more public money per student? That’s the problem.

                      “The leftover money that would have remained in the public purse were it not a charter school.”
                      Again you suggest a> there is an excess and b> the partnership schools doesn’t re-invest that. You have provided no evidence for either assertion.

                      R0b provided evidence for A. Even if B were correct, it still means that more state money is being paid to educate kids in charter schools than are being paid to educate kids in the state system.
                      Unlike the state system, where money not spent on students in school A goes to students in school B.

                      “So the actual cost per student for charter schools is significantly more than in the state school system.”
                      No, not according to the MoE. In fact as partnership schools involve non-government capital, the taxpayer is getting far better value for money.

                      Not according to the sources you provided, when the correct figures are applied.

                      Certainly better value than a school with 2 pupils.

                      What type of school, jerkoff? Who is it supposed to educate and provide a safe space for? If your argument needs to compare that school to a regular charter school, you’re merely demonstrating that basic charter schools are comparable to the most intensive and complex state education there is.

                      The vast majority of partnership schools are not for profit. Many are specifically from groups that will benefit Maori and Pacifica. Your opposition is based on an educational elitism that is steeped in union control. It is last century thinking, and thankfully rapidly being overtaken.

                      Nice groundless rant.
                      You’re still avoiding the fact that charter schools are given state funding at levels comparable to what state schools get to build facilities, that this funding is an annual stream not a single payment, and therefore when you said “it cost $50m to build a school to teach the same number of pupils the government could have had a PS build for $1m” you were completely and utterly wrong. Oh, and the government still owns ormiston senior, so when the school finally shuts or relocates, the government can then sell those assets. A charter school would keep the proceeds of the sale.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      9 August 2016 at 2:28 pm

                      Your baseless lies and hate are now on public display for all to see. You just can’t help yourself.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      9 August 2016 at 2:34 pm

                      I always know you’re losing when your posts get longer.

                      “So they spend more public money per student?”
                      No. Not when two schools are compared apples for apples.

                      “R0b provided evidence for A. ”
                      Nope.

                      “Even if B were correct, it still means that more state money is being paid to educate kids in charter schools than are being paid to educate kids in the state system.
                      Unlike the state system, where money not spent on students in school A goes to students in school B.”
                      Nope. You’re forgetting the possibility of the ‘extra’ you are alleging without evidence being reinvested.

                      “Not according to the sources you provided, when the correct figures are applied.”
                      Wrong. Again.

                      “What type of school, jerkoff?”
                      I posted the link.

                      “Who is it supposed to educate and provide a safe space for? ”
                      ‘Safe space’? Are you serious? We’re talking about educating people with special needs/difficulties/challenges. A school with 2 pupils has FAILED.

                      “If your argument needs to compare that school to a regular charter school, you’re merely demonstrating that basic charter schools are comparable to the most intensive and complex state education there is.”
                      Possibly. Partnership schools are designed to cater to high needs children, and they are doing a damn good job.

                      “You’re still avoiding the fact that charter schools are given state funding…”
                      To educate at risk children. And they are doing a better job than the state. And families and providers are flocking to them.

                      Suck it up. They are here to stay, and no amount of your elitist chardonnay socialism will stop them.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      9 August 2016 at 2:42 pm

                      Incompetent hate-motivated liar demonstrates innumeracy and illiteracy then declares victory 🙄

                    • McFlock …
                      9 August 2016 at 2:53 pm

                      I always know you’re losing when your posts get longer.

                      My responses are proportional to the amount of bullshit in your comments. If you were correct, I’d say “fair call” and depart.

                      “So they spend more public money per student?”
                      No. Not when two schools are compared apples for apples.

                      Again, not according to your links. Which also quite clearly say that a charter school cannot build a 500-student capacity school for a single state payment of $1million, which you claimed.

                      “R0b provided evidence for A. ”
                      Nope.

                      yup. I linked to him doing it and everything.

                      “Even if B were correct, it still means that more state money is being paid to educate kids in charter schools than are being paid to educate kids in the state system.
                      Unlike the state system, where money not spent on students in school A goes to students in school B.”
                      Nope. You’re forgetting the possibility of the ‘extra’ you are alleging without evidence being reinvested.

                      In which case, the charter school is still spending more state money to educate each student than a state school would.

                      “Not according to the sources you provided, when the correct figures are applied.”
                      Wrong. Again.

                      Not according to R0b’s evidence.

                      “What type of school, jerkoff?”
                      I posted the link.

                      So you read that it has a small role because it caters to students who can only be safely educated in that environment, according to the parents? And this is what you want to compare with a regular charter school as an efficiency comparison. Lol

                      “Who is it supposed to educate and provide a safe space for? ”
                      ‘Safe space’? Are you serious? We’re talking about educating people with special needs/difficulties/challenges. A school with 2 pupils has FAILED.

                      No, that school had at least seven more pupils who needed to attend. Their funding has failed. Society has failed. The school is fine. You didn’t even read your own link. Again.

                      “If your argument needs to compare that school to a regular charter school, you’re merely demonstrating that basic charter schools are comparable to the most intensive and complex state education there is.”
                      Possibly. Partnership schools are designed to cater to high needs children, and they are doing a damn good job.

                      Now you’re just making shit up. Fuck off.

                      “You’re still avoiding the fact that charter schools are given state funding…”
                      To educate at risk children. And they are doing a better job than the state. And families and providers are flocking to them.

                      aaaaaand you’re still making shit up

                      Suck it up. They are here to stay, and no amount of your elitist chardonnay socialism will stop them.

                      The totalitarianism of the tory. You can’t prove your statements, so just repeat the catechism that there is no alternative, resistance is futile.
                      You really are an obnoxious piece of shit.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      9 August 2016 at 5:45 pm

                      “not according to your links.”
                      Yep, according to my links.

                      “In which case, the charter school is still spending more state money to educate each student than a state school would.”
                      Nope. It is providing more facilities, and even then at the same cost.

                      “Not according to R0b’s evidence.”
                      ‘Evidence’. No.

                      “So you read that it has a small role because it caters to students who can only be safely educated in that environment, according to the parents? And this is what you want to compare with a regular charter school as an efficiency comparison.
                      You are confused. I posted about a school in abject decline, being kept open only because it is a state school.

                      “No, that school had at least seven more pupils who needed to attend.”
                      No, it has 2 pupils. FAIL.

                      “Now you’re just making shit up. Fuck off.”
                      Nope, I’m referring to official reports.
                      “The totalitarianism of the tory.”

                      No, the confidence of one who knows the opposition is purely ideological, and whose arguments cannot stand the spotlight.

                    • McFlock …
                      9 August 2016 at 5:51 pm

                      I posted about a school in abject decline, being kept open only because it is a state school.

                      No. Because it is the only school in the country that can satisfy a narrow, but essential, set of requirements for some students with very specific needs.

                      But the more you wriggle and dance, the more it’s obvious that you’re trying to back away from your statement:

                      I’m saying it cost $50m to build a school to teach the same number of pupils the government could have had a PS build for $1m.

                      Do you still stand by that claim, or can you finally admit that you were incorrect?

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      9 August 2016 at 6:01 pm

                      “No. Because it is the only school in the country that can satisfy a narrow, but essential, set of requirements for some students with very specific needs.”
                      Perhaps. But you’re missing the point. With 2 pupils the cost per pupil is huge. That’s the same basis you use to measure the cst per pupil in a NEW partnership school. Getting the message?

                      “Do you still stand by that claim, or can you finally admit that you were incorrect?”
                      Absolutely. The funding model you keep confusing is for schools that rent.

                      “1. Property support – an annual sum for property that will allow the
                      sponsor of a Partnership School | Kura Hourua to, for example, rent
                      facilities for a school based on a formula already used in the school
                      system for some schools ”

                      “The following table provides indicative amounts for one-off set-up payments for Partnership Schools | Kura Hourua. The amounts below are indicative only and are subject to change. ”

                      http://www.education.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Ministry/Initiatives/Partnership-schools/FundingForPartnershipSchools.pdf

                      “Middle School West Auckland is a Partnership School. It was authorised by the Minister of Education in September 2014 and given a start-up time of four months and a budget of less than 10 per cent of a comparable State establishment situation.”
                      http://m.nzherald.co.nz/education/news/article.cfm?c_id=35&objectid=11557785

                      State schools with 2 pupils should be allowed to fail, as partnership schools are.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      9 August 2016 at 7:39 pm

                      I note that the hate-motivated incompetent liar is feebly flailing at the goalposts in the vain hope that they will move of their own accord.

                    • McFlock …
                      10 August 2016 at 12:50 pm

                      Perhaps. But you’re missing the point. With 2 pupils the cost per pupil is huge. That’s the same basis you use to measure the cst per pupil in a NEW partnership school. Getting the message?

                      Yes, if the message you intend to transmit is that you think all students are identical and none, for example, require intensive counselling, assistance, recognition of severe vulnerabilities, and that you’re a fucking moron.

