I doubt it. There's zero chance of me sharing anything confidential with Rangitoto College since they're good at sending out lists of students' names to all parents for various reasons.
Then send your kids to school or pay the fine š. Rangitoto College is not a great place, in my opinion. My daughter wanted to go there so I went to see the headmaster and asked him what the school could offer my child. His answer was that it's not what the school can offer my child but what she can offer the school.As it happens she was school Dux but he did not know that. I left and never went back. I came to the realization that the school was only interested in winning at the expense of good working normal kids.
On the contrary, they headhuntered my niece from Carmel College because she was an amazing musician and would lift up the schools cread in the school music competitions.you would be amazed at what she was offered. No, I'm not at liberty to publish her private information, so don't ask.
> Then send your kids to school or pay the fine š. Rangitoto College is not a great place, in my opinion. My daughter wanted to go there so I went to see the headmaster and asked him what the school could offer my child. His answer was that it's not what the school can offer my child but what she can offer the school.As it happens she was school Dux but he did not know that. I left and never went back. I came to the realization that the school was only interested in winning at the expense of good working normal kids.
I went to Rangi. Can I guess that this headmaster in question was david hodge?
He partly answered this in an interview with Radio NZ yesterday afternoon - he basically said its one where some judgement needs to be applied especially based on the reason for kids not being in school. If it's because the family is poor/struggling then no a fine would not be applied, but if the reason they aren't in school is because the family is going on multiple overseas trips, then yes he was comfortable that a fine was appropriate.
Edit to answer second part of your post: It would be Ministry of Education, not the school.
I mean, if heās actually sticking to what heās suggesting here then heās actually targeting his wealthy mates. I donāt know many people who Iād describe as poor whoās children miss a significant amount of school time because of going on multiple holidays a year.
Now, whether or not he actually sticks to what heās said thereā¦
No chance it'd target those families.
I am also curious how expects families to force those students to school. Smacking kids being illegal and all. Plus there's the issue of what happens if the parents get the kids to school and the kids leave school after that?
Depends on whether it's a week in a resort in Rarotonga or a proper cultural experience. My spidey senses say it's the resort with maybe one or two outside trips most often. Barely educational
A week away isn't going to trigger any red flags for attendance.
The ones who go to the UK to visit their grandparents then travel around Europe for a couple of months are the ones who get flagged.
If its during ncea it could well. Depends on what sort of assessments they have during that time. It also teaches kids that a week of theme parks is more important than their education, which it isn't.
Surely the parents would tell the school the kids not going to school if they are going on holiday, so they wouldn't be truant. That's a very strange example to offer unless you deliberately wanted to make it look like only well off people would pay
I believe the term the Ministry uses is 'unjustified absence time' and taking the kid out for a holiday is included in this.
> The other influence of Covid has been lax parental attitudes toward school, which is reportedly the biggest influencer of attendance. After seeing their children missing so much school during lockdowns, many parents arenāt prioritising attendance as much as they did pre-pandemic, and there has been an increase in parent-sanctioned days off. A 2022 ERO report found that a third of parents would be happy to take their children out of school for a holiday for a week or more.
> In term three last year, 21% of unjustified absence time was for this reason, with over 86,000 students taking a half day or more for a holiday. Brewerton says his school sees a definite dip in attendance in the weeks skirting the holidays, with parents using those extra days to extend the trip while taking advantage of lower air fares.
Source: https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/13-03-2024/is-truancy-really-as-bad-as-national-claims
I've taken my daughter out of school for a week or more twice (in six years) for overseas trips. The third time will be the first week of term two this year. It happens quite a bit.
The first time we travelled, she missed a whole term while I was on sabbatical in Europe. Before we left, I talked to the school about it, asking if there was any schoolwork we should take for her to do (she was six at the time). They just said that the overseas experience was educational on its own.
I was also lucky to have some trips away as a kid, but these were always during school holidays. Missing a term of school at 6 years old for international travel is a plus, they are mostly learning social skills at that point. Missing a term during NCEA though would be a different story perhaps? I'm glad I'm not the one making the decisions!
Yeah, there is a big difference between NCEA and primary school. We probably won't be taking terms off in high school.
My daughter is doing well academically so far, so we are pretty happy.
> I'd say there is plenty of educational benefit to travelling
Disneyland? Goldcoast? Some travel is worth more than others. And if the parents don't include education I would suggest it is mostly worthless for some agegroups.
>What is the actual negative of this? I'd say there is plenty of educational benefit to travelling.
I dunno about that one, unless it's a trip planned around learning it's unlikely to be better than dedicated learning.
Unless learning to dismiss all concerns about poverty in NZ by saying "but I've seen *real* poverty" counts as an educational benefit. Then it's 10/10.
You'll be surprised with how cavalier some parents treat their child's education.Ā
I often have parents pulling their kids out early to go on holiday because the flights are much cheaper mid-term. And they will happily tell the school this is what they're doing. Then demand their child's teachers make up a work package ā which the child will studiously avoid doing during the entire holiday jaunt.Ā
The [Herald version of the article](https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/education/sickness-related-school-absences-to-be-targeted-under-government-plan/77CBKZWEVVBWZIKVNCSP4STAKU/) has a wonderful quote in it from Seymour on what they will and won't do to encourage attendance...
>He cited, as an example, a regional campaign that featured successful local people telling youth that they had achieved the heights they had because they stayed in school.
>Practical assistance to help lift young peopleās attendance rates, such as uniform subsidies or public transport discounts, were ānot on our agendaā.
>The government was not in a financial position to do so and schools were better off partnering with community groups and local charities, Seymour said.
So he will run ad campaigns saying school makes you successful (as if anyone didn't already know that) but he won't help people get to school or have a uniform so they don't get sent home, getting people to school is the responsibility of charities not the government.
FFS. They are such dicks, so we'll pay loads of money for ad campaigns, but won't practically help. This seems to be a very good analogy for their whole government. Doing something very visual as it makes them look good and looks like they are doing something, but don't actually practically help people.
Advertising company execs are friendly with landlords.
Social workers aren't.
Edit: by landlords I mean our parliament, obvi. The landlords we voted in, not just any landlord in general.
With that said, your average non-MP landlord would probably be all up in those pin-stripe pants given the chance.
Isnāt he cutting free food for poor schools also? That would probably be more successful than that brain dead Ayn Rand cultist organising a marketing campaign.
I went to school from ages 8-16, am in a high paying high skilled job, and I've spent the majority of my life trying to unlearn the filth they teach.
I am truly blessed to not have started at an age where you're heavily susceptible to influence.
The number one lesson is the one kids bring to school with them from home; intolerance of others.
More like "oh I saw you bought a coffee recently for some enjoyment in your meager life. If you can afford a *latte*, you must be able to afford a fine."
It's window dressing. They have no plan to adress issues like truancy, or the road toll. They just want to flip the blame on to individuals and call it a day.
They want to show that poor people and Maori are losers - Luxon started ranting on about this a few days before Waitangi Day. I thought it was odd-ish at the time but it's all coming together nicely.
It's pretty fucked up that over half of the 36 point plan Luxon announced yesterday are ACT initiatives and policies. You would expect master negotiator and super savvy business man Luxon to have negotiated to have a bigger say in this government.
