by Catherine Delahunty
Welcome to Pepsi Cola High School, your local state educational institutional. Make sure your parents have got their “donations” ready and can also pay towards your trip to Paris and Mexico and to school camp down the road as well. Make sure you can afford a new uniform or at least a recycled one that almost fits. It’s is a pity you don’t have shoes but bring a note for the teacher explaining why.
So you have Special Needs and you want to enrol at Pepsi Cola High? Nice try but we think you would be happier down the road at Mountain Dew College, they are better at that kind of support, we just collect the Special Needs grants.
You have a passion for IT and want to be a software designer. Don’t you have a broadband at home? What a shame, but you cannot sign up for this activity unless you have $500. How do you think the school paid for the computer suite? The Government certainly wasn’t going to.
So your parents think school annual donations are too expense, when it is only $800 a year?. Why don’t you go to the college where you will feel more comfortable? I hear that they have given up chasing people for fees at Mountain Dew College. Yes I know their corporate sponsored T shirts are uglier than the sexy Pepsi one but you cannot have it all. If they had a few more lawyers and accountants on their Board of Trustees they might attract better sponsors. After all it’s all about collaboration these days, businesses and schools should work together.
We can see why you want to go to Pepsi Cola High, we make studying “enterprise” our top priority, none of that wishy washy liberal social studies crap for us. Our business is training you for business. Thanks for the cheque and welcome aboard!
Published in Society & Culture by Catherine Delahunty on Wed, April 8th, 2009
Tags: Catherine Delahunty, Education, politics
More posts by Catherine Delahunty | more about Catherine Delahunty
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
To be frank I’m not sure where this is going. Private schools already exist in New Zealand, and they’re nothing like this. And they have school voucher systems in America (which is far more radical than what is proposed by National) and again, they are nothing like this. In fact for the most part they have led to better educational outcomes.
Orwell this is not.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I’m guessing organic from the local producer would be just peachy, however.
One wonders what would happen if you had a few competing organics producers wanting to supply the same school? Perhaps they would each give themselves a catchy name (Organix vs NatraGanics – take the taste test!) to help differentiate their product. Maybe one would cut favorable deals with the school – like supplying a free computer suite. In return, the school sells Organix tofu only. The NatraGanics was over-priced anyway.
You never know – it might be win-win.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Schools should be encouraged to specialise reguardless of if they are private or public; it is practical and far more efficent than having jack-of-all-trades schools. having a school which excells with the liberal arts also attempt to excell at sports and visa versa is just going to cause both to teach both less effectively, not dissimilar to engenering courses in wellignton. economies of scale and such.
If one school is better equiped for the learning impaired then they should be sent to that school as it will result in far better learning, at far less cost, for both the learning impaired and the not-quite-so-impaired.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
A post by a greenie totally ignorant of the concepts of choice and parental preference…..golly…what a suprise.
The fact is Cath is that we as consumers in the market have the power of God over big companys….compared to almost none when the monopoly State is concerned.Companies operating in a free market have to be aware of every sneeze and sniffle amoungst their consumers or they loose them to a competitor……not so with the take it or leave State that has no reason to keep its citizens happy outside of election bribe time….after all….where else can they go?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I suggest you change your medications Catherine so you stop your insane nightmares!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient – So what you are advocating is that schools who refuse to accept special needs kids should still continue to get the special needs grant? That is the kind of choice we have now. That’s what the Greens want changed. Refuse special kids, get no special kids money. Simple stupid.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
d4j: Piss off with your personal attacks.
If you want to comment on Catherine’s post, at least put up a rational argument rather than go all ad hominem.
I would suggest that the tone of your comments on this and other blogs provide plenty of opportunity for people to speculate about your mental health.
If you want to go there, expect to get some back! But I’d prefer no-one on frogblog goes there in the first place.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
My mental health is very good Toad. Why do you low down greens resort to such low down personal attacks about my sanity? You greens are dangerous kiwis. You are very unstable to suggest such a thing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I think it’s because you resort to them first. Not that I’m saying replying in kind is such a good idea.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Pepsi Cola High” Talking about sanity Sam. FFS.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Frog,
Im advocating specialisation in schools, I agree that a school should not receive funds for special tuition of special needs children unless they do infact teach special needs children. I think that it should be proportional to how many are taught.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Catherine
Please spend your time and my money working on issues that matter to Kiwi’s.