                      “Do you still stand by that claim, or can you finally admit that you were incorrect?”
                      Absolutely. The funding model you keep confusing is for schools that for example rent.

                      FIFY.
                      Do you know what an example is? An example is an object that is specified in order to describe or illustrate a class of objects. For example, if I were to say “I have nothing but contempt for tories who are combine infinite stupidity with infinite arrogance and are completely unaware of how stupid they are”, that in itself might not illustrate the class of inbred fuckwits to which I refer. However, if I were to say “I have nothing but contempt for tories who are combine infinite stupidity with infinite arrogance and are completely unaware of how stupid they are, for example, the obnoxious piece of scrotal choad-sweat that calls itself ‘maninthemiddle’“, a normal person would have a good idea of which group of people I would particularly not like to meet at a party. The normal person would not believe that you are the only person I have contempt for.

                      Oh, and of course the same document clearly states that they can use the CFB funding stream to build their own school.

                      “Middle School West Auckland is a Partnership School. It was authorised by the Minister of Education in September 2014 and given a start-up time of four months and a budget of less than 10 per cent of a comparable State establishment situation.”

                      Dissembling hypocrite who refused to believe sourced press release from union quotes as fact unsourced opinion piece from charter school public relations (sorry, “community liaison”) manager. Fuck off you stupid piece of shit.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      11 August 2016 at 12:03 pm

                      “Yes, if the message you intend to transmit is that you think all students are identical and none…”

                      NO! That is the precisely the reasons partnership schools work. They target at risk kids.

                      “Oh, and of course the same document clearly states that they can use the CFB funding stream to build their own school.”

                      You really have no idea how this works in practise, have you?

                      “Dissembling hypocrite who refused to believe sourced press release from union quotes as fact unsourced opinion piece from charter school public relations (sorry, “community liaison”) manager.”

                      I’ll accept what I can verify. Union quotes are generally lies.

                    • McFlock …
                      11 August 2016 at 12:37 pm

                      “Yes, if the message you intend to transmit is that you think all students are identical and none…
                      NO! That is the precisely the reasons partnership schools work. They target at risk kids.

                      “At risk” does not mean “special needs”.
                      Stop making shit up about things that you do not understand, liar.

                      “Oh, and of course the same document clearly states that they can use the CFB funding stream to build their own school.”
                      You really have no idea how this works in practise, have you?

                      Says the person who doesn’t understand how to amortise capital costs.

                      I’ll accept what I can verify. Union quotes are generally lies.

                      Funny, because the union provided enough information to replicate its research, wheras your PR man simply made an arbitrary claim. Which, looking at the MoE documents you provided, was incorrect. Like every claim you made.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      12 August 2016 at 1:13 pm

                      ““At risk” does not mean “special needs”.”
                      Well yeah, it does, at least in laymans terms. And I’m trying to simplify this for you.

                      “Says the person who doesn’t understand how to amortise capital costs.”
                      Oh I know, and I know a f’wit when I read one.

                      “Funny, because the union provided enough information to replicate its research…”
                      You mean like Angela Roberts (http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/310672/charter-school-wins-decile-one-funding) when trying to squirm her way into explaining why a Manurewa Partnership School is achieving almost double the NCEA success as it’s state counterpart. Same area. Same decile. Twice the success.

                      SAMS (decile 1 – 93% Maori or Pasifika)
                      Reading: 71.6% of students At or Above National Standard
                      Writing: 73.4% of students At or Above National Standard
                      Maths: 70% of students At or Above National Standard

                      Manurewa Intermediate (decile 1)
                      Reading 34% of students At or Above National Standard
                      Writing 37% of students At of Above National Standard
                      Maths 37% of students At or Above National Standard

                    • McFlock …
                      12 August 2016 at 2:35 pm

                      ““At risk” does not mean “special needs”.”
                      Well yeah, it does, at least in laymans terms. And I’m trying to simplify this for you.

                      Nope, not even in “layman’s terms”. You’re just making shit up so you can compare charter schools with the single most intensive needs category of students. Why would you even need to do that if charter schools were so brilliant?

                      “Says the person who doesn’t understand how to amortise capital costs.”
                      Oh I know,

                      obviously you don’t. Otherwise you wouldn’t be confusing annual capital cost funding streams with the total cost of a project.

                      “Funny, because the union provided enough information to replicate its research…”
                      You mean like

                      [… more distraction and irrelevance]
                      No, I meant in the media release you refused to believe, when your PR man’s figure of “less than 10 per cent of a comparable State establishment situation” doesn’t match any of the ministry of education links you’ve provided or the million dollar figure you pulled out of your arse (e.g. on a 10% ratio the full capital cost of ormiston would have been $5mil, not your <1mil, even if your <1mil were indeed a single payment rather than an annual allowance).

                      Keep it up, jerkoff. Every time you post a new link, it disagrees with everything you've previously linked to or pulled out of your arse. Sooner or later even a moron like you will figure out what a dic

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      12 August 2016 at 3:47 pm

                      “Nope, not even in “layman’s terms”.
                      Yep. At risk kids may have special needs. Special needs kids may be ‘at risk’. Partnerships Schools cater for a range of challenges. There is no reason why a school state set up for special needs kids that has failed could not be taken over by a PS. In fact it would be beneficial.

                      “Why would you even need to do that if charter schools were so brilliant?”
                      Exactly, which is proof you’re wrong.

                      “obviously you don’t. Otherwise you wouldn’t be confusing annual capital cost funding streams with the total cost of a project.”
                      I’m not. You are.

                      “No, I meant in the media release you refused to believe…”
                      I don’t believe media releases from the Union for the reason I gave…a perfect example of denial by Angela Roberts.

                      Now go away little boy and research the Manurewa comparisons.

                    • McFlock …
                      12 August 2016 at 4:10 pm

                      “Nope, not even in “layman’s terms”.
                      Yep. At risk kids may have special needs. Special needs kids may be ‘at risk’. Partnerships Schools cater for a range of challenges.

                      idiot troll tries to argue that terms are interchangable by demonstrating that they may be different. Otherwise you would have said “are all” instead of “may be”.

                      There is no reason why a school state set up for special needs kids that has failed could not be taken over by a PS. In fact it would be beneficial.

                      But you’re arguing that a special needs school should be run at the same cost as s school aimed at “at risk” kids, simply to justify the increased costs of charter schools when you actually compare like with like.

                      “Why would you even need to do that if charter schools were so brilliant?”
                      Exactly, which is proof you’re wrong.

                      Lol. So when you read something you don’t understand, you assume it’s proof that you are correct?
                      The question was that if charter schools are so cheap, why do you need to compare them to the most expensive niche of the education sector? You should be able to favourably compare charter schools to state schools for the general population.

                      “obviously you don’t. Otherwise you wouldn’t be confusing annual capital cost funding streams with the total cost of a project.”
                      I’m not. You are.

                      The clue is in the phrase “an annual sum for property”.

                      “No, I meant in the media release you refused to believe…”
                      I don’t believe media releases from the Union for the reason I gave…a perfect example of denial by Angela Roberts.

                      And yet you believe the “less that ten percent” figure from your PR man, when it disagrees with everything you’ve previously posted or argued.

                      Now go away little boy and research the Manurewa comparisons.

                      No. I think I’ll stick to the point that you’re trying to avoid: when real numbers are used, rather than imaginary ones or “projections” from infographics, charter schools cost more state money to educate each student.

                      Hell, the plain fact is that building costs for charter schools are a gift – when the school closes, the trust or whatever keeps the buildings as assets. When a state school closes, proceeds from the sale of the buildings go back to the state.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      12 August 2016 at 4:21 pm

                      “No. I think I’ll stick to the point that you’re trying to avoid: when real numbers are used, rather than imaginary ones or “projections” from infographics, charter schools cost more state money to educate each student.”

                      No, and I’ve shown you up on this before, as per the MoE website. Partnership Schools are new, and therefore are still building their rolls.

                      Now, run away and find an answer about the Manurewa Schools. Why is the local state tits at educating people compared to the Partnership School? Go on, there’s some real data for you.

                      Oh and here’s another Manurewa state school. Same decile:

                      Waimahia (decile 1)
                      Reading 40% of students At or Above National Standard
                      Writing 33% of students At or Above National Standard
                      Maths 24% of students At or Above National Standard

                      What were those Partnership School results again?

                      South Auckland Middle School:
                      Reading: 71.6% of students At or Above National Standard
                      Writing: 73.4% of students At or Above National Standard
                      Maths: 70% of students At or Above National Standard

                      I want an answer McF^%ked!

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      12 August 2016 at 4:24 pm

                      “Hell, the plain fact is that building costs for charter schools are a gift – when the school closes, the trust or whatever keeps the buildings as assets. ”

                      Cite?

