To Mr. Key,
Do you remember the days when education was free? No, neither do I.
Your public website (http://www.national.org.nz/) states that the Minister of Education, Mrs. Anne Tolley, "remains passionate about securing a healthy and secure environment for children." I imagine that is also how you sell yourself. Why then, the budget cuts to education institutions? This is not simply about the cuts to early childhood education, for that is only the most recent form. Whilst rummaging through the website, I came across a YouTube clip called "John Key TV - Your Education is Your Future: Believe in It!" That seems like somewhat of a joke considering all the money that the National government has taken from the education system so far. $25 million has been planned for "savings" by 2012/13 (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/ministry-of-education/news/article.cfm?o_id=119&objectid=10631206), plus $10 million in the next year. The funding for early childhood education has been cut, along with that of primary schools, high schools and tertiary institutions. Parents and students alike are forced to pay more money for less services. Education is one of the most important parts of our system. Your John Key TV clip advertises education as giving us "better choices about the life we are going to have, it gives us the rocket start for the different careers that will be part of our lifetimes, [it provides] more choices available to us." If you, and your ministers, honestly thought that this is the case, as I hope you do, then could you please tell me why you find it necessary to cut the budgets of the institutions that will give us these opportunities?
If you are preparing to argue that the education system already has a great deal of money available to it, then how about you work on making that money better used within the system? Why does my university degree cost more in course fees, even though I have less classes, less tutorials, less books in my library and no money to buy new ones?
Were you aware, Mr. Key, that your Minister of Education Anne Tolley is somewhat of a joke in several tertiary institutions? There is a running gag at Victoria University of Wellington that Anne Tolley will not be available for comment no matter how dire the situation. She has three adult children now. Did they ever come home with hastily scratched drawing of themselves, hands and faces still decorated with paint splashes from art class, only to ask their mother what she thought of their pictures? I imagine that she smiled a thin smile, nodded a little and said "No comment." How can someone make such important decisions about the education system when they obviously have such little interest in it themselves? And if Mrs. Tolley's actions are so useful, then why does she never justify them? Why is she always out of reach or unwilling to comment on something that directly affects so many people?
Why does my friend have to pay through the nose in order to send her child to preschool - a place that provides him with information, skills and important social interactions that he could not get elsewhere? Many neuroscience-based studies e.g. Bruce Perry 1997, (several of which are associated with UNESCO) have proven that the first five years of life are crucial in positively developing the brain. If this is so, then why would we offer our children anything less than the best? Why would we take away their opportunities to learn and to develop by taking away the money for the places that provide these opportunities? From John Key TV, Ms. Hekia Parata would have us believe that she wants "the same opportunities available for every child." Every child. Not just the children of wealthy New Zealanders. She wants every child to have the same opportunities. Do you, Mr. Key?
And for that matter, do you think that maybe, just maybe, you could give teachers a little more money? I mean, CEOs of several government ministries have had pay increases and now earn close to half a million dollars per year. Let's not mince words here. Five hundred thousand dollars per year. That is a lot of money, especially considering most teachers earnings start around thirty-nine thousand dollars a year, according to StatisticsNZ. That's $9615 per week versus $750 per week for teachers. It seems interesting that the CEO of the Education Ministry, Karen Sewell, has had a pay increase and now earns approximately $509, 999 per year. One person receives that much money in her bank account, yet still feels justified in deciding that jobs can be cut because there isn't enough money available. Hummm. She couldn't cut her own salary perhaps? In the National Business Review, State Services Commissioner Iain Rennie said that CEOs get pay increases for exceeding expectations. How come this does not apply to teachers? What expectations were exceeded? The ability to look the other way? The ability to stuff one's own pockets whilst robbing the education institutions of jobs and money? Sewell's income could pay at least 12 teachers' yearly incomes. Why is she more deserving than they? In addition, she is a member of a government-owned industry, meaning that her salary is paid by the government. So are the salaries of teachers. Fair? I think not.
How about you give teachers a salary that reflects what you think they are worth? Or, Mr. Key, is that exactly what you are doing? These are the people that are going to educate the children of New Zealand. They are going to inform these kids about how to succeed in and make sense of the world. They have a tough job to do and one that carries great expectations from the public. They are not only supposed to teach information, but also social lessons. They serve as substitute parents for 6 hours of every weekday. They spend time outside school constructing lesson plans and marking tests, which they do not get paid for. We entrust these people with giving children the skills and knowledge that will enable them to become successful adults. Yet you are only willing to pay them scraps, despite asking so much of them. Shouldn't their salaries also be motivation for others to want to step into the role of educators? Do you, as Prime Minister, honestly believe that teachers are being paid what they are worth?
If you want to argue about keeping up with international competition, then let me just say that this should never be about how well your neighbour is doing. Firstly, Australia has millions more people than New Zealand, and therefore it has millions more taxpayer dollars and resources to work with. Secondly, we are two different countries. We have different priorities and different means of achieving our goals. Your focus here should be on encouraging others to want to train as teachers by promising good working conditions and generous salaries. Otherwise you will only see more and more people leaving New Zealand in hopes of finding better prospects elsewhere.
So tell me. Somebody please. Explain the logic of this to me. How are we ever going to foster future leaders if we do not give them the resources needed to learn? Can New Zealand be judged on its own merits or will we forever be (negatively) comparing ourselves against our foreign counterparts?
No comments:
Post a Comment