You are very lucky you work in a place with more than 20 employees, as one of your employers I would take great satisfaction from sacking you after 90 days.
How about you do something about animal welfare?….or is that a bit “green” for the current intake of Green MP’s?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
That’s before 90 daze BB
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“..d4j: Piss off with your personal attacks..”
gee toad..!
.far be it from me to defend d4j..
..but do i recall you indulging in just that..?
..’personal attacks’..?
remind us..!
..eh..?
(if you can’t..i can..
..eh..?.)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
and catherine..
“..So you have Special Needs and you want to enrol at Pepsi Cola High? Nice try but we think you would be happier down the road at Mountain Dew College, they are better at that kind of support, we just collect the Special Needs grants…?
..you really do engage in the old histrionics a bit..
..eh..?
(whoar..!
..i mean..how can we forget ‘scrotum-destroying’..?..
..wasn’t it..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Please remind us all about toad’s vicious “personal attacks” phool.
Haha only on frogblog.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
and nothing on frogblog yet about that latest ‘tryst’..?
mm..!…sue bradford..and murray mccully…
..catherine delahunty and chris finlayson..
..keith locke..and simon ‘all the way with bush!’ power..
..russell norman..and ‘big gezza’ brownlee..
..all together..!
..at last..!
..finally..!
..phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
oh to be at the consummation..!
eh..?
and um..!
..what would rod have said..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
philu said: ..i mean..how can we forget ’scrotum-destroying’..?..
Actually it was “scrotum shrivelling”. You commented yourself on the alliteration at the time. I thought it was a brilliant turn of phrase, and you’ve never expalined why you don’t.
As for your “personal attacks” reference, try here – I’ve already responded re that on another blog tonight.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
and..oh the irony..
that you will likely get more out of national..
than you ever did from labour..
..eh..?
btw..was it one of your green party ‘deal-makers’..
..who is now the negotiator’deal-maker from tvnz..
..who held the blowtorch to sky..
..and forced them to take the freeview channels..
..without giving prime to freeview..
..what a deal..!
..eh..?
..sorta reminds one of those rippers-deals you guys hammered out with labour..
..eh..?
..(remember..!..where you gave them everything..?
..and got s.f.a.in return..?
..you must remember them..!)
..boy..!
..you really showed them..!
..eh..?
..phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
never could/did respond to the meat-debate..
did you toad..?
any greens gagging on their gristle yet..?
thinking about stopping hurting/killing/eating animals..?
eh toad..?
now that’s a real ‘personal attack’..eh..?
killing and eating another living creature..
..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
phil u Says:
April 8th, 2009 at 10:07 pm
> and nothing on frogblog yet about that latest ‘tryst’..?
> mm..!…sue bradford..and murray mccully…
> ..catherine delahunty and chris finlayson..
> ..keith locke..and simon ‘all the way with bush!’ power..
> ..russell norman..and ‘big gezza’ brownlee..
> ..all together..!
not really. They’ve only found three potential policies they can work together on. Hardly a close relationship.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
wot..?..there is not yards and yards of p*ss-take in this one..?
this is spun-gold..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What has happened to frogblog?
I used to be proud that the Greens had a strong voice from their parliamentary team, that wasn’t an MP.
Frogblog is so much more than a press release machine for MPs to say whatever the fuck comes into their mind at any given moment.
Bring back Frog and let them/her/him run the show. Don’t let the MPs, they have nothing interesting to say.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
um..!..i have to say..
..that as one who has called for more mp’s input here..
..i hafta say..
..they really need an editor..
..esp. delahunty..
..she goes off like fireworks..
..and makes as much sense..
‘scrotum-shrivelling’..’real women’..
..indeed..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
OK, I won’t argue with those of you who want to see education privatised. Instead, here is what I personally would like to see:
1) Public schools should be fully funded by the government. If there are financial constraints, just use what government money is available in the most effective way. In other words, keep private money out of schools, no matter how tempting it looks at first.