                    • McFlock …
                      12 August 2016 at 4:57 pm

                      “No. I think I’ll stick to the point that you’re trying to avoid: when real numbers are used, rather than imaginary ones or “projections” from infographics, charter schools cost more state money to educate each student.”
                      No, and I’ve shown you up on this before, as per the MoE website. Partnership Schools are new, and therefore are still building their rolls.

                      🙄
                      The only way charter schools become vaguely comparable (not cheaper) in funding per student to state schools is when you compare the charter school’s projected roll with the state school’s actual roll. And even then it’s still a bad deal for the state.

                      Now, run away and find an answer about the Manurewa Schools. Why is the local state tits at educating people compared to the Partnership School? Go on, there’s some real data for you.

                      Oh and here’s another Manurewa state school. Same decile:
                      [yawn]
                      I want an answer McF^%ked!

                      cite?
                      lol
                      the simple answer is that if a school can pick their students and is funded significantly higher than a state school on a per student basis, I would certainly expect better results in the charter school.
                      That doesn’t mean charter schools are a better model, just that more funding gives better education.

                      “Hell, the plain fact is that building costs for charter schools are a gift – when the school closes, the trust or whatever keeps the buildings as assets. ”

                      Cite?

                      Every MoE document you’ve posted.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      12 August 2016 at 5:07 pm

                      “The only way charter schools become vaguely comparable (not cheaper) in funding per student to state schools is when you compare the charter school’s projected roll with the state school’s actual roll.”
                      Nope. Apples for apples, PS’s cost less per pupil.

                      “lol
                      the simple answer is that if a school can pick their students and is funded significantly higher than a state school on a per student basis, I would certainly expect better results in the charter school.”
                      1. Apples for apples, PS schools are funded on the same basis as SS’s.
                      2. Can you support your contention about PS’s ‘picking’ their students? Oh and Union propaganda doesn’t count.

                      “Every MoE document you’ve posted.”
                      Nope. Here’s what you claimed:

                      “Hell, the plain fact is that building costs for charter schools are a gift – when the school closes, the trust or whatever keeps the buildings as assets. ”

                      Can you support this? It shouldn’t be hard to find.

                    • McFlock …
                      12 August 2016 at 5:43 pm

                      “The only way charter schools become vaguely comparable (not cheaper) in funding per student to state schools is when you compare the charter school’s projected roll with the state school’s actual roll.”
                      Nope. Apples for apples, PS’s cost less per pupil.

                      Not according to your data

                      “lol
                      the simple answer is that if a school can pick their students and is funded significantly higher than a state school on a per student basis, I would certainly expect better results in the charter school.”
                      1. Apples for apples, PS schools are funded on the same basis as SS’s.
                      2. Can you support your contention about PS’s ‘picking’ their students? Oh and Union propaganda doesn’t count.

                      1. only from the state (according to inflated projections), and whatever the charter organisation puts in. E.g. the organisation can take the state equivalent funding to buy a building, and also pay for additional bells and whistles from their own funds.
                      2. State schools are subject to zoning. Charter schools aren’t.

                      Oh, how did South Auckland Middle school do in it’s first year SSEE performance target? Nice way to cherry-pick students, that.

                      “Every MoE document you’ve posted.”
                      Nope. Here’s what you claimed:
                      “Hell, the plain fact is that building costs for charter schools are a gift – when the school closes, the trust or whatever keeps the buildings as assets. ”
                      Can you support this? It shouldn’t be hard to find.

                      it sure wasn’t. Seriously, did you even try to see whether there wasn’t an obvious example of this very thing? Oh, that’s right, you don’t understand the word “example”.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      12 August 2016 at 6:04 pm

                      ‘Not according to your data”
                      “Accordng to the MoE data.

                      “1. only from the state (according to inflated projections), and whatever the charter organisation puts in. E.g. the organisation can take the state equivalent funding to buy a building, and also pay for additional bells and whistles from their own funds.”
                      So the state funds PS’s and SS’ the same. Thanks for acknowledging that. It’s about time.

                      “2. State schools are subject to zoning. Charter schools aren’t.”
                      So? State schools can get students out of zone. By ballot, just like Partnership Schools.

                      “Oh, how did South Auckland Middle school do in it’s first year SSEE performance target? Nice way to cherry-pick students, that.”
                      How is it doing NOW?

                      “it sure wasn’t.”
                      Did you even read the article? I was about to use the same to rub your nose in it. The article says NOTHING about a prohibition, in fact it says the MoE is pursuing the return of the farm.

                      “Parata said in the case of state schools the ministry owns the land and assets but in this case the ministry would have to go into “commercial negotiations”.”

                      READ IT you Fwit.

                    • McFlock …
                      12 August 2016 at 6:22 pm

                      ah shit you got me with the reply in the wrong thread that time

                      So the state funds PS’s and SS’ the same. Thanks for acknowledging that. It’s about time.

                      lol. Yeah, I forgot you liked to ignore all the bits of a sentence you don’t like. “For example” the bit about inflated rolls. Not even getting to the discussion about inflated property costs being deducted from the funding.

                      “2. State schools are subject to zoning. Charter schools aren’t.”
                      So? State schools can get students out of zone. By ballot, just like Partnership Schools.

                      lol
                      and if a very high needs kid (i.e. likely to do badly in reading etc) from within the zone gets enrolled?

                      “Oh, how did South Auckland Middle school do in it’s first year SSEE performance target? Nice way to cherry-pick students, that.”
                      How is it doing NOW?

                      What, how is it doing after it got rid of the worst students, if it used that as a mechanism to cherry-pick students? Lol I’m sure it’s fabulous lol.

                      “it sure wasn’t.”
                      Did you even read the article? I was about to use the same to rub your nose in it. The article says nothing about a prohibition, in fact it says the MoE is pursuing the return of the farm.

                      “Parata said in the case of state schools the ministry owns the land and assets but in this case the ministry would have to go into “commercial negotiations”.”

                      READ IT you Fwit.

                      lol
                      It said that the MoE was going to go into commercial negotiations in order to recoup assets that are owned by someone else with no contractual obligation to reimburse the MoE if the school was closed. Yeah, good luck with that. “Hi, I know it wasn’t in the contract and you have absolutely no reason to do this, but can I have a million bucks back please?” is a “commercial negotiation” that has never worked anywhere, anytime.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      12 August 2016 at 6:36 pm

                      ” “For example” the bit about inflated rolls. ”
                      What inflated rolls. When rolls are compared, apples for apples, the funding model are the same.

                      “and if a very high needs kid (i.e. likely to do badly in reading etc) from within the zone gets enrolled?”
                      Yes?

                      “What, how is it doing after it got rid of the worst students, if it used that as a mechanism to cherry-pick students?
                      What students? Can you name any names, or least provide any evidence for this delusion you live under. And where are these students coming from? Are you suggesting they are leaving state schools to join a partnership school? mmmm.

                      “It said that the MoE was going to go into commercial negotiations in order to recoup assets that are owned by someone else with no contractual obligation to reimburse the MoE if the school was closed.”
                      No, it didn’t say anything of the sort. Where does it say inn that article that the PS gets to keep the assets? That was your claim.

                      Now, back to the manurewa schools….

                    • McFlock …
                      12 August 2016 at 6:53 pm

                      ” “For example” the bit about inflated rolls. ”
                      What inflated rolls. When rolls are compared, apples for apples, the funding model are the same.

                      Except when the infographic compares the state schools actual role with the charter school’s inflated projection. 🙄

                      “and if a very high needs kid (i.e. likely to do badly in reading etc) from within the zone gets enrolled?”
                      Yes?

                      Can the state school turn the kid down?
                      What about the partnership school, which doesn’t have a zone?

                      “What, how is it doing after it got rid of the worst students, if it used that as a mechanism to cherry-pick students?
                      What students? Can you name any names, or least provide any evidence for this delusion you live under. And where are these students coming from? Are you suggesting they are leaving state schools to join a partnership school? mmmm.

                      Hey, it’s a pretty common tactic in the US where charter schools come from. Underperforming kids get excluded/expelled so they don’t bring the marks down. And in its first year, SAM failed to keep to its SSEE target. Could be coincidence, could be cherry-picking. the onus is on you, as its advocate, to demonstrate no gaming of the system has been going on and that the charter school inflated funding has borne genuine results.

                      “It said that the MoE was going to go into commercial negotiations in order to recoup assets that are owned by someone else with no contractual obligation to reimburse the MoE if the school was closed.”
                      No, it didn’t say anything of the sort. Where does it say inn that article that the PS gets to keep the assets? That was your claim.

                      “Parata said in the case of state schools the ministry owns the land and assets but in this case the ministry would have to go into “commercial negotiations”.”.
                      So the first part of my claim, that MoE owned state school assets, was correct. As for charter school assets, at the moment who owns the farm? It’s been several months – how have the negotiations gone? Lol.

                      Now, back to the manurewa schools….

                      no, stick to the point, fucko.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      13 August 2016 at 8:05 pm

                      “Except when the infographic compares the state schools actual role with the charter school’s inflated projection.”

