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*]

---

@i-need-a-martini wrote:

---

@my*mum wrote:

so even if the proposed changes are good ones or beneficial ones they're going to fight them anyway?

I'm not sure if that is "putting the cart before the horse" or "cutting off your nose to spite your face".

Premature media beatup and hysterical knee jerk preactions reactions again....

---

What good/beneficial changes? They haven't come up with any policies/strategies/amendments/changes/whatever. They are simply saying they are not prepared to honour the committment made by the former government (even though they themselves committed to it also) and that they will not implement the findings in the report.

And what media beat up? The Australian are reporting it dircetly from statements made by Christopher Pyne.

---

Exactly, they haven't even looked at it yet, we don't know if the proposed changes are good or bad.

Here is what the OP said

"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."

I have no problem with them revisiting how the funds are to be delivered/distributed/administered, lets face it, the funds for the $3million dollar school hall grants weren't exactly well distributed or administered, and Gonski was pushed through in a bit of a hurry without even all states agreeing. Come to think of it, neither were the $200,000 grants for science facilities or wasn't there some fiasco with the insulation, and so many post moretem changes to the solar panel program as well.

And lets be totally honest here,eh? Did Labor follow the findings and Recommendations of the Ipp Report?

It doesn't hurt to make sure "we're getting it right", because it is a lot of money to be rolled out LONG TERM, and there is a history of mismanagment in the recent past.

IF the agreements were binding, they will stand and there will be no need for alarm, the fact that the hysterics are already coming makes me think that perhaps they aren't as binding as Adrian Piccoli suggests.

I think the point Mr Piccoli is failing to realize is that the Commonwealth Government is responsible for the best education for the entire country, not just his state.

Dunno, but in her rush to get Gonski through, did Ms Gillard take some short cuts? Did she evaluate everything effectively? Did she prematurely sign up some states and make unrealistic committments to them in the hope that peer pressure would mean all the other states would follow suit and just sign the thing?

I don't know.

But if the agreements are binding, then they will stand.

Alternatively, if the States don't want the money.....

Australian Constitution - Section 96 - Financial assistance to States During a period of ten years after the establishment of the Commonwealth and thereafter until the Parliament otherwise provides, the Parliament may grant financial assistance to any State on such terms and conditions as the Parliament thinks fit.

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@izabsmiling wrote:

too many false promises given to voters pre-election already ...this party shouldn't have been elected.

---

you mean as opposed to all of the other false promises of former governments?

NDIS

Naplan

Pensions

School Kids Bonus

Healthcare

Free, equitable and just education for ALL children.

Medicare

etc etc

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@chuk_77 wrote:

C+P of a media release from June this year titled 

Gonski cash to flow to NSW schools in 2014

"In line with the National Education Reform Agreement, provision has been made for the $153 million in additional State and Federal funding for the 2014 school year.

"Our Local Schools, Local Decisions reform agenda provides greater flexibility for principals to allocate resources according to local needs. Next year, the staggered implementation of the NSW Resource Allocation Model will begin, which will see schools manage 70 per cent of their total school budget, compared to 10 per cent in 2011.

---

so what does this do for 2014?

Is that for 2014 or for framework for "benefits" that will not be realized until 2018?

How is that money a concern for 2014? 

[chuk_77]

Im not a flippn politician. How do I know what their plan is. You asked to be enlightened on the 2014 aspect. You got your wish. the NSW governemt was going to relaese the first phase of funding in 2014

[i-need-a-martini]

Why do you think it was rushed? The report is a few years old and the Gillard gvernment took its time reviewing it and then eventually issuing it with its recommendations almost 2 years later. There was no rush. 

I also think it is interesting that there is dispute between Pyne suggesting that the state agreements hadn't been finalised, with the states (including the the Liberal states) saying they either have or where trying to get them finalised but Pyne refused to take their calls to discuss it.

As far as getting it right goes, most people in the know and nearly all the states think the recommendations were pretty much on the money.

The fact is that Pyne was ALWAYS a critic of this report. He sees it as a Labor initiative and never had any intention of implementing it. He openly said that in interviews and on TV. This is about him pushing his own barrow instead of doing what needs to be done for public education.

What is he going to do? Arrange another report and review? Another 4 years of research and 2 years to put a package together that might or might not have the same outcome as Gonski? Can our schools really wait that long??

[i-need-a-martini]

---

@my*mum wrote:

---

@izabsmiling wrote:

too many false promises given to voters pre-election already ...this party shouldn't have been elected.

---

you mean as opposed to all of the other false promises of former governments?

NDIS

Naplan

Pensions

School Kids Bonus

Healthcare

Free, equitable and just education for ALL children.

Medicare

etc etc

---

What does this even mean?

[**meep**]

---

@i-need-a-martini wrote:

---

So what is he saying?

---

Make up your mind

It was either clear what he was saying or it wasn't lol

I agree with my*mum's comments.

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@chuk_77 wrote:

Im not a flippn politician. How do I know what their plan is. You asked to be enlightened on the 2014 aspect. You got your wish. the NSW governemt was going to relaese the first phase of funding in 2014

---

what was that funding for?

short or long term provisions?

Iza made the statement that schools were relying on that funding for 2014(sic) - but for what?

[izabsmiling]

If Chris Pyne returns his phone calls it might help the Premiers who deserve to know what will and won't be honoured by the Fed Gov't.

It's the not knowing,the silence,the secrecy about what is going on, what the plans are,what this Gov't actually 'means/stands for' ....that gives so many a reason to be suspicious and not trust.

Nothing is crystal clear.....other than what I can't say here.

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@i-need-a-martini wrote:

Why do you think it was rushed? The report is a few years old and the Gillard gvernment took its time reviewing it and then eventually issuing it with its recommendations almost 2 years later. There was no rush. 

I also think it is interesting that there is dispute between Pyne suggesting that the state agreements hadn't been finalised, with the states (including the the Liberal states) saying they either have or where trying to get them finalised but Pyne refused to take their calls to discuss it.

As far as getting it right goes, most people in the know and nearly all the states think the recommendations were pretty much on the money.

The fact is that Pyne was ALWAYS a critic of this report. He sees it as a Labor initiative and never had any intention of implementing it. He openly said that in interviews and on TV. This is about him pushing his own barrow instead of doing what needs to be done for public education.

What is he going to do? Arrange another report and review? Another 4 years of research and 2 years to put a package together that might or might not have the same outcome as Gonski? Can our schools really wait that long??

---

what about private education?

you know, that education system that caters to the kids that the public system refuse to cater for? refuse to provide an equal and just education for ALL children?

If most agreed to it, why didn't they all sign it

Martini, could you tell me (in small words) exactly what GONSKI is supposed to deliver and then a breakdown of what years that was supposed to eventuate.

and hang on, someone said we went to the polls believeing it would go ahead, yet you say that Pyne was quite open that it wouldn't.

yet the people voted anyway?

and until I know more, after seeing the fiasco with the previous money grants, I have no problem with checks and balances, cos I am pretty sure that everyone agreed to the funding for the school halls, science and sports buildings..... and that wiorked out so well, eh? No money wasted there, was there, huh?

Australian Constitution - Section 96 - Financial assistance to States During a period of ten years after the establishment of the Commonwealth and thereafter until the Parliament otherwise provides, the Parliament may grant financial assistance to any State on such terms and conditions as the Parliament thinks fit.