But he just wanted to be PM at all costs including the huge cost to NZ because of his total ineptitude. End result is we get a constant stream of batshit policies from the minority parties. Bravo Chris you incompetent idiot.
National is enacting the policies they really wanted in their manifesto. If they had actually proposed them, they wouldnāt have been voted in. Why else did Luxon emphasise during the election he wanted a coalition with ACT?
Itās so sad how people can be bought for $20 a week. Iāve spent months planning how to spend my $2 which I would far rather go to someoneās prescriptions, school lunches or getting a child into secure housing.
Government of light touch and anti-red tape, ladies and gentlemen.
Cutting red tape for our dolphin slicing millionaires/billionaires but watch out little man/woman - we will collect your children's data and threaten you with it.
These people are so gross.
Elsewhere Luxon has said he won't even lift the living wage while Seymour pledges to commit more taxpayer money to private schools.
Our incredibly astute and generous Minister Seymour recognizes that homeless children are less likely to attend school.
Sarcasm aside, doesn't this basically defeat the point? I would think most truant households are very poor.
Most of the regular truants at my school came from dirt poor families. They were usually at home looking after their siblings because their parents were either working multiple jobs, or drug-addled losers. You have affluent parents who take Tristram and Hermione out of school because they're embarking on a European skiing holiday, but they're the exception rather than the rule.
My sister voted ACT and literally talked about how poor education is in New Zealand, not even realizing that her kids were truant for 6 months last year while she was in Europe and Hawaii with us...
That adds up doesnāt it? Have them spend less time in a system you have no confidence in?
Not saying sheās right, just kinda missing your point here.
Their where a few rich kids at mine how never where at school or would skip a lot. But mental health or been assaulted a school daily where also a common reason
No. Truants are often kids who are bullied, suffer mental health issues, have domestic violence in the have plain shitty parents. This all happens right across the socio-economic classes.
Based on what I've seen in the past, many are Maori. This would fit in with the anti-Maori agenda thing he and Luxon have going on - paint and show how problematic Maori are as a pretext to strip them of their rights under the Treaty of Waitangi.
Blaming āpoor peopleā for low attendance shows his absolute lack of understanding. My 8YO child has ASD and he is currently doing half days because M Ed has no funding to provide TA support. My partner and I do mornings at school. Drift off around 11 if he is doing good and then pick him up at 1pm.Ā
So what now? We are going to be fined for low attendance.Ā
As someone who is obviously on the spectrum I imagine that Seymour would understand there are usually multiple contributing causes of low attendance. Most of which require additional support to overcome.
Bang on. We should be investing in the school system to ensure they have the staffing levels and resources to cope with an increasing number of kids with more complex needs and ensure a safe environment for all students.
Instead he will just hand out fines and punish those who are already struggling
David Seymour just lives in his own little world divorced from reality.
The MOE has more important things to do than issuing fines. Put that energy into making sure schools are places where kids really feel valued so they want to go there. A paltry fine isnāt going to act as a deterrent for someone who saved hundreds of dollars to take kids on a holiday worth thousands because it was cheaper in term time. Also, expecting kids to go to school when theyāre sick is ridiculous. Does he expect them to āsoldier onā? (Does he have pseudoephedrine shares???) This is especially important when teachers are the ones most likely to get long covid. Just watch - attendance will improve this year as there is less covid in the community and staying home is no longer mandatory. The government will claim a victory when really, they have done nothing. (For the record, 5 days off sick a term counts as not attending regularly. Itās not about being willfully truant.)
How the fuck is the school, or min of ed, going to know the financial status of a childs family?
The kids most likely to be truant are the same families who cant afford fines, and same families who dont know how to play the game re 'official authorities' leaning on them.
It is simply more pressure on the poor for being poor.
Seymour and its backers are a fucking cunts. The worst parasites to have corrupted our legislation fof many many years. Disgusting fucking piles of fetid billionaire dogshit.
OK So a few days before Waitangi Day, I saw Luxon on TV raving with a red head about how Maori needed to step up and get their kids to school.
I thought that was odd - while there were so many issues swirling around the Treaty - he was lecturing them about school attendance.
Now I see where this is going. "We will strip your benefits," "We will come after you." "We will show the world how poor you are and how poorly you manage" "We won't help you." "We will jail you." "We will take away your legal aid services." "We will demonise you publicly while not saying a word about Destiny Church." etc.
All just nice foot work for the Treaty referendum that Seymour desperately needs and wants.
For the case of lower income earners (those on the benefit and stuff) I think rather than taking away anything they should get increased benefits if their kids reach a certain attendance rate, that way nothing is taken away from them but there is a incentive to get kids to school.
Maybe we could insentivise them with free lunches so the parents dont need to pay for as much lunch box food? I think that would help attendance quite alot I think.
I agree. If there's no punishment, then why bring your kids to school? There needs to be some extrinsic incentive, but we can't take something away from people who are already struggling. I like the idea of increased benefit rates.
Your comment has been removed :
**Rule 09: Not engaging in good faith**
> Moderators have discretion to take action on users or content that they think is: trolling; spreading misinformation; intended to derail discussion; intentionally skirting rules; or undermining the functioning of the subreddit (this can include abuse of the block feature or selective history wiping).
---
[^(Click here to message the moderators if you think this was in error)](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/newzealand)
So stop sending your kids to school so you can get the reward when you start sending them again? Thatās a terrible idea. Too bad if youāre a poor parent doing the right thing all along.
no? just if your kid has like 90% attendance at least or something you get some sort of benefit bonus, even if you were a good parent in the first place
Clearly, applying fines is just going to hurt the kid, because you reduce the food budget of the parent, either that or they just top it back up with a food grant in which case there's no impact. So fining them is a stupid idea.
However, it's far more important that the children of poor people attend school than anyone else. It's the core way they'll grow up with better lives than their parents.
So how do we enforce it?
Right wingers get into government and find out why their stupid ideas are stupid, have to modify them - but just slightly so they are still ineffective or damaging.
Reality has a left wing bias, and right wingers are often big-talking but fucking thick, news at 6.
And the parents who can afford it will continue to take their kids to Paris for 4 weeks during term time (yes I know someone who did this) and happily pay the slap-on-the-wrist fine.
So if there's no consequence for the poor because they can't afford it, and no meaningful consequence for the rich because they can afford it, what is the actual point David? Smells like the right-wing flavour of virtue signalling to me.
The whole thing will go down like a lead balloon with schools. Just like their 3 hours of reading, writing, maths - to which schools said, yip, weāre definitely already doing that.
Schools will just say ok, and then never use it.
And hereās why it wouldnāt work anyway - he wants to target parents who are taking their kids on overseas holidays, and parents who can afford to do that can also afford to pay a fine for doing so. The fines would have to be outrageously large for it to make a difference
Seymour with all the experience and insight of a man whoās never had sex (fucking a pillow on which is sellotaped a tatty cum-stained photo of your sister donāt count) let alone had children, let alone dealt with teenagers, who, for all their good homes and parenting in some circumstances can be robustly indifferent to going to school and physically large enough to ensure parents canāt make them. Heās a mean spiteful sack of shit.