                      It didn’t.

                      “Can the state school turn the kid down?”
                      Yes, if it has an open zone.

                      “What about the partnership school, which doesn’t have a zone?”
                      Yes. But I asked you for an example.

                      “Hey, it’s a pretty common tactic in the US where charter schools come from. ”

                      I asked you for an example of a PS doing this.

                      “As for charter school assets, at the moment who owns the farm?”
                      Clearly that is yet to be decided. Your claim was categoric. Back it up.

                      “no, stick to the point, fucko.”

                      Quality of education, my friend. Surely that is the point.

                    • McFlock …
                      15 August 2016 at 11:29 am

                      “Except when the infographic compares the state schools actual role with the charter school’s inflated projection.”
                      It didn’t.

                      Sigh. Yes it did.

                      “Can the state school turn the kid down?”
                      Yes, if it has an open zone.

                      So possibly/probably not.

                      “What about the partnership school, which doesn’t have a zone?”
                      Yes. But I asked you for an example.

                      Actually, you gave a nice example of a charter school that failed to meet its retention target and then did very [suspiciously?] well in achievement – so they didn’t have any trouble retaining the high-achieving students, did they.

                      “Hey, it’s a pretty common tactic in the US where charter schools come from. ”
                      I asked you for an example of a PS doing this.

                      And you seem to have given one. All you need to do to call bullshit is to show the auditing procedures put in place to prevent this sort of thing happening in NZ, and provide the penalties imposed should this abuse take place.

                      “As for charter school assets, at the moment who owns the farm?”
                      Clearly that is yet to be decided. Your claim was categoric. Back it up.

                      Lol
                      No, it hasn’t yet to be decided. The property has an owner who pays rates on that property. The government wanted to enter into “commercial negotiations” in order to get several hundred thousand dollars that it’s not contractually entitled to. There’s your answer.

                      “no, stick to the point, fucko.”
                      Quality of education, my friend. Surely that is the point.

                      I’m not your friend, buddy.
                      The point is that charter schools are an expensive way of providing a hit-or-miss education for a few students, whereas if state schools were funded to the same level per student as charter schools, all of NZ would be doing better.
                      BTW, you do realise that your school PR chappie said SAM got 10% of the funding a state school gets, whereas you’ve been arguing charter schools get state funding at parity and 1/50th (for buildings) at the same time? You can’t even lie straight in bed.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 3.3.1.1.1.2
              25 July 2016 at 5:45 pm

              Unless you can do basic arithmetic. Can people who are ignorant of the difference between the mean and the median do Maths? Apparently not.

              As per the link: (pro-education schools listed first, corrupt National Party conflicts of interest second):

              Average funding per student $9,594 $25,137

              • maninthemiddle …
                25 July 2016 at 6:15 pm

                The funding per student is less in Partnership Schools than in State Schools. You’ve already been shown up on that point OAB.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  25 July 2016 at 7:41 pm

                  I suggest you read the site policy regarding masturbatory declarations of victory, fucko.

                  I cited the real funding averages above, and you have no answer to them but to repeat your lies. Everyone can see that

                  $9,594 < $25,137

                  Tough shit that you don't understand it.

                  • maninthemiddle …
                    25 July 2016 at 9:24 pm

                    Oh I understand…you can’t interpret facts. I’m sure you’ll come up with some odd conspiracy theory…meanwhile the MoE publish the facts…

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      25 July 2016 at 9:30 pm

                      the Ministry ignored the reality that actual property costs were nearly half a million dollars less than what the school was funded for… the adjusted funding for the charter secondary school was then divided by a projected roll number of 300 rather than using the actual school roll…the funding for the charter schools was adjusted to remove two components produced by the funding model: “Property & Insurance” and “Centrally Funded Services”…

                      Documented lies.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      26 July 2016 at 9:24 am

                      “the Ministry ignored the reality that actual property costs were nearly half a million dollars less than what the school was funded for… the adjusted funding for the charter secondary school was then divided by a projected roll number of 300 rather than using the actual school roll…”

                      Because they are NEW schools OAB. If you apply the same yardstick to a new state school…oh wait that wouldn’t suit your lies, would it…

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      26 July 2016 at 11:21 am

                      There are four planks to the rebuttal of the Ministry’s figures. Don’t address a single one of them: make sweeping statements instead and hope someone thinks that’s an argument.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      26 July 2016 at 1:37 pm

                      “There are four planks to the rebuttal of the Ministry’s figures. ”

                      None of which invalidate the numbers.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      26 July 2016 at 1:42 pm

                      Prove it. Show me the raw data.

                      Put up or shut up, hypocrite.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      26 July 2016 at 1:56 pm

                      “the adjusted funding for the charter secondary school was then divided by a projected roll number of 300 rather than using the actual school roll”

                      New state schools are funded on the same basis. The logic behind this objection is utterly dishonest.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      26 July 2016 at 1:59 pm

                      Raw data. You’ve shown me nothing to support your propaganda.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      26 July 2016 at 2:06 pm

                      http://www.fletcherconstruction.co.nz/projects.php?id=380&action=search&projectname=Ormiston%20Senior%20College

                      New state school…cost $50m.

                      “Ormiston Senior College is a decile 10, Co-Educational Secondary school, located in Auckland. The school has 396 Year 11-15 students including 8 international students. The school receives $3,313,403.55 in direct government funding, which translates to a budget of $8,367.18 per student.”

                      The school opened with a capacity of 1000 students.

                      Should we divide the funding by 396 or by 1000?

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      26 July 2016 at 2:31 pm

                      How much does it receive in “indirect” government funding?

                      You have be able to spot qualifiers if you’re going to learn to read.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      26 July 2016 at 3:19 pm

                      “How much does it receive in “indirect” government funding?”

                      It cost $50m to build OAB. We could build numerous Partnership Schools for that.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      26 July 2016 at 3:27 pm

                      That’s not an answer to my question.

      • maninthemiddle 3.4.1
        25 July 2016 at 9:19 pm

        Keep quoting Scoop. I’ll keep quoting the facts.

        • Pat 3.4.1.1
          25 July 2016 at 10:00 pm

          hope you’ve got a good toothpaste

        • UncookedSelachimorpha 3.4.1.2
          25 July 2016 at 11:24 pm

          Man in a Muddle – you seem incapable of providing any answer to the important points raised in the Scoop article, which is in fact a press release from Save Our Schools NZ.

          • maninthemiddle 3.4.1.2.1
            26 July 2016 at 9:26 am

            and Save our Schools is a biased organization with an agenda. The Scoop article uses data that is based on current, not projected, rolls. That is faulty logic, that if applied to new state schools would show them in a disastrous light. Funny how the left love government departments until they publish something they disagree with.

            • UncookedSelachimorpha 3.4.1.2.1.1
              26 July 2016 at 11:56 am

              Poor muddle.

              The logical interpretation is that it is the ministry report that misleads – they chose to compare an actual roll, with a projected roll.

              The Ministry could have addressed the actual / projected roll issue in their report, instead they chose to merely attempt to show lower costs per student in a Charter school. SOSNZ simply points out the actual cost per actual enrolled student in the Ministry example is much higher for the Charter School.

              Why would a Charter School be any cheaper when they have the additional cost of a profit margin for their investors? This additional cost is not capped, provides no benefit to the taxpayer or the student, and the investors are motivated to maximise it.

              • maninthemiddle …
                26 July 2016 at 1:41 pm

                “The logical interpretation is that it is the ministry report that misleads – they chose to compare an actual roll, with a projected roll.”

                That’s not misleading, it is common sense. Partnership schools are new. When we compare a new state school, we use a full roll, otherwise the data makes state schools look horrendously expensive. Do you not follow this?

                “Why would a Charter School be any cheaper when they have the additional cost of a profit margin for their investors? ”

                Which of the Partnership Schools are ‘for profit’?

                  • maninthemiddle …
                    26 July 2016 at 3:45 pm

                    Which of the partnership schools are for profit?

                    Not, could be, would be, may be. Which ones ARE?

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      26 July 2016 at 5:07 pm

                      All of them, unless you’re going to do a dance on your pinhead* and pretend that market™ “solutions” mean some other thing that you just invented.

                      This is the problem when you’re a hypocrite: you don’t even know you’re lying.

                      *if it turns out that you can actually dance on your own head, you’ll be good at something after all.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      26 July 2016 at 5:18 pm

                      “All of them, unless you’re going to do a dance on your pinhead* and pretend that market™ “solutions” mean some other thing that you just invented.”

                      No. None of them.

                      http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/education/7994188/The-business-side-of-charter-schools

                      “But Catherine Isaac, a former ACT party candidate now on the government working party tasked with introducing charter schools, says there won’t be a single for-profit among the first wave of applicants to establish schools in 2014.

                      “There aren’t any for-profit proposals coming through as far as I am aware. They are all community groups, or existing schools or Iwi,” Isaac said.”