2) School fees at public schools must be truly voluntary. Families who do not pay should not be penalised in any way.
3) No government funding should go to private schools which charge fees. When government funds are limited, money should be spent on providing the best possible public education system which is open to all students, irrespective of family wealth.
Some will argue this is unfair on families who pay taxes and choose to send their children to a private school. Well maybe it is unfair; but is it any fairer to put government funding into educational institutions which are out of the reach of working class people? I would not have too much objection to private schools receiving government money if the schools did not charge fees.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Big Bro,
You have a very funny idea of what democracy is. Basically, you view MPs as _your_ employees, and if they don’t behave the way _you_ want them to, you think they should be sacked.
Even if MPs are viewed as employees of the taxpayer, do you think you are the only one who pays taxes and therefore can solely decide what MPs should or shouldn’t do?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
It is true we already have private schools. I went to a private catholic school as did many of my friends.
I think what you mean is corporatization of schools such as what they attempted and failed in the USA, the most predominate being Edison Learning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edison_Schools
This idea has been tried and failed. Education is a collective responsibility best managed by those who are responsible for our community, ie the government.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
samiuela would like to see “No government funding should go to private schools which charge fees.”
I disagree. This is one extreme view and results in the parents of the private school pupils paying twice to have their children educated. The other extreme is expecting the government to fund private schools at the same rate per pupil as state schools receive, with which I also disagree as is is a subsidy of the private schools by the state.
I believe that neither extreme is fair. What is fair and would encourage the most effective use of resources is for the government to fund private schools at a rate corresponding to the incremental cost of funding the next student that would need to be taken by the state school system if that student didn’t attend the private school. This would be between the extremes. Effectively this is returning the money that the state charges to educate those children. However it should be conditional on the quality of education meeting a certain standard which the state schools are also expected to meet.
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
samiuela,
let’s think about this.
1) Public schools should be fully funded by the government.
I Totally agree. There should be an absolute curriculum that is assessed for cost and fully funded.
2) School fees at public schools must be truly voluntary. If 1) is correct, then this is a waste of space, as there should be no ‘fees’ at public schools.
3) No government funding should go to private schools which charge fees.
By definition, private schools charge fees, however, the current situation, whereby the public purse contributes sufficient funds for ‘standard’ teachers salaries for the number of teachers the school role justifies – to one decimal point – makes sense as without it there is a very high likelihood that a VERY large percentage of the students would be transferred to the public system and cost A LOT more than this.
The problem with funding is not, to my mind, associated with the private vs public or donation vs fees debates. It is wrapped up in the need for every school to attempt to provide every subject to a high standard. This is caused by the un-streamed nature of our secondary schools, where entry is based on the happenstance of home address and not aptitude for a particular curriculum.
Imagine a country where, at age 11, children were tested for their basic aptitude. Are they ‘academic’, are they ‘practical’ are they neither of the above and of low basic IQ. Now imagine schools that are established to teach a)’languages, science and arts’, or b)’maths, crafts and engineering”‘ or c)’life skills, three Rs and sport’ as their curriculum’s major focus. The schools in class a) would not need significant investment in workshops, a basic facility that teaches elementary dexterity with basic tools would be appropriate; however for class b) the investment in workshops would be significant, as this is where the focus of the schools teaching would be. In class c), providing insights into budgeting, home management, nutrition, cooking, child-raising, work ethics and societal expectations, together with basic manual dexterity and physical development would be the primary foci’s of attention.
The ‘attendees’ at these schools would not correlate to any simple socio-economic decile system, as intelligence appears, and fails to appear, in all income deciles. The children ‘streamed’ in this manner would not be locked into a trap, there would be the ability to move between streams after the first and second years in streamed schools if a mistake in assessment had been made.