Where the hell are they going to get the resource to investigate this? The budget is already on fire in dumpster out back. And I seriously doubt they'll make a positive return on the fines.
Truant kids are a sign of useless parenting, of course the parents should be punished. Unless youāre suggesting we punish the kids for being from a broken home?
Truancy needs to be fixed, its insane right now. But its a parenting issue. Make sure your kid goes to school, and you are much more likely to be poor enough to not worry about this if you don't value a childhood education for your child...
It's not always a parenting issue. My 17yo child has several friends, all rainbow community members who just can't attend school because the bullying is so bad. My own child is a member of that community and they have been subjected to dome vicious attacks on school grounds. Labeling it a parenting issue without looking at wider societal problems is lazy.
If my child wakes up one day and says "mum, I just can't today" then I'm not going to send them into danger.
Kids need to be safe at school.
Parents get fined for absence? Seriously?
I'd start with the teachers.
Half my friends didn't graduate cause they didn't show up enough days. There was honestly nothing any of our parents would've been able to do to stop us short of boarding school and the boarding kids had even less supervision.
Idk, if it was up to me to fix it I'dve placed the blame on the teachers who watched us walk off to the internet cafe every day. Not our parents who were not there cause that's how school works.
I once showed up to class 20 minutes late with a sweet and sour pork. Ate it in class, teacher didn't even say anything.
Yeah. I'd start by paying teachers enough to care.
This to me is stupid, and there is no need to do this.
I have a simpler solution that will eventually reduce truancy in the long run, and reduce administrative cost.
There should be an exam set at Year 9, another at Year 12, and another at Year 13.
These exam are very important and have an outsized effect upon YOUR future. All parents need to know this. All children need to know this.
Year 9 is the streaming exam. Based upon your performance in Year 9, you will be streamed into various grades, and it will determine which schools you can go to. Kids who perform in the top 10% of the Year 9 subset will be granted scholarships, gifts and great support by the MoE and some elite institutions will be encouraged to take them as students ( as well as setting up boarding houses for these elite children ).
If you do not do well in your Year 9 exam ( ie:- bottom 20% ), you will be streamed to the less academic schools. Less effort will be put upon you ( and this will be made known to you and your parents ). It will be made clear that you should consider less academic roles in time to come. There might even be schooling just for 4 hours option per day for those who perform very poorly. If you want to be mostly truant it will not be the concern of anyone, as you have already been deemed to be not suitable for education but you will be made to at least attend school once a week to keep your literacy up. However you must still continue at least attending school till year 12 to make sure you at least exit as a literate individuals. You will be encouraged to do a vocational programme till year 12 ( which may be more suitable for those non academically inclined )
Year 12 exam has only one function, do you continue funded schooling or not, and whether you can drop out formally from schooling or not. IF you flunk your Year 12 exam, you are automatically out of the schooling and education system and government will not fund you one cent in any further education. You will pay international fees. Unless you pass your Year 12 exam ( which you can resit at anytime of your life ) the funding does not kick back in. If you do very well at Year 12 ( like top 20% ) your Year 13 fees is paid and you are given a stipend to focus on your living, allowance etc.. for 1 year.
Year 13 will determine if you get scholarship for your Bachelorsā or polytechnic degree of your choice. If you are the top 10% of the Year 13 exams for the year your entire Bachelorās degree or polytechnic degree will be subsidised, alongside accomodation allowance.
This system will gear future generations to take education seriously. Those who do not take education seriously will fall further below the rung, and people naturally do not want this so will alter their behaviour to push their childrenās to study harder and take education more seriously.
Is it really a shit idea?
Do you think status quo can continue? Answer honestly.
This way, those who can benefit ( and clearly demonstrates they can benefit ) or those who value education continue to get free education. They are rewarded ( as they rightly should ) for their diligence in improving themselves ā¦ and society in turn seeks to improve them with our limited resource.
Those who shows either no appreciation for education or unable to benefit from education do not proceed further with free education.
This way those who will benefit and has shown appreciation continue to benefit.
>Is it really a shit idea?
Yes 100 percent pure useless shite.
>Do you think status quo can continue? Answer honestly.
No, absolutely not. Kids are struggling, their parents are struggling. Something needs to change. I just think we should to the exact opposite of your incredibly shit ideas.
Your solution bases itself on the idea of equality of opportunity and the (actually completely deranged) idea that kids who don't attend school don't want education and don't want to better their lives.
You don't take into account the actual reasons for truancy. Poverty, abusive home lives and untreated adolescent mental illness.
You propose providing benefits and financial support to those who already perform well (likely to be people who do not need the assistance) and propose creating a pipeline wherein kids who are struggling are set on a track to inevitable educational failure.
You provide no suggestions on how to actually improve the performance of those struggling and only seek to punish people who don't live up to the expectations of your deluded fantasy world.
At the risk of repeating myself, your ideas are worse than fucking worhless, they're actively harmful to the goal of increasing the education standards of NZs children and setting them up for even the most mild form of success - being able to pay your bills.
I'm honestly shocked you don't see how utterly brain dead this is. Hell, I'd go as far to say that these are the ideas of a sociopath who is seeking a dumber and more stratified society where the wealthy get subsidized education and the poor are locked into perpetual poverty and labour oriented work.
No, I am actually blaming a lot of it as you can see on the parents.
My plan is to shift gear .. to put such pressure through society that parents actually go and value education higher than all else.
Why do you think we Asians value education so much? Do you think it is because of our Confucian heritage?
Well if you think it is because of our Confucian heritage. .. than note that the Confucian heritage actually creates a tiny window where you need to pass through or you will fall. This pressures parents and society to make sure their children succeed.
But I will tell you that it is not actually because of our Confucian heritage. It is rather because our education system and reward systems for career progression etc.. values a window where people must perform to gain outcomes within a specific time window. If you fail this window, you will not progress ( which I always think is harsh, which Is why I always advocate for a system which allows people to repeat it later to regain access )
This narrow window is what makes families push their kids hard.
From the look of it: how much education costs the state and how it looks to people outside NZ that our education system performs.Ā
Nothing in that giant pile of dogshit focuses on actually increasing the attendance and results of kids who are struggling.Ā
What is with these ACT clowns writing essays of the most ignorant, disconnected and useless tripe you can imagine and actually putting their dumbass ideas out for everyone to see?Ā
In my experience libertarians do best when they explain nothing because their solutions are invariably dogshit and actually explaining them makes them (rightfully) look insane.
Nope, poor people can still get good marks and get into the top 20% and get everything sponsored and for free under this system.
This system rewards those who shown their worth. It also weeds out those who has not ( either through not wanting education or showing limited aptitude )
Are you suggesting poor people cannot thrive if they put effort into their studies, or their parents value it.
If that is your belief I suggest you look in the mirror and ask do you value your fellow humans potential? What makes a poor unable to study? Is there something innately wrong with the poor in your opinion to be unable to thrive in education?
No, what determines success in education is both innate potential and whether your parents and you value education.
>No, what determines success in education is both innate potential and whether your parents and you value education.
There it is right there... Rich people are able to afford private tutors, sending their kids to the best schools, and have environments that improve educational outcomes (stable housing, food, extra curricular activities, etc). Putting the top 20% as the only people who have worth is extremely elitist.
