The Gonski in doubt ...back to the drawing board ?

[izabsmiling]

Gonski school funding: NSW Government plans to fight changes to deal

By chief political correspondent Emma Griffiths

Updated 22 minutes ago

The New South Wales Government says it will fight any changes to the "Gonski" school funding agreement it struck with federal Labor before the election.

New federal Education Minister Christopher Pyne has said the Coalition cannot go ahead with the "Gonski" funding arrangements and will go back to the "drawing board".

He insists the total amount of money allocated to schools funding will not change, but the way in which it is delivered is now uncertain because final deals had not been signed with some states.

But his NSW counterpart Adrian Piccoli says it has a "binding agreement" that must be honoured.

"NSW expects the Commonwealth to fulfil its obligations under this agreement," he said in a statement.

"NSW will not agree to returning to the broken SES funding model. The new funding model has secured additional resources for classrooms across NSW, with the majority going to schools in most need."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-25/gonski-funding3a-nsw-government-plans-to-fight-changes/5114880

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@chuk_77 wrote:

 Most schools are governed by parent com ittee (well here anyway) so any funding goes to whatever is needed as martini said up there that you also refuse to believe. Why dont you call some schools if you want more in depth anwsers. Posters here can not say how individual school will or wont use their funding. While you're at it, call the age newspaper and the NSW DECS who said the first part of the funding would be release in 2014 as they are obviously in the wrong too. Sheesh

You dont like the public system we get that. 

---

I did, I called 3 school principals. A friend (public) My brother (public) and my school (private)

I'm not arguing that the funding was to be released, but it is not for short term use as everyone is proposing, it is to put in place long term frameworks for which results were not to be realized until 2018. This Gonski money has nothing to do with any budgetuing or funding for short term 2014 use.

The funding is very cklear on how it is to be used, all three types, and it is not rolled out until "Funding Day" which is Day 8 of each school year, when enrollments are confirmed.

[izabsmiling]

Victoria has joined New South Wales and Tasmania in warning the federal government they will not support any dismantling of the new school funding model, with the states saying any changes made to the Gonski reforms could see schools lose money.

Federal Education Minister Christopher Pyne sparked alarm in some parts of the education sector after proclaiming the new needs-based school funding model legislated by the former Gillard government and based on recommendations from the review led by David Gonski was "a shambles" and that he planned to go "back to the drawing board" and "create a funding model".

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/states-to-fight-federal-changes-to-gonski-scho...

These are the views of 3 State Premiers.It's that simple 

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@the_great_she_elephant wrote:

Call me a cynic, but I suspect once all the dust has settled you'll find the actual proposals have changed very little, only the wording has been altered and a couple of unimportant clauses added or deleted, so Tony Abbott can announce it as a brand new Coalition policy rather than an inherited Labor one.

---

I reckon that would well be on the cards too.

But I don't object to it being reconsidered, and maybe tweaked. Maybe it won't need any changes, as yet, we don't know. But I do know, that it wouldn't hurt to have different management styles to at least look at it.

It's a LOT of money, the benefits of which we won't see for at least 4 years. It's too late to find out then that the money had been wasted in the previous 4 years.

There is a reason why not every state jumped in to sign this. There is a reason why only some are now voicing their objections to its review. I don't know what they are.

The saving grace is that they have said they won't be reducing the amount. We can only hope.... But the facts are, the country does not yet have the money to actually follow through to the end. They can't fund it as it is. So at this stage it is going to be like all the other promises we have been made by all sides of politics. unsustainable.

[chuk_77]

oh so 3 people you know personally is indicative of Australia? ok then. Funny how my school already knows its enrolements for next year (except for walk in enrolments) class sizes and required teacher placements and SOS requirements. Your friends must be derelict in their duties. Or they are bound by confidentiality as GC's are seeing as Principals are not the sole decision makers in public schools

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@lakeland27 wrote:

 just rubbish, i see the laptops and the formerly dickensian schools regularly and they have never been better.  why tarnish a good program with some cherry -picked examples of poor tradesmen. no shonky work here thankyou v much .

---

the lap tops have nothing to do with poor tradesmen, I wasn't implying that.

Many schools did not have the infrastructure to operate the laptops that the kids received. Plus there was no provision for updating or repairs etc... A lot of the schools didn't have the internet capabilities to let the kids use the lap tops. They don't have the electricity infrastructure needed to plug them in or recharge them. They don't have the facilities to store them when not in use, or help the kids to protect them.

Not all kids even got the laptops because their school used the money to improve the infrastructure and then implemented a BYOD program.

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@chuk_77 wrote:

oh so 3 people you know personally is indicative of Australia? ok then. Funny how my school already knows its enrolements for next year (except for walk in enrolments) class sizes and required teacher placements and SOS requirements. Your friends must be derelict in their duties. Or they are bound by confidentiality as GC's are seeing as Principals are not the sole decision makers in public schools

---

ummmm the Day 8 Funding Day is National.

That's when funding is allocated.

and LOL at derelict, 2 of them are band 10, so yeah, sure, they must be derelict... hahahaha

at least I asked 3 people (plus what I have studied), your basing your experience on what, one?

ok, cool.

[lakeland27]

they were free to negotiate packages to suit individual schools and thats what happened here. one would expect some to get it wrong, but i carefully avoid those schools. like everything, some people are better administrators than others. whats the alternative ? a central committee with a one size fits all approach ?

[izabsmiling]

My DD's class teacher required funding approval  or the kids don't have a teacher....At the moment nothing is clear for next yr

[nevynreally]

---

@izabsmiling wrote:

My DD's class teacher required funding approval  or the kids don't have a teacher....At the moment nothing is clear for next yr

---

And, how do you know about that? Why does this teacher require funding provided by the Gonski?