                      (That’s Siobhan’s source btw).

                    • McFlock …
                      26 July 2016 at 5:24 pm

                      lol
                      Vanguard Military School. For profit, explicitly, and opened feb 2014.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      26 July 2016 at 5:27 pm

                      All of them, because the narrative goes that private is more efficient than public, and the profit motive creates incentives that simple public service can’t.

                      Are you saying this isn’t the way that the whole philosophy faith cretinous drivel is presented?

                      You can’t keep track of the lies you tell. Oops.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      26 July 2016 at 5:40 pm

                      “All of them, because the narrative goes that private is more efficient than public,”

                      No, it isn’t. And perhaps that’s where you’re ignorance springs from. The narrative is that the state is not the only viable provider of education. Non-state education is far older than state education. Non-state entities provide all manner of services to government. Not all non-state education providers are ‘for profit’.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      26 July 2016 at 5:49 pm

                      National Party Madrassa aren’t private schools, because they’re all funded from the trough.

                      The model is based on the lie you low-life trash tell, the ‘narrative’ I referred to.

                      You can’t explain the difference between the Madrassa and state schools. Tell lies instead.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      26 July 2016 at 5:55 pm

                      “The model is based on the lie ”

                      Only in your deluded mind. The model is actually based on the idea that NGO’s (Churches etc) can do a damn good job at delivering education. It’s been going on for decades in ECE. Your ignorance simply won’t let you understand.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      12 August 2016 at 6:50 pm

                      Too funny: in your mind, the model is based on good intentions, and you think churches are good example.

  4. Anne 4
    25 July 2016 at 4:10 pm

    The trust also includes ACT donor and crony Jenny Gibbs…

    Aha, her ex-husband Alan Gibbs: he was was primarily responsible for setting up the ACT Party in the 90s and has been bank-rolling them ever since. Oh how I would love to be able to talk openly about that bastard. Suffice to say he is nothing but a thug!

    • Siobhan 4.1
      25 July 2016 at 4:24 pm

      Interweb research of Alan Gibbs leads you straight to Friedrich Hayek. That’s all we need to know.

      • Anne 4.1.1
        25 July 2016 at 4:35 pm

        My knowledge of him is rather more basic. Lets just say he has the money and the contacts to undermine (nice way of putting it) anyone he perceives to be an enemy and he will go to whatever lengths necessary to achieve it.

        • dukeofurl 4.1.1.1
          25 July 2016 at 5:23 pm

          Contacts like Pauline Winter who co-signed the Trust deed for Michael Niko Jones to take over the Pacific Peoples Advancement Trust
          She famously had the taxpayer pay for here to fly to her Auckland home every weekend while she was CEO of Pacific island Affairs, inspite of her being based in Wellington and having a ‘base’ there.

          “The ministry is also paying for private secretary Luc Shorter to commute between Auckland and Wellington, and is footing his accommodation bill.
          His Twitter profile says he lives on Waiheke Island and insiders say he is billeted at serviced apartments on The Terrace, costing around $1800 a month.
          Shorter, executive director Kevin Sua Thomsen and regional manager Paul Stowers were hired by Winter last year without the roles being advertised.”
          http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/10330187/Ministry-chiefs-flying-visits

          As for the PASS something doesnt add up

          “PASS is a new collaboration between the Ministry of Education and The Pacific Peoples Advancement Trust (PPAT), a not-for-profit charitable trust lead by Pasifika community leaders Michael Jones and Hamish Crooks.”
          http://pass.school.nz/news/nzs-first-pasifika-partnership-school-now-open-for-2015-enrolments/
          Charitable Trust ? Not when you look up the register of Charitable Trusts

          http://www.register.charities.govt.nz/CharitiesRegister/Search

          But the new limited company E Tipu E Rea Limited is ‘charitable’

          For some reason the PASS scholl is now a private company with final full ownership by Robert Arnold MCLEOD, who appears to be just a corp nominee of Ernst and Young, where he was previously a senior partner. No doubt a connection of the Gibbs .

          • Anne 4.1.1.1.1
            25 July 2016 at 5:57 pm

            Quite a few companies/personnel Gibbs used to be involved with had questionable backgrounds. In the 80s and 90s he co-owned a security company called Freightways. I understand some of the staff were experienced in certain ‘activities’ relating to security (in it’s loosest form) matters.

      • srylands 4.1.2
        25 July 2016 at 5:01 pm

        You say that like it is a bad thing.

        • McFlock 4.1.2.1
          25 July 2016 at 5:05 pm

          Funny, that.

        • Garibaldi 4.1.2.2
          25 July 2016 at 5:09 pm

          You just don’t get it do you srylands ?The whole concept of Private schools and Charter schools is divisive elitism. Close the lot and put all the resources into a good state school system and we would get better results and help make a better society.

          • maninthemiddle 4.1.2.2.1
            25 July 2016 at 5:16 pm

            There is no such thing as a ‘good state system’ that suits all. Never has been. Private education pre-ceded public education by centuries, and continues to outperform public schooling by most measures.

            • McFlock 4.1.2.2.1.1
              25 July 2016 at 5:20 pm

              lol

              man-in-the-middle-ages. I thought you were a free market tory, but apparently you’re really a feudalist at heart. As well as a liar (given that literacy rates only increase in any country on earth when it’s not been left up to private education).

              • maninthemiddle …
                25 July 2016 at 5:24 pm

                I’m not aware of any country on earth that only uses private education, so where do you get that stat? In NZ private schools are popular because they provide a better education. Simple. That;s why teacher unions hate performance tables, they hate Partnership Schools and they hate parental choice. Oh, BTW, to lift you out pf your ignorance, private schooling began long before the middle ages.

                • McFlock …
                  25 July 2016 at 5:39 pm

                  history, motherfucker, history.
                  Public education hasn’t been around all that long. Private education has been around for millennia

                  • maninthemiddle …
                    25 July 2016 at 5:42 pm

                    Exactly. Thanks for agreeing with me.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      25 July 2016 at 5:48 pm

                      McFlock: literacy rates only increase in any country on earth when it’s not been left up to private education

                      MitM’s only answer to this is to pretend that a lie scores a debating point.

                      What a walking spittoon.

                    • McFlock …
                      25 July 2016 at 5:50 pm

                      Ah, you must have been privately educated. /sarc

                      To make it extra-simple for you:

                      Private education for most of history: low literacy rates.
                      Public education emerges: literacy rates improve dramatically.

                      Therefore by the measure of actually having a population that can read, public education is better than private education.

                      Oh, for sure private education preserves sectarianism and the class system, but those are cancers on any society anyway.

                    • In Vino …
                      25 July 2016 at 5:55 pm

                      Private education has been here longer, and has always favoured the élite. Only public education has successfully pushed universal education for all.
                      Your Partnership Schools have yet to prove anything at all in this country, let alone that they are any kind of cure for those who are failing in the State system. And I think you are weeping crocodile tears for those failures anyway. When the Charter Schools prove to have failed them as well, you and your ilk will accuse those failed students of having made ‘bad choices’. It is in your profit-gouging nature.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      25 July 2016 at 6:00 pm

                      “Private education for most of history: low literacy rates.”
                      Not amongst the educated.

                      “Public education emerges: literacy rates improve dramatically.”
                      Not amongst the uneducated.

                      You see, my dopey friend, when you educate people, their literacy improves. Get it?

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      25 July 2016 at 6:06 pm

                      “It is in your profit-gouging nature.”

                      Which of the Partnership Schools are ‘for profit’?

                    • McFlock …
                      25 July 2016 at 6:06 pm

                      You see, my dopey friend, when you educate people, their literacy improves. Get it?

                      Indeed.
                      And private education doesn’t educate as many people as public education. Get it? The most important measure of any education system, actually educating people, condemns private education as a relic of privilege and parasitism.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      25 July 2016 at 6:14 pm

                      “And private education doesn’t educate as many people as public education.”
                      So? When did I claim it did?

                      “The most important measure of any education system, actually educating people, condemns private education as a relic of privilege and parasitism.”
                      No, consider this. The Government funds private schools to educate the entire population. There are no state schools. That removes your silly little point doesn’t it.

                    • McFlock …
                      25 July 2016 at 6:20 pm

                      continues to outperform public schooling by most measures

                      But not the most important one: making education the norm in society, rather than the exception.

                      You can make up shit about whether private schools are better at teaching to the test or have smaller classes or teach latin, and the only reason some of those might be true in one country or another is the relative funding of private vs state schools. But if you want a productive society, you need one that can read. And for that, you need public education.

                      Is that simple enough for you to understand?

                    • McFlock …
                      25 July 2016 at 6:24 pm

                      The Government funds private schools to educate the entire population. There are no state schools. That removes your silly little point doesn’t it.

                      Not really.
                      Why fund a private school to do exactly the same thing, but scrape more money off the top as profit for the owners?