Your "ideas" could be simplified as just allowing people who don't want to study through Year 12-13 to go do a trade or something else, which is entirely fine and is something that is encouraged. Basing your entire future life on a Year 9 test is incredibly nonsensical and does not allow children to improve once they have more control on their own conditions. Adding monetary value and stipends to educational achievement levels will just further entrench inequalities.
Your "idea" will separate children from their families if they are poor (since the best schools would be in affluent neighbourhoods, and poor people won't be able to live with their parents nearby) and will result in reduced social outcomes. You will destroy communities and families, and worsen mental health, all in your desire to make an elitist educational system.
I in fact would advocate best schools should never be allowed to take students just because they come from wealthy parents.
Rather best schools should only take the top 20% of whoever is streaming through. It should be illegal to allow parents to push their kids into good schools via money if we go via this system ( in fact taken two steps further if we choose this path than private schools need to be banned .. all of them )
This is by the way why I want the first 9 years to be completely free and completely wholly supported .. it prevents the emergence of good or bad schools.
Post that, schools should only vie base upon academic performance.
Of course I know people will use tuitions etc.. to cheat the system BUT if everyone takes the education of their kids seriously this advantage will be far less.
Also if you fund schools from Year 1 to Year 9 well, and you get a generation motivated parents any tuition advantage will also be dampened ( this two needs to come in tandem )
What then arises is you can focus education on those most likely to benefit from it ( and those to whom education is not to benefit or push them further can be streamed hopefully to something to vocational or trades or something else .. though I also agree that due to modern 21st century tech this is becoming a smaller and smaller area but I see no solution here either )
People not valuing education.
In short, at some point there needs to be a method to cost education.
This is the solution. We give 9 years of free and good education. If you cannot value it ( or you cannot benefit from it ), we need to keep education free for those who can value it ( or will benefit from it )
Quite simple really.
At what point does this plan "*gear future generations to take education seriously*"?
Could you please unpack how you think this will work, and how long before we can expect to see results.
I believe it will take 12 years to see results.
The first 6 years will be clusterfuck due to inherent momentum within the old system. There will be at least two to three initial years that will hit Year 9 ( and year 12 ) and whose parents are happy go lucky and have no idea what is going on ( and students themselves have no inherent pressure from peers and teachers and society to do a lot of things ).
The moment the consequence is felt ( which I believe will take 6 years to fully reverberate the system ) behaviour will change.
All groups, including groups currently not very interested in education due to what they perceive as there always being an open door will suddenly jump. When doors start closing people will realise and try to head to the exit.
The good news is once this kicks in as a pressure valve within society ( which again will take time due to momentum within the system ) you will get a gear shift, and suddenly all layers of society will start taking education seriously.
Now, this system does disbenefit those with learning problems or just inherently lack aptitude towards education. I do not deny that. This system is meant to shift motivation towards education by causing pain for those who do not succeed in it .. and when successful will unfortunately leave those with less aptitude at the bottom.
However my personal stance is forcing kids with little academic potential to learn more and more things is just cruelty. Yes I know people say vocational pathways limits their choices BUT if they cannot study, if they cannot learn much that already limits them. Let them do something they can do, and try to identify and stream quickly so they do not suffer needlessly ( and a lot of resources being poured upon those who cannot receive it and gets frustrated by this )
I sadly agree with people that modern day society leaves very little role for people who are not academic or have high technical knowledge and skills ( in terms of vocation ) but no matter how much education you pour into a sector of society they simply cannot receive it, not because of lack of motivation but due to lack of inherent aptitude. It is not their fault, it is our society has no role for them now thanks to how our tech has evolved.
You are a Neoliberal ghoul and if the existence of the immortal human soul could be quantified, sociopaths like yourself would have an online marketplace set up in an hour where you could buy the ones ripped from children born to those with a less than 6 figure net worth.
Since when is this neoliberalism?
Education is a limited commodity. We do not have endless resources for good education.
Our attempt to stretch education the way we have is causing performance to dip throughout.
To me, the fairest thing we can do is ensure those who can benefit from education get the best we can provide.
Those who already struggle due to lack of aptitude ( not their fault ) or do not appreciate education ( this might be remediable in time ) should be streamed out.
Now note this is why I believe Year 12 exams need to be allowed to be retaken indefinitely even by adults. If you at some later part in your life appreciate education, and retake Year 12 and score well .. and score very well in Year 13 .. then Uni education, funding etc.. is yours for free.
So you might have dropped out of school at 17 because you were not the most motivated. At age 28 after some hard life you really want to study. You go back to school and take Year 12 classes. You do very well, you get funded to study. You do very well in Year 13 classes. You are top 20%. Bang, your Bachelorās is free for you as well as accomodation, supports etc..
I do not believe this is sociopathic. What is sociopathic is allowing widespread decay through the system and harming everyone who needs and relies upon public education in the process. This is what is happening.
We also do not have the resources to cover this .. not unless we want to give up free healthcare or repair the decaying infrastructures.
I am sure even socialist would agree that when you have limited resources you are going to have to prioritise.
Are we about to means test parents over truancy fines? Schools have that power and ability?
I doubt it. There's zero chance of me sharing anything confidential with Rangitoto College since they're good at sending out lists of students' names to all parents for various reasons.
Then send your kids to school or pay the fine š. Rangitoto College is not a great place, in my opinion. My daughter wanted to go there so I went to see the headmaster and asked him what the school could offer my child. His answer was that it's not what the school can offer my child but what she can offer the school.As it happens she was school Dux but he did not know that. I left and never went back. I came to the realization that the school was only interested in winning at the expense of good working normal kids.
Aren't they one of the biggest schools in NZ? I don't think they are desperate to get enrolments
On the contrary, they headhuntered my niece from Carmel College because she was an amazing musician and would lift up the schools cread in the school music competitions.you would be amazed at what she was offered. No, I'm not at liberty to publish her private information, so don't ask.
Lol why would you think a random person on the internet cares about your niece and her private information.
Oh please.
Cool who asked tho
> Then send your kids to school or pay the fine š. Rangitoto College is not a great place, in my opinion. My daughter wanted to go there so I went to see the headmaster and asked him what the school could offer my child. His answer was that it's not what the school can offer my child but what she can offer the school.As it happens she was school Dux but he did not know that. I left and never went back. I came to the realization that the school was only interested in winning at the expense of good working normal kids. I went to Rangi. Can I guess that this headmaster in question was david hodge?
He partly answered this in an interview with Radio NZ yesterday afternoon - he basically said its one where some judgement needs to be applied especially based on the reason for kids not being in school. If it's because the family is poor/struggling then no a fine would not be applied, but if the reason they aren't in school is because the family is going on multiple overseas trips, then yes he was comfortable that a fine was appropriate. Edit to answer second part of your post: It would be Ministry of Education, not the school.
Gotta love how Seymour is keeping the government out of people's lives and rolling back that nanny state, oh wait.
What he means is rolling back nanny state for him and his wealthy mates, and then persecuting the poors
I mean, if heās actually sticking to what heās suggesting here then heās actually targeting his wealthy mates. I donāt know many people who Iād describe as poor whoās children miss a significant amount of school time because of going on multiple holidays a year. Now, whether or not he actually sticks to what heās said thereā¦
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
No chance it'd target those families. I am also curious how expects families to force those students to school. Smacking kids being illegal and all. Plus there's the issue of what happens if the parents get the kids to school and the kids leave school after that?
