Mr SPEAKER: Question No 6, Chris Hipkins.
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) to the Minister of Education:
Does she stand by her statement that funding for at-risk students
announced in Budget 2016 "is a clear example of how our funding system
"could be changed to get more support to those students who need it most";
if so, is she concerned that a recent survey found over a third
of principals are considering reducing support staff hours in 2017?
Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education):
I stand by my statement. In regard to the second part of the question
I am more concerned that the member either does not know or misunderstands
that the survey had a response from just 307 out of approximately
2,380 principals, which is 7.8%, not a third. Of those 119,
10 from the Post Primary Teachers' Association (PPTA) and 109 from
the NZ Educational Institute said that they were considering
changing their staff support hours. I would be concerned if principals
were not considering what staffing they require for the next year.
I think that is highly appropriate. I also think it is highly misleading
to use a teacher trade union survey to conclude that all of our schooling sector
is making a change based on the views of just 5%.
Chris Hipkins: What does she say to the Wellington principal
from a decile 1 school, who said: "As a decile 1 community,
"there is no option of raising the money through parent donations
"and fund-raising. Therefore, we can only reduce our expenditure
"as much as possible, which then disadvantages our students further."?
Hon HEKIA PARATA: I would say that if he or she needs assistance
in thinking about how his budget, or her budget, is to be used,
the Ministry of Education is available to do that.
Under this Government, funding for primary schooling has gone up
by over 30%, and for secondary schools by over 24%. In terms
of operational grants, next year there will be a distribution
of $1.35 billion. On top of that, that school, being decile 1,
will receive a proportion of the targeted $12.3 million
that we will be making available next year.
Chris Hipkins: How can she be sure that that new funding
for at-risk students will actually target those most in need,
given that a briefing to her on 16 August identified
that 20,000 students identified as at risk were "missing"?
How can she target funding to their needs
if she does not know where they are?
Hon HEKIA PARATA: Because I rely on the anonymised data
that we are now using to identify which young people
come from homes where they have been on long-term benefit dependence.
How can I trust that that funding will get to them?
Well, I trust the very principals that you are arguing are incapable
of running their schools.
Chris Hipkins: How would $2.30 per week for each at-risk student
help improve the well-being and achievement of those students,
when the Government will not tell schools which students they are,
and 20,000 of them, by her own admission, have already gone missing?
Hon HEKIA PARATA: Irony upon irony. We are not going to stigmatise
these particular children—
Grant Robertson: Hang on! You already have.
Hon HEKIA PARATA:—in the same way as decile funding. No, no.
Perhaps the member does not understand what anonymise means.
We will not be naming the children. What I do trust is that principals
do know who the kids at their school are who are at risk
and do know who the kids are at their school who are most challenged.
It has been traditional that the Government provides funding to schools—
an operational grant, by the way, is a bulk fund that goes to schools—
and they use their discretion as to how they will cause learning
to happen for every child there, and that is what I expect to occur.
Chris Hipkins: I seek leave to table the advice given to Hekia Parata
dated 18 August, in which she wrote in her handwriting
that she would like to see how she can—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I do not need that part. I need the source of—
[Interruption] Order!
Chris Hipkins: Sorry. It is the Ministry of Education.
Mr SPEAKER: So it is sought under the Official Information Act?
Chris Hipkins: The Official Information Act, and that is the Minister's handwriting on it.
Mr SPEAKER: That part is not important. Leave is sought to table information
from the Ministry of Education, sourced under the Official Information Act.
Is there any objection?
There is no objection to its being tabled.
Chris Hipkins: Did she receive other advice in April
that alternative education providers have up to 60% of students at risk,
but would not necessarily receive any additional funding under the new
at-risk model; if so, how will she ensure that the funding
actually reaches those students?
Hon HEKIA PARATA: I will have to rely on the member that
that is my April paper. I am pretty sure that is the case;
I am well advised. I am happy for the member to have that.
The point about the targeted funding is that it is for
the schools to use for the students. It is not a voucher.
It is not to the specific child. It is to the provider institution.
Alternative education providers, therefore, have a relationship
to their provider school. The funding will go to their provider school,
and their provider school will work out with the alternative
education provider how to support the students they have.
Chris Hipkins: Is she saying that alternative education providers
that deal with at-risk students from a number of different schools
are not guaranteed that they will receive any of the additional funding
that those schools will be receiving for the supposedly at-risk students?
Hon HEKIA PARATA: I am not saying that, because, again, I must reiterate
my trust in the principals who are in charge of these schools—
the very principals the member sought in his primary question to assert
were not capable people. I am saying they are. I trust them to do that.
Mr SPEAKER: Question No 7.
Subtitles by the Amara.org community