The benefits of such a system? A happier and more productive society, with everyone encouraged to achieve their full potential and succeed. To my mind, this stacks up as a far better deal than what we have today, where no matter what your ability you are sent to the local school, which is classified based on the average income for its ‘catchment’ area, and to deliver all the things that every child might need has to compromise everything and go cap in hand to parents for ‘donations’ toward system that is supposed to be paid for out of the taxes the state wasn’t asked to shell out on the property, facilities and ‘top-pay for ‘top-teachers’ for ‘small class sizes’ that my childrens’ private schools provided out of my fees.
If we’re going to fix the system, let’s FIX it, and stop fiddling about at the periphery claiming the core is appropriate. It’s not! And no amount of sackcloth, tears, woe-betides or satire will fix it, it needs a rethink from top to bottom!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
FILL
PLease go take a tablet!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
An unmitigated crock. The article it links to is about a school getting an exclusive contract with Pepsi as the soft drinks supplier, which also donates to the school.
Horror!! How DARE companies donate to schools?
I could write a similar spoof about the centrally controlled state school which will ensure everyone thinks the same, studies the same, has correct opinions, and is indoctrinated into the same political and philosophical viewpoint. It doesn’t trust parents to know what’s best for the kids, as the state knows best. Everyone is forced to pay for it, whether they agree with it or not, whether their values are being taught or not. State schools teach people to love the big warm suffocating embrace of nanny state, that bans what is bad for you, compels you to do what’s good for you, protects you from speech that offends you. and classifies you by race and sex, and treats you accordingly.
Sweden’s model of vouchers and private school competition, on a level playing field, is a roaring success. Something most of the left in the Western world covers its ears about, and ignores, as only the former communist party in Sweden wants to abolish it.
Education should be up to parents, they shouldn’t have to pay twice to go to a private school. Parents should be allowed to choose whatever education they want for their kids. Schools should be allowed to set whatever curriculum they want. The more that this is taken out of the hands of politicians and bureaucrats the better.
Sadly the Greens seem to worship a centrally planned model of education that is neo-Stalinist (if Catherine can use ridiculous hyperboles, so can I).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Te Bro is right about the Servant/Owner relationship – he just takes it a bit personally. In a ‘Nanny State’ Public Servants do take on a jumped-up role (not in this party) under the guise of ‘it’s for the best’ they are capable of anything.
As for separating our Education; I would have thought we had enough Division in such a small country already?
“Unless you become more watchful in your States and check this spirit of
monopoly and thirst for exclusive privileges, you will in the end find that
the most important powers of Government have been given or bartered away, and the control of your dearest interests have been passed into the hands of these corporations”: Andrew Jackson, farewell address, 04
March 1837
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What a strange post. The first article is about Pepsi providing soft drinks to the British School District instead of…Coke! British kids are doomed.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
State Schools: fully state funded, set curriculim, open to state audits, etc, etc. Fees not allowed. Secular.
Integrated schools: (E.g., cathloc schools) majority state funded, must abide by state curriculim, allowed to charge small fees. non-secular.
Private schools: minority state funding, funding level depends on degree of commonality with state curriculim, allowed to charge fees. fees over a certain threashold obtain no state funding. non-secular.
Vocational and Gymnasium schools like similar to what is advocated by strings are my format of choice, lol.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What do they teach at Kotare School?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
StephenR and LibertyScott – I put the Pepsi link into the post, in fairness to Catherine, not her. The point is, that coprporates are not just sponsoring but making demands of the students. did you follow th link to the school where Coke got a student sent home for wearing a Pepsi shirt on “Coke” day!
That’s the absurdity we’re talking about here!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Ah. Well you/Catherine could’ve been a LOT clearer about the point of the post, was somewhat incoherent but admittedly good satire is not easy.
The kid was sent home after deliberately disrupting a photo – the point of the photo had something to do with a one-off competition to win money for the school(?). I think the kid was rude, even if it’s hard to feel sorry for a company, not an actual person. Bit OTT by the school, but if i’d gone to the effort of organising such an event i’d be pretty ticked off if a kid did that. Just rude. Coke was rather magnanimous, but that may have been because they got the outcome they wanted
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
StephenR and LibertyScott – I put the Pepsi link into the post, in fairness to Catherine, not her. The point is, that coprporates are not just sponsoring but making demands of the students. did you follow th link to the school where Coke got a student sent home for wearing a Pepsi shirt on “Coke” day!