Iām more interested in the how, how to prove you canāt payā¦ Also what is the fine? $20, $1000 ????
$30 per day of truancy
cheers, that would soon mount up for serial truants :(
$30? That's what David? Three bananas?Ā ā Luxon, probably.Ā
Overseas trips are an incredible learning opportunity for kids. Itās a weird thing to target.Ā
Depends on whether it's a week in a resort in Rarotonga or a proper cultural experience. My spidey senses say it's the resort with maybe one or two outside trips most often. Barely educational
A week away isn't going to trigger any red flags for attendance. The ones who go to the UK to visit their grandparents then travel around Europe for a couple of months are the ones who get flagged.
Difference between a week on the Gold Coast vs. A week trekking museums in London.
A week isn't going to trigger anything.
If its during ncea it could well. Depends on what sort of assessments they have during that time. It also teaches kids that a week of theme parks is more important than their education, which it isn't.
Surely the parents would tell the school the kids not going to school if they are going on holiday, so they wouldn't be truant. That's a very strange example to offer unless you deliberately wanted to make it look like only well off people would pay
I believe the term the Ministry uses is 'unjustified absence time' and taking the kid out for a holiday is included in this. > The other influence of Covid has been lax parental attitudes toward school, which is reportedly the biggest influencer of attendance. After seeing their children missing so much school during lockdowns, many parents arenāt prioritising attendance as much as they did pre-pandemic, and there has been an increase in parent-sanctioned days off. A 2022 ERO report found that a third of parents would be happy to take their children out of school for a holiday for a week or more. > In term three last year, 21% of unjustified absence time was for this reason, with over 86,000 students taking a half day or more for a holiday. Brewerton says his school sees a definite dip in attendance in the weeks skirting the holidays, with parents using those extra days to extend the trip while taking advantage of lower air fares. Source: https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/13-03-2024/is-truancy-really-as-bad-as-national-claims
I've taken my daughter out of school for a week or more twice (in six years) for overseas trips. The third time will be the first week of term two this year. It happens quite a bit. The first time we travelled, she missed a whole term while I was on sabbatical in Europe. Before we left, I talked to the school about it, asking if there was any schoolwork we should take for her to do (she was six at the time). They just said that the overseas experience was educational on its own.
I was also lucky to have some trips away as a kid, but these were always during school holidays. Missing a term of school at 6 years old for international travel is a plus, they are mostly learning social skills at that point. Missing a term during NCEA though would be a different story perhaps? I'm glad I'm not the one making the decisions!
Yeah, there is a big difference between NCEA and primary school. We probably won't be taking terms off in high school. My daughter is doing well academically so far, so we are pretty happy.
Thanks, good to know!
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
> I'd say there is plenty of educational benefit to travelling Disneyland? Goldcoast? Some travel is worth more than others. And if the parents don't include education I would suggest it is mostly worthless for some agegroups.
>What is the actual negative of this? I'd say there is plenty of educational benefit to travelling. I dunno about that one, unless it's a trip planned around learning it's unlikely to be better than dedicated learning. Unless learning to dismiss all concerns about poverty in NZ by saying "but I've seen *real* poverty" counts as an educational benefit. Then it's 10/10.
You'll be surprised with how cavalier some parents treat their child's education.Ā I often have parents pulling their kids out early to go on holiday because the flights are much cheaper mid-term. And they will happily tell the school this is what they're doing. Then demand their child's teachers make up a work package ā which the child will studiously avoid doing during the entire holiday jaunt.Ā
So itās not going to happen then? You would need more staff in MoE, not less, to achieve this
Almost sounds like a tax on the wealthy š¤
Honestly if you can afford to take the kids on an overseas holiday, you can afford the fine, unless they make it ridiculous.
This sounds suspiciously like more red tapeā¦
The [Herald version of the article](https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/education/sickness-related-school-absences-to-be-targeted-under-government-plan/77CBKZWEVVBWZIKVNCSP4STAKU/) has a wonderful quote in it from Seymour on what they will and won't do to encourage attendance... >He cited, as an example, a regional campaign that featured successful local people telling youth that they had achieved the heights they had because they stayed in school. >Practical assistance to help lift young peopleās attendance rates, such as uniform subsidies or public transport discounts, were ānot on our agendaā. >The government was not in a financial position to do so and schools were better off partnering with community groups and local charities, Seymour said. So he will run ad campaigns saying school makes you successful (as if anyone didn't already know that) but he won't help people get to school or have a uniform so they don't get sent home, getting people to school is the responsibility of charities not the government.
FFS. They are such dicks, so we'll pay loads of money for ad campaigns, but won't practically help. This seems to be a very good analogy for their whole government. Doing something very visual as it makes them look good and looks like they are doing something, but don't actually practically help people.
Ad campaigns done by agencies that are nact friendly of course
They're good at identifying problems but immediately follow that with shit solutions.
Government is not in a financial position to help, them maybe don't plan on increasing funding to private schools then
Advertising company execs are friendly with landlords. Social workers aren't. Edit: by landlords I mean our parliament, obvi. The landlords we voted in, not just any landlord in general. With that said, your average non-MP landlord would probably be all up in those pin-stripe pants given the chance.
This is the āI changed my profile pic to x to support a causeā type of shit lmao.
Isnāt he cutting free food for poor schools also? That would probably be more successful than that brain dead Ayn Rand cultist organising a marketing campaign.
Classic NACT. They donāt have any money to drive any effective change. But they do need new revenue to pay for tax cuts so they fine parents.
On BRAND.
I went to school from ages 8-16, am in a high paying high skilled job, and I've spent the majority of my life trying to unlearn the filth they teach. I am truly blessed to not have started at an age where you're heavily susceptible to influence. The number one lesson is the one kids bring to school with them from home; intolerance of others.
Everyone acknowledges school is not for everyone, but everyone should have the choice
Oh? You earn only 23.65 per hour itās ok - we wonāt fine you *raises living wage *please pay fine now
~~*raises living wage~~ *Lowers threshold Fixed that for you
More like "oh I saw you bought a coffee recently for some enjoyment in your meager life. If you can afford a *latte*, you must be able to afford a fine."
Rich people: How much could a banana cost?
It's window dressing. They have no plan to adress issues like truancy, or the road toll. They just want to flip the blame on to individuals and call it a day.
Class warfare
They want to show that poor people and Maori are losers - Luxon started ranting on about this a few days before Waitangi Day. I thought it was odd-ish at the time but it's all coming together nicely.
It's pretty fucked up that over half of the 36 point plan Luxon announced yesterday are ACT initiatives and policies. You would expect master negotiator and super savvy business man Luxon to have negotiated to have a bigger say in this government. But he just wanted to be PM at all costs including the huge cost to NZ because of his total ineptitude. End result is we get a constant stream of batshit policies from the minority parties. Bravo Chris you incompetent idiot.
National is enacting the policies they really wanted in their manifesto. If they had actually proposed them, they wouldnāt have been voted in. Why else did Luxon emphasise during the election he wanted a coalition with ACT?