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      25 July 2016 at 6:25 pm

                      “Only public education has successfully pushed universal education for all.”

                      Private institutions educate huge numbers of pupils across the western world, and play a vital role in education in NZ.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      25 July 2016 at 6:28 pm

                      “Why fund a private school to do exactly the same thing, but scrape more money off the top as profit for the owners?”

                      Who said all private schools have to be ‘for profit’? How many of the Partnership Schools are? How many ‘integrated’ schools…an excellent example of the sort of private-public partnership I’m referring to?

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      25 July 2016 at 6:30 pm

                      “But not the most important one: making education the norm in society, rather than the exception.”

                      Says who? Private institutions do an excellent job at building roads, running hospitals, running schools…why couldn’t they run the lot? Ot at least more?

                    • McFlock …
                      25 July 2016 at 6:36 pm

                      Who said all private schools have to be ‘for profit’? How many of the Partnership Schools are? How many ‘integrated’ schools…an excellent example of the sort of private-public partnership I’m referring to?

                      That’s true. Exploit a student for their education subsidy, you only fleece them for their educational career. Exploit them for their souls, you can tithe them for the rest of their lives…

                      “But not the most important one: making education the norm in society, rather than the exception.”

                      Says who? Private institutions do an excellent job at building roads, running hospitals, running schools…why couldn’t they run the lot? Ot at least more?

                      Says, oh, all of human history, fucko. Otherwise there would never have been public education in the first place.

                      And no, private institutions only ever do the minimum at providing roads, hospitals and schools. They can’t even clean a mud tank unless they’re watched like hawks and contractually cornered like rats in a trap.

                    • McFlock …
                      25 July 2016 at 6:42 pm

                      anyway, fucko, I’m probably offline for the night, but for the record you’re a blatantly bullshitting piece of shit who spits in the face of the last 6,000 years of human ethical and intellectual development.

                      If there were any decency in the world, any teacher or role model you had in the fields of reading, writing, arithmatic, or morality should be summoned before a panel and made to account for the abject failure that you epitomise. Fuck you.

                    • Halfcrown …
                      25 July 2016 at 6:59 pm

                      “If there were any decency in the world, any teacher or role model you had in the fields of reading, writing, arithmatic, or morality should be summoned before a panel and made to account for the abject failure that you epitomise. Fuck you.”

                      Nice one.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      25 July 2016 at 9:18 pm

                      “That’s true. Exploit a student for their education subsidy…”
                      Is that what State Schooling does? Exploit students to give jobs to a unionised work force?

                      “Says, oh, all of human history, fucko. Otherwise there would never have been public education in the first place.”
                      Ah, no. State run schooling is relatively recent. Non-governmental agencies and providers could do a better job.

                      “And no, private institutions only ever do the minimum at providing roads, hospitals and schools.”
                      What rubbish. Roading is great example of private enterprise providing far more bang for taxpayers bucks.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      25 July 2016 at 9:20 pm

                      “but for the record you’re a blatantly bullshitting piece of shit who spits in the face of the last 6,000 years of human ethical and intellectual development.”

                      Really? You are trying to suggest state schooling has been around for 6,000 years? What is this “6,000 years of human ethical and intellectual development” you are ranting about? You really haven’t a clue, have you.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      25 July 2016 at 9:22 pm

                      Too funny. You actually don’t understand what McFlock is talking about at all, you stupid useless gimp. His argument relies on the fact that public education is a relatively recent development.

                      I’m not explaining it to you, I’m having too much fun laughing at your witless flailing attempts to keep up. Reading is a skill you don’t possess.

                      Paging Dr, Dunning-Kruger. 😆

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      25 July 2016 at 9:31 pm

                      “His argument relies on the fact that public education is a relatively recent development.”

                      Of course it does. Still doesn’t make sense. The only contribution public education has made is to deliver universally ordinary education. Non-Government providers could do a far better job.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      25 July 2016 at 9:41 pm

                      Except for the fact that they had six thousand years to do so, and didn’t. If they did, dunce, there’d be no need for the taxpayer to step into the breach in the first place.

                      I note that the Gibbs leeches have their bloodfunnels in the trough. So much for private funding.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      26 July 2016 at 9:28 am

                      “Except for the fact that they had six thousand years to do so, and didn’t. ”

                      Except for the fact that over that 6,000 years neither did state schools….until very recently.

                    • McFlock …
                      26 July 2016 at 12:30 pm

                      Deary deary me.

                      “universally ordinary education” – yes, universal. That’s the point of difference.

                      Private education didn’t.
                      Public education did.
                      Public education is better than private education in the measure of educating the population (rather than just a wealthy few).

                      It’s been explained to you in half a dozen different ways, and I bet you’re still convinced you’re a winner. You’re like a little example of Trump: you won’t let reality get in the way of your gut feeling of awesomeness.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      26 July 2016 at 1:44 pm

                      “Public education did.”

                      No, it didn’t. State schools have never provided universal education. There have always been a proportion of children educated in non-state schools.

                    • McFlock …
                      26 July 2016 at 1:58 pm

                      There have always been a proportion of children educated in non-state schools.

                      Except for a period of time in Eastern Eurasia, of course. During which time literacy increased markedly in the absence of private schools.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      26 July 2016 at 2:09 pm

                      “Except for a period of time in Eastern Eurasia, of course. During which time literacy increased markedly in the absence of private schools.”

                      If there were no private schools, how do you know private schools couldn’t have achieved the same result? Ot better? You are getting very good at shooting yourself in the foot.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      26 July 2016 at 4:59 pm

                      Because for 6,000 years, they didn’t.

                      I note that these National Party Madrassa, being fully funded from the trough, aren’t private schools.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      26 July 2016 at 5:16 pm

                      “Because for 6,000 years, they didn’t.”

                      Neither did state schools. In fact for all but a few hundred years, state schools educated no-body.

                    • McFlock …
                      26 July 2016 at 5:22 pm

                      “Because for 6,000 years, they didn’t.”

                      Neither did state schools. In fact for all but a few hundred years, state schools educated no-body.

                      And yet within a few decades of state schools being introduced, literacy went from being an advantage of a wealthy minority to being almost universal.

                      Coincidence?

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      26 July 2016 at 5:27 pm

                      Private institutions do an excellent job at building roads, running hospitals, running schools…

                      [citation needed]

                      Although, the research that’s come out lately indicates that private enterprise does a far worse job.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      26 July 2016 at 5:35 pm

                      “And yet within a few decades of state schools being introduced, literacy went from being an advantage of a wealthy minority to being almost universal.”

                      And would have if governments had funded non-state schools.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      26 July 2016 at 5:42 pm

                      “[citation needed]”

                      No. We drive on roads built by non-state providers. We use e-commerce systems and paperwork developed and printed by non-state providers in our dealings with Government. We purchase our electricity from non-state entities. All of these do a far better job than the state ever did.

                    • McFlock …
                      26 July 2016 at 5:53 pm

                      And would have if governments had funded non-state schools.

                      and yet countries with failing or nonexistent state schools have reductions in literacy rates.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      26 July 2016 at 5:58 pm

                      “and yet countries with failing or nonexistent state schools have reductions in literacy rates.”

                      And yet countries with state systems also don’t have full engagement. You see your comment is total non sense (space intended). Of course literacy will fall if you take away education…of any source. It really is amazing just how stupid you are.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      26 July 2016 at 9:50 pm

                      We drive on roads built by non-state providers. We use e-commerce systems and paperwork developed and printed by non-state providers in our dealings with Government. We purchase our electricity from non-state entities. All of these do a far better job than the state ever did.

                      More lies.

                      Our primary roads were built by the state. After privatisation came in they were built by the private sector but with state funding. It would be cheaper and better to continue with the state building them.

                      Computers were developed by via private and state organisations funded by government. Again, the private enterprises could have been removed and it would have cost less. Apple hasn’t developed anything at all. Everything that it sells was first developed by the US Federal government.

                      Our entire electricity grid was developed by the state. Prior to the sell off by National a few years back there was only one private generator and it was a) the most expensive and b) the most polluting.

                      As I said, research has conclusively shown that private actors do worse than government and they cost more:

                      By now privatization has been thoroughly scrutinized – there are numerous studies, surveys and, indeed, surveys of surveys of its effects. The consistent conclusion: there is no evidence of greater efficiency.2 So, the best outcome one can hope for is that private-sector ownership or involvement is no worse than what the public sector provides – hardly a turn-up for the books. The largest study of the efficiency of privatized companies looked at all European companies privatized during 1980-2009. It compared their performance with companies that remained public and with their own past performance as public companies. The result? The privatized companies performed worse than those that remained public and continued to do so for up to 10 years after privatization.

                      Even in the super-competitive telecoms sector, where customers have benefited from lower costs and increasing variety of services over the years, this result holds. A global survey found that ‘privatized sectors perform significantly worse’ than telecom companies remaining in state hands.