That’s the absurdity we’re talking about here!’
While that may seem absurd is it really when you consider that Pepsi have entered a contract with the school that must include that clause? Its a mutrally agreed arrangement and so is perfectly valid.After all….Coke are paying for this….and he who pays the piper calls the tune.Remember that if parents don’t like it they can take their kids away….that is the power of freedom…..the ability to choose.
I know that Coke here in NZ has the same rule for all their sites so this must be a global policy they enforce to avoid what they see as potential undermining of their barnd. maybe it seems like anal retentive overkill to some of us but its their property and their money….so its their rules.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Whoops! That should have been “Coke have entered a contract…”
my bad.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
# James Says:
April 9th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
> I know that Coke here in NZ has the same rule for all their sites so this must be a global policy they enforce to avoid what they see as potential undermining of their barnd. maybe it seems like anal retentive overkill to some of us but its their property and their money….so its their rules.
Indeed, it’s their property and their rules if they sponsor a school like that. And that’s why having companies sponsoring schools is a bad idea.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Given how state control has destroyed educational standards in Britain over the last few years, the case for private schools is urgent and overwhelming.
You have to feel sorry for those parents zoned for the worst schools in town. If they’re lucky their child will get into a better school on a lottery, but otherwise they are stuck with what the state forces upon them. The wealthy are able to spend their savings to save their children from the state, but that’s not an option for most of us.
The teachers unions are a huge part of the problem and a major obstacle to the essential reforms which are in the best interests of the children. Essentially, their members get enhanced benefits at the expense of the children they hold hostage.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Indeed, it’s their property and their rules if they sponsor a school like that. And that’s why having companies sponsoring schools is a bad idea.’
Oh really? And what if those schools were Greenpeace (a mulitnational) intermediate and WWF primary? Thats right….the Greens could start their own schools with their own rules…..with the Enviromental buzz thats about they probably would do quite well.Puts a different spin on it now huh?
Education is a service…not a right.Those who offer it do so to make a profit.To make that profit they must satisfy their customer base…..once again the market delivers.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The sooner we get education out of the hands of monolithic trade unions and into the hands of parents and local communities, the better.
I fully support a voucher system for schools, good teachers being paid a lot more, bad teachers being roundly fired, and parents deciding on what their kids are taught.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
James Says:
April 10th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
> Oh really? And what if those schools were Greenpeace (a mulitnational) intermediate and WWF primary?
That would be a step back to how schooling for poor people was provided in most parts of New Zealand before 1861, and it would be a disaster. In every province except Nelson, people who couldn’t afford to pay for the full cost of their children sent their children to schools subsidised by churches, which taught what the churches and their benefactors wanted taught. In 1861, the giovernment discovered that white children in nelson were much more literate and numerate than in other provinces, even though Nelson was one of the poorer provinces. That’s why they extended Nelson’s publicly-funded school system to the other provinces.
The most notorious example of this kind of education provision today is the madrassas of Pakistan and Afghanistan. These are schools for poor people, which are funded by rich Islamic fundamentalists from Saudi Arabia. Typically, they teach a very dogmatic brand of Islam, and don’t teach much in the way of literacy or maths. The people who go to these schools come out illiterate but indoctrinated. The word ‘taleban’ is Pashtun for ‘students’, and the Taleban political movement gets its name from the fact that most of its members are former students of these schools.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
kahikatea,
You seem to be suggesting that state-controlled education is preferable because of the possibility of indoctrination in private institutes. In fact, the reverse it true. Just think of what the state education systems of the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, North Korea, Cuba, Saddam’s Iraq etc all drummed into the heads of the children that were forced to attend. How would they have managed it if the schools were all private institutions running their own curriculums?
There are no good reasons why parents can not be given an education voucher for their children. Why would you not allow them that freedom?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Don’t think K was referring to vouchers – incidentally, would schools still be able to charge money on top of vouchers?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
How come the nuttiest person in parliament is nuttier than even the nuttiest people commenting on the nuttiest blogs?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)