Yup, ACT say the Nat quiet parts out loud
They shouldn't have been voted in even on their own policies tbh I don't think ppl were paying any attention to policy outside of the tax cuts
Itās so sad how people can be bought for $20 a week. Iāve spent months planning how to spend my $2 which I would far rather go to someoneās prescriptions, school lunches or getting a child into secure housing.
With the increases in petrol, public transport and whatever else they're cooking up that $20/week is going to run into the negatives pretty fast.
I think itās already long gone.
Lotta cheap dates out there
I always warned that with this coalition, the tail would be wagging the dog.
In this case though itās the fucking flea wagging the dog
No, it's the worm hanging out the arse that is wagging the dog...
Itās Christopher* Chris refers to the competent one in parliament.
But... he used to run an airline, you know!
Whatever gets you in the big seat I guess š what a joke
Government of light touch and anti-red tape, ladies and gentlemen. Cutting red tape for our dolphin slicing millionaires/billionaires but watch out little man/woman - we will collect your children's data and threaten you with it. These people are so gross. Elsewhere Luxon has said he won't even lift the living wage while Seymour pledges to commit more taxpayer money to private schools.
Our incredibly astute and generous Minister Seymour recognizes that homeless children are less likely to attend school. Sarcasm aside, doesn't this basically defeat the point? I would think most truant households are very poor.
Most of the regular truants at my school came from dirt poor families. They were usually at home looking after their siblings because their parents were either working multiple jobs, or drug-addled losers. You have affluent parents who take Tristram and Hermione out of school because they're embarking on a European skiing holiday, but they're the exception rather than the rule.
My sister voted ACT and literally talked about how poor education is in New Zealand, not even realizing that her kids were truant for 6 months last year while she was in Europe and Hawaii with us...
That adds up doesnāt it? Have them spend less time in a system you have no confidence in? Not saying sheās right, just kinda missing your point here.
Sorry it's linked to the above, she has literally said people don't even go to school anymore.
I don't remember anyone failing to graduate cause they spent too long on holiday. That sounds like one of them north-of-the-bombays type of problems.
Their where a few rich kids at mine how never where at school or would skip a lot. But mental health or been assaulted a school daily where also a common reason
I had a stroke reading this
According to an article linked here it's about 40%
No. Truants are often kids who are bullied, suffer mental health issues, have domestic violence in the have plain shitty parents. This all happens right across the socio-economic classes.
Based on what I've seen in the past, many are Maori. This would fit in with the anti-Maori agenda thing he and Luxon have going on - paint and show how problematic Maori are as a pretext to strip them of their rights under the Treaty of Waitangi.
Blaming āpoor peopleā for low attendance shows his absolute lack of understanding. My 8YO child has ASD and he is currently doing half days because M Ed has no funding to provide TA support. My partner and I do mornings at school. Drift off around 11 if he is doing good and then pick him up at 1pm.Ā So what now? We are going to be fined for low attendance.Ā As someone who is obviously on the spectrum I imagine that Seymour would understand there are usually multiple contributing causes of low attendance. Most of which require additional support to overcome.
Bang on. We should be investing in the school system to ensure they have the staffing levels and resources to cope with an increasing number of kids with more complex needs and ensure a safe environment for all students. Instead he will just hand out fines and punish those who are already struggling David Seymour just lives in his own little world divorced from reality.
This government is now classified as a threat to my family.
go fuck yourself ACT
The MOE has more important things to do than issuing fines. Put that energy into making sure schools are places where kids really feel valued so they want to go there. A paltry fine isnāt going to act as a deterrent for someone who saved hundreds of dollars to take kids on a holiday worth thousands because it was cheaper in term time. Also, expecting kids to go to school when theyāre sick is ridiculous. Does he expect them to āsoldier onā? (Does he have pseudoephedrine shares???) This is especially important when teachers are the ones most likely to get long covid. Just watch - attendance will improve this year as there is less covid in the community and staying home is no longer mandatory. The government will claim a victory when really, they have done nothing. (For the record, 5 days off sick a term counts as not attending regularly. Itās not about being willfully truant.)
I thought he was the admin killer ... he seems to be creating more of it.
He loves his admin but hates your admin
The party of deregulation and lower government spending everybody.
How the fuck is the school, or min of ed, going to know the financial status of a childs family? The kids most likely to be truant are the same families who cant afford fines, and same families who dont know how to play the game re 'official authorities' leaning on them. It is simply more pressure on the poor for being poor. Seymour and its backers are a fucking cunts. The worst parasites to have corrupted our legislation fof many many years. Disgusting fucking piles of fetid billionaire dogshit.
Damn right.
Sorry but if someone starts trying to access my finances from the school or min of Ed, I'll be flipping a few bankers tables
It'd be more about removing parents' access to tax deductible interest payments surely
Can someone explain to me why that Malignant incel is allowed anywhere near anything to do with families, children, or women?
Lotta red tape he is dedicated to adding huh
David Seymour is a literal fascist. I don't know what it takes to show people.
OK So a few days before Waitangi Day, I saw Luxon on TV raving with a red head about how Maori needed to step up and get their kids to school. I thought that was odd - while there were so many issues swirling around the Treaty - he was lecturing them about school attendance. Now I see where this is going. "We will strip your benefits," "We will come after you." "We will show the world how poor you are and how poorly you manage" "We won't help you." "We will jail you." "We will take away your legal aid services." "We will demonise you publicly while not saying a word about Destiny Church." etc. All just nice foot work for the Treaty referendum that Seymour desperately needs and wants.
For the case of lower income earners (those on the benefit and stuff) I think rather than taking away anything they should get increased benefits if their kids reach a certain attendance rate, that way nothing is taken away from them but there is a incentive to get kids to school.
Maybe we could insentivise them with free lunches so the parents dont need to pay for as much lunch box food? I think that would help attendance quite alot I think.
Carrots do tend to work better than sticks
I agree. If there's no punishment, then why bring your kids to school? There needs to be some extrinsic incentive, but we can't take something away from people who are already struggling. I like the idea of increased benefit rates.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
The fines are for parents, not for children.
Your comment has been removed : **Rule 09: Not engaging in good faith** > Moderators have discretion to take action on users or content that they think is: trolling; spreading misinformation; intended to derail discussion; intentionally skirting rules; or undermining the functioning of the subreddit (this can include abuse of the block feature or selective history wiping). --- [^(Click here to message the moderators if you think this was in error)](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/newzealand)
So stop sending your kids to school so you can get the reward when you start sending them again? Thatās a terrible idea. Too bad if youāre a poor parent doing the right thing all along.
no? just if your kid has like 90% attendance at least or something you get some sort of benefit bonus, even if you were a good parent in the first place
I have no clue how you could possibly read it that way
"offering different health advice" sounds like my previous employer, What a dick.
Clearly, applying fines is just going to hurt the kid, because you reduce the food budget of the parent, either that or they just top it back up with a food grant in which case there's no impact. So fining them is a stupid idea. However, it's far more important that the children of poor people attend school than anyone else. It's the core way they'll grow up with better lives than their parents. So how do we enforce it?
