Comments on: Pupils do not belong to a school

By: Psycho Milt

Psycho Milt — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 02:59:11 +0000

Absolutely. Kids getting a good education far far more important than property.

I smell a false premise. Any evidence that current popularity of any particular school among parents is strongly correlated with teacher performance? Because if current popularity is instead correlated more with stuff like bullshit gossip among parents based on the middle classes not wanting their kids to attend school with children of the proletariat and lumpenproletariat, what you’re in fact proposing is open-ended expenditure to no useful purpose.

By: Kimble

Kimble — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 02:33:55 +0000

And how high will taxes need to go to fund this?

If good schools expand, and bad ones close, surely there would be some closed schools available for the expanding schools to buy?

By: RRM

RRM — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 01:03:32 +0000

Is any of this “white flight”?

There aren’t many Maoris down there, east Chch is more of a white trash area. (So; no )

By: BeaB

BeaB — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 01:00:15 +0000

The longterm problem with schools like Aranui HS is the population of their catchment – in this case not what aspirational parents want for their kids so they look further afield for good middle class schools in better areas. It’s not snobbery – just the realistic assessment that your kid will do better sitting next to other kids who are aiming for, for instance, the professions than sitting next to kids who are already familiar with the local WINZ office and want to spend the day goofing off or high as kites.

If parents in Christchurch could vote with their feet, unrestricted by zones, it would quickly become clear what the reorganisation of the schools should look like. And then the Ministry would have community support as parents are relieved of the stress of angling to get their kids into the better schools.

Many good principals have worn themselves out trying to build up schools like Aranui with innovations like sports academies but they are, sadly, just about always doomed to failure.

So why force parents to send their kids to unpopular schools? With so many prefab classrooms these days it’s not hard to shrink or expand a school to meet demand. And it’s still the same number of kids overall so teachers keep their jobs.

By: kowtow

kowtow — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 00:57:26 +0000

Is any of this “white flight”?

By: tvb

tvb — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 00:15:13 +0000

Why not franchise the management of good schools to take over the bad schools. And allow pupils from all the franchisees to mix and match. Bet the teachers unions will hate that. Unfortunately Hekia Parata does not have the political skills to implement anything except the most mundane policies.

By: Paulus

Paulus — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 23:37:47 +0000

I suggest that to make Aranui local school more favoured probably starts with getting a new Principal.
Someone, probably not with a typical Union attitude to mediocrity, being the best that the school can attain.
Probably some of the teachers need to be replace with people of a positive attitude.
Wow – the Unions will fight all that, and we will watch Aranui continue it’s slide.

By: Graeme Edgeler

Graeme Edgeler — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 23:34:40 +0000

[DPF: Absolutely. Kids getting a good education far far more important than property. And schools can be multi-campuses. Burnside could run campuses at the sites of failed schools]

And how high will taxes need to go to fund this?

By: Viking2

Viking2 — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 23:29:39 +0000

WHY, does the govt. need to build any schools??????
Plenty of money looking for investments.

When will we stop being so bloody pedantic about need to own buildings?

By: Graeme Edgeler

Graeme Edgeler — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 23:13:46 +0000

I read it as a rhetorical device, tying the concluding sentence to the title.

DPF has made similar comments previously about allowing schools to grow as big as they want, so my assumption was that it wasn’t simply rhetorical.

By: Kimble

Kimble — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 23:03:35 +0000

I read it as a rhetorical device, tying the concluding sentence to the title.

By: virtualmark

virtualmark — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 22:47:48 +0000

And I agree with you. Rather than overbuilding Burnside (in the example DPF lists) we the taxpayer would be better off making Aranui more attractive.

Wonder what we could do?

By: Graeme Edgeler

Graeme Edgeler — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 22:45:57 +0000

That wasn’t what I was contending.

I was asserting that DPF’s idea – which in the current system would require the government to fund capital works at schools based on potentially transient effects – might be a major waste of taxpayer money, and that he might like to think about it a little more.

By: virtualmark

virtualmark — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 22:43:28 +0000

So Graeme if, as you contend, this demand for out-of-zone schools is due to the relative performance of the various school principals (and I partly agree with you) then perhaps the solution is to replace ~~John Rohs~~ the underperforming principal with someone who knows that they're doing?

By: Graeme Edgeler

Graeme Edgeler — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 22:32:28 +0000

Let Burnside be 4,000 if they wish to be I say.

So we pay for them to expand their campus to accommodate 4000, and in 10 years time, the principal changes, and some other school become highly regarded, and we have to pay to expand their facilities to meet demand.

And then it changes back, and we have to rebuild up somewhere else, while the new facilities at some other school are wasted because they are no longer needed, etc. etc.?

[DPF: Absolutely. Kids getting a good education far far more important than property. And schools can be multi-campuses. Burnside could run campuses at the sites of failed schools]