                      These are facts. All you’re spouting is ideological bullshit.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      27 July 2016 at 10:38 am

                      You say ‘more nonsense’ and then affirm virtually everything I wrote! Private sector players provide all of the services I outlined. Every single one. Your repeated claims that these are state ‘funded’ seem to reveal a deeply confused understanding of what private/public partnership really is.

                      Yes the state once not only funded but also delivered these services, when used as a mechanism to soak up the unemployed, and when no-one really knew the cost of anything.

                      Today we live in a world where the internal economy has to be efficient, cost effective and reliable. For the services I referred to, the private sector does a far better job, which is why it is the favoured option across most of the planet, including Asian economies shaking off the scourge of socialism.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      27 July 2016 at 6:27 pm

                      and then affirm virtually everything I wrote!

                      Not really.

                      Yes, the government paid the private sector to do the research but you miss three very important points. The research wouldn’t have been done by the private sector without the government provided profits and it was also the government that was choosing the research. In other words, it was the government picking winners that got us to where we are today. The third point is that it would have been cheaper and easier just to have government research institutes doing it.

                      And if you’d read through to the end of my comment you would have seen the research that shows getting the private sector to do it is less efficient.

                      Yes the state once not only funded but also delivered these services, when used as a mechanism to soak up the unemployed, and when no-one really knew the cost of anything.

                      Wrong.

                      Those services simply wouldn’t have been supplied by the private sector.

                      Today we live in a world where the internal economy has to be efficient, cost effective and reliable.

                      Then we’ve definitely gone the wrong way as privatisation has increased duplication and bureaucracy making the economy far less efficient than it was before.

                      The system that we have today is completely disconnected from reality. We have households with multiple cars which are far more expensive and inefficient than public transport and we have idiots like you saying that we need more of them. Competition doesn’t make the economy more efficient – it makes it less efficient and it uses up far more resources.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      28 July 2016 at 11:42 am

                      “The research wouldn’t have been done by the private sector without the government provided profits and it was also the government that was choosing the research.”

                      So? We know that, this is a services supplied to GOVERNMENT. Yes, the government. They wanted it done, and knowing the best way to get value, they chose to source from the NGO sector.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      28 July 2016 at 11:45 am

                      “Those services simply wouldn’t have been supplied by the private sector.”

                      Why not? If there was a demand, they would have been. Proof? They were supplied, to the Government, when the Government demanded them.

                      You;re answers continue to show a serious confusion about this issue. The issue is not about who initiates or funds a product or service, it is about who supplies them. When it comes to roads, hospitals, schools, printing, e-commerce, a long list of other services and products, the NGO sector does a far better job.

                      Oh, I’ll add social services to that.

                • Rodel …
                  25 July 2016 at 7:41 pm

                  MiM-‘simple’ is the critical word in your argument. In my experience private schools are generally crap, dressed up to look glossy for the paying customers and employing lesser qualified teachers whereas public schools are committed to quality education and employ superior teachers.
                  Many teachers I know who couldn’t win public school jobs ended up temporarily in private schools.
                  Once they re-trained and became properly qualified they couldn’t wait to escape the private school sham and get into a real school.(i.e.a public state school).
                  Charter schools are just the same but using our money that should be put into real schools.

                  • maninthemiddle …
                    25 July 2016 at 9:25 pm

                    ‘Our’ money IS being put into real schools. They’re called ‘Partnership Schools’.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      26 July 2016 at 5:30 pm

                      More lies. ‘Partnership Schools’ only reason for existence is to scam money off of the government for the private benefit of the shareholders.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      26 July 2016 at 5:43 pm

                      “More lies. ‘Partnership Schools’ only reason for existence is to scam money off of the government for the private benefit of the shareholders.”

                      Not when they are Not for Profit.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      26 July 2016 at 5:55 pm

                      If they aren’t for profit how do private sector market incentives apply?

              • dukeofurl …
                25 July 2016 at 5:27 pm

                Detroit City has more charter schools than public schools, so they are dime a dozen, most their game is to offer students free stuff to get them enrol but provide of poor education.

                A Sea of Charter Schools in Detroit Leaves Students Adrift
                http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/29/us/for-detroits-children-more-school-choice-but-not-better-schools.html?_r=0

                In one neighborhood in the city’s southwest quadrant, home to a large Latino population and a number of industrial zones, a dozen schools opened or closed in the span of 18 months. And when a parent shows up to find a child’s classroom abandoned, good luck finding a new one. There are more than 200 schools with roughly 50 different enrollment processes and almost no standard for performance.
                http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/05/detroits-school-crisis/482010/

                • maninthemiddle …
                  25 July 2016 at 6:11 pm

                  Who cares? This discussion is about NZ Partnership Schools. If you want evidence of the success of US Charter Schools, I could give you plenty.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    28 July 2016 at 5:09 pm

                    Can you explain the plethora of fraud investigations? I can provide citations, but only if you deny their significance first.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      29 July 2016 at 10:05 am

                      “Can you explain the plethora of fraud investigations?”

                      In NZ? But how about those state school’s that have required ‘interventions’, OAB? How about Auckland Girls Grammar, Porirua Primary, Piopio College, Pomare School, Mana College, Wainuiomata High School, Heretaunga College, Upper Hutt College, Wairarapa College (twice)…do you want the full list??

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      29 July 2016 at 7:16 pm

                      Given that I’ve caught you lying so many times, I wonder how many cases on your list involve proven fraud.

                      Your impotent mendacity aside, I’m talking about US fraud. How apt that your “defence” is “he did it toooooooo!”

                      When you graduate from Primary School you’ll grow out of that. Not.

            • TC 4.1.2.2.1.2
              25 July 2016 at 5:30 pm

              Dude how far in the sand can your head go. Btw thats known as a rhetorical question as your role here isnt facts or evidence being todays assigned rwnj

              • maninthemiddle …
                25 July 2016 at 6:18 pm

                Do you have anything of factual significance to add? No, thought not.

                • Gabby …
                  25 July 2016 at 6:47 pm

                  Why are you lying about the waste of public money, maninthe rimmer? You getting a cut?

            • North 4.1.2.2.1.3
              25 July 2016 at 9:04 pm

              Bullshit MIM, mantra. Just nonsense like “Guns don’t kill !” Trust the “cold dead hands” brigade to fuck that one up. As do you in respect of education where you urge that our kids be economic units in some connected profit-takers game. For fuck sake ! What sort of person are you ?

            • mpledger 4.1.2.2.1.4
              26 July 2016 at 1:07 pm

              (American) research shows that public schools and private schools get the same outcomes after adjusting for socio-economic status.

              Private schools are about who your peers are, not who your teachers are.

              • maninthemiddle …
                26 July 2016 at 1:52 pm

                I’m not sure quality of education is a directly public v private issue. In NZ we have integrated schools, which are a hybrid of the two, and which I believe are a good model for more non-state involvement in the running of schools. Integrated schools impact your data because the fees are low compared to private schools, and are therefore potentially accessed by a wider socio-economic group.

                There are terrific state schools and there are poor ones. But the fact that private and integrated schools thrive in NZ shows there is significant demand for them, and not just among the wealthy.

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  26 July 2016 at 5:33 pm

                  But the fact that private and integrated schools thrive in NZ shows there is significant demand for them, and not just among the wealthy.

                  Wonder how well they’d thrive if the subsidies were removed.

                  • maninthemiddle …
                    26 July 2016 at 5:45 pm

                    What subsidies? There are no ‘subsidies’. The government is contracting for the delivery of education. Just like when non-government entities build roads, supply health care, etc etc.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      26 July 2016 at 9:39 pm

                      The government is contracting for the delivery of education.

                      Not with private schools. The private schools do whatever they like and the government subsidises them. They don’t have to keep to the education standards as set by the MoE which is what you’d expect of a contract.

                      Integrated schools are, essentially, public schools on private land. They charge fees but they’re pretty close to what state schools ask as a donation and they have to conform to the education standards as set by the MoE.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      27 July 2016 at 10:24 am

                      “Not with private schools. The private schools do whatever they like and the government subsidises them. ”

                      No, and no. Private Schools are accountable to the Government multiple ways. Parents pay for their children’s education, at a substantial benefit to the state. There is no subsidy. It is a payment for services.

  5. adam 5
    25 July 2016 at 5:42 pm

    Anyone notice, that the trolls came into this thread and side tracked it?

    Just an observation, as the I thought the point of the post was: this national government has been slowly embedding corruption, as a way of doing business.

    How the corruption is being done is really a secondary issue. The fact that they see it as perfectly normal. They must feel some guilt, as we have people trying desperately to change the topic, just goes how far the corruption has set in.

    Doggie rules around tax, then more money for mates. 2016, the year people realised nation was a party committed to cronyism.

    • Chuck 5.1
      25 July 2016 at 5:53 pm

      “Anyone notice, that the trolls came into this thread and side tracked it?”

