Comments on: Debsoc hosts a great public debate: Wellington Electorate Candidates have a bun fight

By: Conrad Reyners

Conrad Reyners — Sat, 31 May 2008 16:52:42 +0000

Chris, I see what you mean – but he did dodge Joe’s question, he saw the issue as one of need and not extra funding, its to that particular distinction that he agreed, not the original proposition brought by Joe.

So in an almost 180 degree roundabout way, he did answer the question.

By: for your information

for your information — Sat, 31 May 2008 04:38:08 +0000

The debate’s over.

By: Stephen Whittington

Stephen Whittington — Sat, 31 May 2008 01:07:56 +0000

A couple of points:

1) Private schools are currently far cheaper to run that public schools. Most scientifically conducted studies show modest improvement from school choice. Some others show that there is not much difference. If there is not much difference, the remaining argument for school choice is that we can achieve the same outcomes for a lot less money.

2) In regards to segregation, most studies reveal that segregationb is lowered. Because often areas are segregated, zoning reinforces this. School choice tends to increase integration. I found Graves’ comments about the beginning of school vouchers interesting – he said it was introduced to increase segregation.

He is right. Private schools tended not to discriminate on the basis of race like public schools did. To extend control over private schools, the state introduced vouchers. A condition of being able to accept them was that the school was segregated. This is a problem with public control, not private schools.

3) In response to Joe’s question, Kerr agreed that voucher systems could be introduced with decile funding (in fact, in the US vouchers are often introduced only for the most needy). The point that Kerr made was that funding should be based on educational need, not family income. That is, where children had greater needs, the voucher should be worth more. It seemed that he empirically disagreed with the ideas that poverty made educational needs greater – but he did not oppose them in principle.

4) I actually explicitly said that Kings College would probably not accept any student – although it likely would expand. The point I made was that even where parents cannot get their child into their 1st best school, they still have their 2nd best, 3rd best, 4th best school, and ….

By: Chris

Chris — Sat, 31 May 2008 00:52:32 +0000

Conrad – in a roundabout way, Roger Kerr did say he would support increased voucher amounts for the poor. He could have been more direct about it but I certainly got the impression he said yes.

Nice review.

By: Anonimo

Anonimo — Fri, 30 May 2008 05:10:30 +0000

I can feel the hilarity ensuing

By: not JJW FAN!

not JJW FAN! — Fri, 30 May 2008 02:54:48 +0000

I think the humour stemmed more from Heather harping on about adjustments for inflation Peter. Which IS related to tax cuts.

By: peteremcc

peteremcc — Thu, 29 May 2008 22:53:04 +0000

Problem is that Joe’s comment shows a fundamental lack of understanding about how vouchers work. Giving a voucher to every child is simply changing the funding method – theres no new spending, so no affect on
tax cuts.

By: Conrad Reyners

Conrad Reyners — Thu, 29 May 2008 12:38:38 +0000

I’m glad the Joke was not lost on you.

Or was it…

By: banditeo

banditeo — Thu, 29 May 2008 09:55:49 +0000

‘To which debsoc leftist luminary Joe Connell interjected “No Tax cuts then!”. Hilarity ensued.’

God it sounds klike so much fun. Wish I was there only.