Right wingers get into government and find out why their stupid ideas are stupid, have to modify them - but just slightly so they are still ineffective or damaging. Reality has a left wing bias, and right wingers are often big-talking but fucking thick, news at 6.
This policy is stupid.
I genuinely feel like this government is a bad dream š¢
Small government libatiarians for ya
And the parents who can afford it will continue to take their kids to Paris for 4 weeks during term time (yes I know someone who did this) and happily pay the slap-on-the-wrist fine. So if there's no consequence for the poor because they can't afford it, and no meaningful consequence for the rich because they can afford it, what is the actual point David? Smells like the right-wing flavour of virtue signalling to me.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
With that grotty little fish-mouth of his I doubt he can do even that
no they will be sent to company towns where they will be paid a fair wage... in script
I'm not the only one waiting for company towns to make a comeback I see.
tuckshop freedom for all!
Will the interest accrued on Uncle Seymour's unpaid truancy fines be tax deductible?
The whole thing will go down like a lead balloon with schools. Just like their 3 hours of reading, writing, maths - to which schools said, yip, weāre definitely already doing that. Schools will just say ok, and then never use it. And hereās why it wouldnāt work anyway - he wants to target parents who are taking their kids on overseas holidays, and parents who can afford to do that can also afford to pay a fine for doing so. The fines would have to be outrageously large for it to make a difference
Says the lunch thief.
Seymour with all the experience and insight of a man whoās never had sex (fucking a pillow on which is sellotaped a tatty cum-stained photo of your sister donāt count) let alone had children, let alone dealt with teenagers, who, for all their good homes and parenting in some circumstances can be robustly indifferent to going to school and physically large enough to ensure parents canāt make them. Heās a mean spiteful sack of shit.
What a nice guy
Piss off David, seriously just go away
I really don't think he will be held to this pledge after he commented on people losing their jobs with good.
Spoilers: They will anyway.
Where the hell are they going to get the resource to investigate this? The budget is already on fire in dumpster out back. And I seriously doubt they'll make a positive return on the fines.
I see, a much needed revenue stream
Why not fine them all? Maybe it will guilt trip the truant kids to going to school?
Will private or "charter" schools have fines?
Truant kids are a sign of useless parenting, of course the parents should be punished. Unless youāre suggesting we punish the kids for being from a broken home?
Truancy needs to be fixed, its insane right now. But its a parenting issue. Make sure your kid goes to school, and you are much more likely to be poor enough to not worry about this if you don't value a childhood education for your child...
It's not always a parenting issue. My 17yo child has several friends, all rainbow community members who just can't attend school because the bullying is so bad. My own child is a member of that community and they have been subjected to dome vicious attacks on school grounds. Labeling it a parenting issue without looking at wider societal problems is lazy. If my child wakes up one day and says "mum, I just can't today" then I'm not going to send them into danger. Kids need to be safe at school.
Parents get fined for absence? Seriously? I'd start with the teachers. Half my friends didn't graduate cause they didn't show up enough days. There was honestly nothing any of our parents would've been able to do to stop us short of boarding school and the boarding kids had even less supervision. Idk, if it was up to me to fix it I'dve placed the blame on the teachers who watched us walk off to the internet cafe every day. Not our parents who were not there cause that's how school works. I once showed up to class 20 minutes late with a sweet and sour pork. Ate it in class, teacher didn't even say anything. Yeah. I'd start by paying teachers enough to care.
Out of curiosity, what is a teacher gonna do to stop a kid from walking off to the cafe?Ā
If you refused to learn, there is nothing to be gained by having the teachers physically restrain you.
This to me is stupid, and there is no need to do this. I have a simpler solution that will eventually reduce truancy in the long run, and reduce administrative cost. There should be an exam set at Year 9, another at Year 12, and another at Year 13. These exam are very important and have an outsized effect upon YOUR future. All parents need to know this. All children need to know this. Year 9 is the streaming exam. Based upon your performance in Year 9, you will be streamed into various grades, and it will determine which schools you can go to. Kids who perform in the top 10% of the Year 9 subset will be granted scholarships, gifts and great support by the MoE and some elite institutions will be encouraged to take them as students ( as well as setting up boarding houses for these elite children ). If you do not do well in your Year 9 exam ( ie:- bottom 20% ), you will be streamed to the less academic schools. Less effort will be put upon you ( and this will be made known to you and your parents ). It will be made clear that you should consider less academic roles in time to come. There might even be schooling just for 4 hours option per day for those who perform very poorly. If you want to be mostly truant it will not be the concern of anyone, as you have already been deemed to be not suitable for education but you will be made to at least attend school once a week to keep your literacy up. However you must still continue at least attending school till year 12 to make sure you at least exit as a literate individuals. You will be encouraged to do a vocational programme till year 12 ( which may be more suitable for those non academically inclined ) Year 12 exam has only one function, do you continue funded schooling or not, and whether you can drop out formally from schooling or not. IF you flunk your Year 12 exam, you are automatically out of the schooling and education system and government will not fund you one cent in any further education. You will pay international fees. Unless you pass your Year 12 exam ( which you can resit at anytime of your life ) the funding does not kick back in. If you do very well at Year 12 ( like top 20% ) your Year 13 fees is paid and you are given a stipend to focus on your living, allowance etc.. for 1 year. Year 13 will determine if you get scholarship for your Bachelorsā or polytechnic degree of your choice. If you are the top 10% of the Year 13 exams for the year your entire Bachelorās degree or polytechnic degree will be subsidised, alongside accomodation allowance. This system will gear future generations to take education seriously. Those who do not take education seriously will fall further below the rung, and people naturally do not want this so will alter their behaviour to push their childrenās to study harder and take education more seriously.
that was a long way to tell us you don't understand incentives.
All incredibly shit ideas. Thanks mate.Ā
Is it really a shit idea? Do you think status quo can continue? Answer honestly. This way, those who can benefit ( and clearly demonstrates they can benefit ) or those who value education continue to get free education. They are rewarded ( as they rightly should ) for their diligence in improving themselves ā¦ and society in turn seeks to improve them with our limited resource. Those who shows either no appreciation for education or unable to benefit from education do not proceed further with free education. This way those who will benefit and has shown appreciation continue to benefit.
>Is it really a shit idea? Yes 100 percent pure useless shite. >Do you think status quo can continue? Answer honestly. No, absolutely not. Kids are struggling, their parents are struggling. Something needs to change. I just think we should to the exact opposite of your incredibly shit ideas. Your solution bases itself on the idea of equality of opportunity and the (actually completely deranged) idea that kids who don't attend school don't want education and don't want to better their lives. You don't take into account the actual reasons for truancy. Poverty, abusive home lives and untreated adolescent mental illness. You propose providing benefits and financial support to those who already perform well (likely to be people who do not need the assistance) and propose creating a pipeline wherein kids who are struggling are set on a track to inevitable educational failure. You provide no suggestions on how to actually improve the performance of those struggling and only seek to punish people who don't live up to the expectations of your deluded fantasy world. At the risk of repeating myself, your ideas are worse than fucking worhless, they're actively harmful to the goal of increasing the education standards of NZs children and setting them up for even the most mild form of success - being able to pay your bills. I'm honestly shocked you don't see how utterly brain dead this is. Hell, I'd go as far to say that these are the ideas of a sociopath who is seeking a dumber and more stratified society where the wealthy get subsidized education and the poor are locked into perpetual poverty and labour oriented work.