      Or maybe adam you just don’ like views that do not support yours??

      Charter Schools work…the students benefiting? mainly Maori and PI students…hmmm funny that.

      • McFlock 5.1.1
        25 July 2016 at 5:56 pm

        Keep pretending. One day it might be true.

      • In Vino 5.1.2
        25 July 2016 at 5:56 pm

        No proof of real success yet, sorry. Just as many failures.

      • North 5.1.3
        25 July 2016 at 9:09 pm

        Or so you say…….Chuck. Mantra.

      • adam 5.1.4
        25 July 2016 at 10:01 pm

        Chuck check my stance on Charter schools, go on it is simple do a search for my comments.

        Because idiot for brains, the one thing that really gets my craw is sycophants with brains the size of peas who misrepresent me.

        You may have noticed in my post I said nothing about charter schools either way, because I don’t want to get into that argument again, especially when tards like you are in the debate.

        My point is like Idiot Savants, bless her by the way. Is that this national government are happy to engage in cronyism, and in effect have even normalised it.

        As for charter schools I stand by my belief. If Maori and Pacifica continue to be given this level of money, then I will support the project. As Maori and Pacifica need to lead their own education outcomes. Not for them to be a political football beit left or the right. My worry is Maori and Pacifica will be blamed for the failures of the system of charter schools, and the right wing media will go “Oh look MAori and PAcifica have had all this money given to them and they mucked it up”. My main fear is that the Pakeha majority will not condemn a corrupt government giving deals to mates, but fall back to the default of ,lazy Maoris.

        Now Chuck, before you miss represent me again, read what I have said before or I will really tell you what I think of dumb Tory low lives who need read peoples comments before they open there dumb PC mouths.

        • Chuck 5.1.4.1
          26 July 2016 at 8:54 am

          adam great you think Charter Schools are good. But really?? you started to make sense at one point…but o-well back to form for you.

          As you can clearly see on this thread many of your ilk really want Charter Schools to fail…by any means possible.

          My comment – “Or maybe adam you just don’t like views that do not support yours??”

          Also applies to “Just an observation, as the I thought the point of the post was: this national government has been slowly embedding corruption, as a way of doing business.”

          Next time keep up fella.

          • adam 5.1.4.1.1
            26 July 2016 at 4:06 pm

            Chucky baby, trying desperately to cover your own canard, by more misdirection. Vacuous, and poorly written by you then? What is painfully obvious, you took no time to read my other posts on the topic.

            I support looking at alternatives whereby Maori and Pacifica get control of their own outcomes. At present that is charter schools, however, unlike you – I’m not a slave to any policy, or ideological purity. So I’m happy to move to any model which actually gives results. Charter schools are very much open to debate on the results, so I’m keeping an open mind, and not being a juvenile dilettante.

            So you are say pork belly politics and corruption are OK. Fair enough. I say, It make you look a little like just another privileged git using any mean possible to defend that privilege, even corruption of the public purse.

            Corruption and money in politics is bad for us all. It is a problem for both the left and the right. Let me know when you grow up and can see that is a problem – otherwise, go away and seek cynosure elsewhere.

            • Chuck 5.1.4.1.1.1
              26 July 2016 at 5:04 pm

              That’s a better response adam.

              “Corruption and money in politics is bad for us all.” I’m in full agreement with you on that point. Just as well we live in good old NZ then…

              NZ rates near the top for least amount of corruption: 4 out of 168 countries as measured by Transparency International.

              The Corruption Perceptions Index ranks countries/territories based on how corrupt a country’s public sector is perceived to be. It is a composite index, drawing on corruption-related data from expert and business surveys carried out by a variety of independent and reputable institutions.

              https://www.transparency.org/country/#NZL

              • adam …
                26 July 2016 at 5:22 pm

                I’m guessing you like corruption and looking for a distraction. Ah Chucky?

                Because, it has been put up before. We get lots of wingnuts here. Let me remind you that survey was not taken yesterday, when they got caught engaged in pork barrel politics.

                Plus, the vaunted survey is only about perceptions. Perception is a funny thing, it can be eroded quite quickly. I’m guessing the next time this survey is done, we will be dropping down quite a bit more for number 1.

                Oh wait, number 1 was under a labour led government, dropped to 4 under national before the Panama papers, now this obvious pork barrel , lets not forget ovid, and the bribe to the Saudi guy. I wonder just how far they can take us down?

                Please no more the cut and paste posts, I know you are struggling with original thought. But it really is dull.

                • Chuck …
                  26 July 2016 at 5:57 pm

                  Funny you talk about perceptions adam…

                  You are rambling on about your perceptions (above).

                  I prefer to take more notice of independent perceptions.

      • Psycho Milt 5.1.5
        26 July 2016 at 7:32 am

        Or maybe adam you just don’ like views that do not support yours??

        Well, maybe, but given that nutcase ideologues like man in the middle have put a lot of effort into distracting from the actual content of the post, his claim has much better evidence for it than yours.

      • Siobhan 5.1.6
        26 July 2016 at 1:21 pm

        Most Maori and Pacifica kids are not in Charter Schools.
        So shouldn’t the funding and effort being channeled to the few (for as yet questionable results) be spent in the public system, rather than the for profit business model of Charter schools??

        (For Profit being in the next wave. Even ACT know that’s still a hard sell, they keep those conversations to the Business pages of The Herald).

    • Eyre 5.2
      25 July 2016 at 8:34 pm

      No. but have noticed how vile the non trolls are.

  6. Gangnam Style 6
    25 July 2016 at 6:31 pm

    & if a Charter Shcool fails & closes who picks up the pieces then? Was worth a shot eh Nigel? If Charter Schools are so amazeballs why does the state have to get involved?

  7. Observer Toke 7
    25 July 2016 at 7:31 pm

    . Fudging Schools
    .
    . Quite simply a Private School is a school funded by private people and fees paid by the pupils.
    .
    . A State School is funded from State Taxation.

    However, in New Zealand, Private schools are also funded by State Taxation. Which gives them a very big financial lift.

    State Schools do not get funded by private people and do not get fees paid by the pupils.

    So it is remarkable that State Schools perform so well on so little. Their results are very good. Thanks to the Teachers and Principals.

    What is sad is the rubbish that promoters of Private Schools throw at the Teachers of State Schools. It is sickening. The wealthy seem unable to tolerate successful Commoners. Why is that?

  8. North 8
    25 July 2016 at 8:46 pm

    More likely…….”The Government……is using ACT……to use charter schools…….to channel public money…….to The Government’s donors and cronies:”

    ACT does nothing The Government doesn’t see a point in. ACT does it’s job and gets paid for it by putting out there the part of The Government’s ideology which is extreme and unabashedly devoted to Self. No ultimate comeback for The Government. The pus-in-governance remains however.

    Key ain’t got an ice cube’s show in Hell for a fourth term. Weak, blaming, non-man-child, androgenous creepy thing smirks and smiles like a gargoylish clown’s head. The ones swinging this way and that. At the A & P shows of old. The neo-liberal vaudeville of the last eight years is foundering.

    Whatever the time frame ultimately this will not go on. It is against our collectively applied human nature to allow a prideful white boy banana republic to further happen in New Zealand.

    • Observer Toke 9.1
      26 July 2016 at 7:21 am

      Hi Venezia

      They are not schools – because they do not have Teachers.

      They are in fact Businesses – literally given to the owner by the Tax Payers 0f New Zealand, and maintained in every way by the Tax Payers.

      The gift of these Businesses seems to please Maori interests. Not for scholastic reasons necessarily.

      Which means that they are likely to be Political gifts and sweeteners.

  10. Michelle 10
    26 July 2016 at 9:39 am

    The gifts also seems to please some PI people in pnats pocket ( Michael Jones ) is doing well he doesn’t even have to tender for his charter schools funds its automatic.

    • Leftie 10.1
      26 July 2016 at 12:14 pm

      And isn’t that just another bonus as to why the Nacts want to privatize state education, and make the dumbing down of this country’s children, a cash cow business, where public money gets “legally” siphoned off into the bank accounts of the wealthy few?

  11. save nz 11
    26 July 2016 at 3:49 pm

    Charter schools, no accountability, robbing from kids and tax payers to give to cronies.

    If Labour and Greens actually want to have some difference from Labour then they should be backing schools and kids and being more vocally against Charter schools and the privatisation of our education system from National. People are seeing their schools being closed and their school’s funding cut. The money is instead going to cronies of the Natz money laundered through Charter schools, and private schools that the parents are wealthy enough to pay for anyway.

  12. Siobhan 12
    26 July 2016 at 3:57 pm

    John Key attended State School and lived in a State House. And look how he turned out….

  13. Leftie 13
    13 August 2016 at 8:17 pm

    Sweden apologized for destroying it’s education system with the charter school experiment.

    “Forgive us, our policy led our schools astray”.

    <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-sweden-schools-insight-idUSBRE9B905620131210