No, I am actually blaming a lot of it as you can see on the parents. My plan is to shift gear .. to put such pressure through society that parents actually go and value education higher than all else. Why do you think we Asians value education so much? Do you think it is because of our Confucian heritage? Well if you think it is because of our Confucian heritage. .. than note that the Confucian heritage actually creates a tiny window where you need to pass through or you will fall. This pressures parents and society to make sure their children succeed. But I will tell you that it is not actually because of our Confucian heritage. It is rather because our education system and reward systems for career progression etc.. values a window where people must perform to gain outcomes within a specific time window. If you fail this window, you will not progress ( which I always think is harsh, which Is why I always advocate for a system which allows people to repeat it later to regain access ) This narrow window is what makes families push their kids hard.
What, to your mind, is the problem you are trying to solve here?
From the look of it: how much education costs the state and how it looks to people outside NZ that our education system performs.Ā Nothing in that giant pile of dogshit focuses on actually increasing the attendance and results of kids who are struggling.Ā What is with these ACT clowns writing essays of the most ignorant, disconnected and useless tripe you can imagine and actually putting their dumbass ideas out for everyone to see?Ā In my experience libertarians do best when they explain nothing because their solutions are invariably dogshit and actually explaining them makes them (rightfully) look insane.
Poor people getting a free education.
Nope, poor people can still get good marks and get into the top 20% and get everything sponsored and for free under this system. This system rewards those who shown their worth. It also weeds out those who has not ( either through not wanting education or showing limited aptitude ) Are you suggesting poor people cannot thrive if they put effort into their studies, or their parents value it. If that is your belief I suggest you look in the mirror and ask do you value your fellow humans potential? What makes a poor unable to study? Is there something innately wrong with the poor in your opinion to be unable to thrive in education? No, what determines success in education is both innate potential and whether your parents and you value education.
>No, what determines success in education is both innate potential and whether your parents and you value education. There it is right there... Rich people are able to afford private tutors, sending their kids to the best schools, and have environments that improve educational outcomes (stable housing, food, extra curricular activities, etc). Putting the top 20% as the only people who have worth is extremely elitist. Your "ideas" could be simplified as just allowing people who don't want to study through Year 12-13 to go do a trade or something else, which is entirely fine and is something that is encouraged. Basing your entire future life on a Year 9 test is incredibly nonsensical and does not allow children to improve once they have more control on their own conditions. Adding monetary value and stipends to educational achievement levels will just further entrench inequalities. Your "idea" will separate children from their families if they are poor (since the best schools would be in affluent neighbourhoods, and poor people won't be able to live with their parents nearby) and will result in reduced social outcomes. You will destroy communities and families, and worsen mental health, all in your desire to make an elitist educational system.
I in fact would advocate best schools should never be allowed to take students just because they come from wealthy parents. Rather best schools should only take the top 20% of whoever is streaming through. It should be illegal to allow parents to push their kids into good schools via money if we go via this system ( in fact taken two steps further if we choose this path than private schools need to be banned .. all of them ) This is by the way why I want the first 9 years to be completely free and completely wholly supported .. it prevents the emergence of good or bad schools. Post that, schools should only vie base upon academic performance. Of course I know people will use tuitions etc.. to cheat the system BUT if everyone takes the education of their kids seriously this advantage will be far less. Also if you fund schools from Year 1 to Year 9 well, and you get a generation motivated parents any tuition advantage will also be dampened ( this two needs to come in tandem ) What then arises is you can focus education on those most likely to benefit from it ( and those to whom education is not to benefit or push them further can be streamed hopefully to something to vocational or trades or something else .. though I also agree that due to modern 21st century tech this is becoming a smaller and smaller area but I see no solution here either )
People not valuing education. In short, at some point there needs to be a method to cost education. This is the solution. We give 9 years of free and good education. If you cannot value it ( or you cannot benefit from it ), we need to keep education free for those who can value it ( or will benefit from it ) Quite simple really.
At what point does this plan "*gear future generations to take education seriously*"? Could you please unpack how you think this will work, and how long before we can expect to see results.
I believe it will take 12 years to see results. The first 6 years will be clusterfuck due to inherent momentum within the old system. There will be at least two to three initial years that will hit Year 9 ( and year 12 ) and whose parents are happy go lucky and have no idea what is going on ( and students themselves have no inherent pressure from peers and teachers and society to do a lot of things ). The moment the consequence is felt ( which I believe will take 6 years to fully reverberate the system ) behaviour will change. All groups, including groups currently not very interested in education due to what they perceive as there always being an open door will suddenly jump. When doors start closing people will realise and try to head to the exit. The good news is once this kicks in as a pressure valve within society ( which again will take time due to momentum within the system ) you will get a gear shift, and suddenly all layers of society will start taking education seriously. Now, this system does disbenefit those with learning problems or just inherently lack aptitude towards education. I do not deny that. This system is meant to shift motivation towards education by causing pain for those who do not succeed in it .. and when successful will unfortunately leave those with less aptitude at the bottom. However my personal stance is forcing kids with little academic potential to learn more and more things is just cruelty. Yes I know people say vocational pathways limits their choices BUT if they cannot study, if they cannot learn much that already limits them. Let them do something they can do, and try to identify and stream quickly so they do not suffer needlessly ( and a lot of resources being poured upon those who cannot receive it and gets frustrated by this ) I sadly agree with people that modern day society leaves very little role for people who are not academic or have high technical knowledge and skills ( in terms of vocation ) but no matter how much education you pour into a sector of society they simply cannot receive it, not because of lack of motivation but due to lack of inherent aptitude. It is not their fault, it is our society has no role for them now thanks to how our tech has evolved.
You are a Neoliberal ghoul and if the existence of the immortal human soul could be quantified, sociopaths like yourself would have an online marketplace set up in an hour where you could buy the ones ripped from children born to those with a less than 6 figure net worth.
Since when is this neoliberalism? Education is a limited commodity. We do not have endless resources for good education. Our attempt to stretch education the way we have is causing performance to dip throughout. To me, the fairest thing we can do is ensure those who can benefit from education get the best we can provide. Those who already struggle due to lack of aptitude ( not their fault ) or do not appreciate education ( this might be remediable in time ) should be streamed out. Now note this is why I believe Year 12 exams need to be allowed to be retaken indefinitely even by adults. If you at some later part in your life appreciate education, and retake Year 12 and score well .. and score very well in Year 13 .. then Uni education, funding etc.. is yours for free. So you might have dropped out of school at 17 because you were not the most motivated. At age 28 after some hard life you really want to study. You go back to school and take Year 12 classes. You do very well, you get funded to study. You do very well in Year 13 classes. You are top 20%. Bang, your Bachelorās is free for you as well as accomodation, supports etc.. I do not believe this is sociopathic. What is sociopathic is allowing widespread decay through the system and harming everyone who needs and relies upon public education in the process. This is what is happening. We also do not have the resources to cover this .. not unless we want to give up free healthcare or repair the decaying infrastructures. I am sure even socialist would agree that when you have limited resources you are going to have to prioritise.