tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6731509003277280801.post4268341959390828723..comments2023-12-12T02:03:16.698+13:00Comments on Mashed Calculus and Differential Potatoes [MCDP]: A Policy A Day: Capping School DonationsAndrew Chenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10278932464877535068noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6731509003277280801.post-47685699422616363712014-09-16T14:33:48.731+12:002014-09-16T14:33:48.731+12:00Just another point on this paragraph:
(Another te...Just another point on this paragraph:<br /><br />(Another technical deviation: due to the mechanics of teacher funding in New Zealand, schools cannot use donation income to pay for teacher salaries or for more teachers [although they can pay for more teacher-aides and teaching assistants]. This is deliberate and limits the ability of richer schools to 'poach' good teachers with higher salaries. There is a different and much longer argument to be had about whether this protection fully works (a clue: it doesn't) but that is a deviation from this argument. For the moment, it is sufficient to note that being a richer school is not linked in a straightforward way with the ability to pay more for teaching staff.)<br /><br />Schools do use locally raised funds and operational funding to pay teacher salaries, both 'topping up' (giving individuals more than they are entitled to through the collective agreement) and employing greater numbers of teachers. I know of large schools that employ almost 20 teachers through their operational funding/locally raised funds. Overall we think that there are around 900 secondary teachers employed in this way, most of them in large, high decile schools. The 'top up' above the terms in the collective agreement is less common, but I know a (decile 10, high profile) school in Wellington gives bonuses for teachers whose students achieve scholarship grades, and this is not unique. <br /><br /><br />Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02848791139607231905noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6731509003277280801.post-84173106642550666892014-09-16T14:06:27.607+12:002014-09-16T14:06:27.607+12:00Hi Simon
Thanks for your response. I’d really appr...Hi Simon<br />Thanks for your response. I’d really appreciate seeing that school level data (and will be a good test of my rudimentary excel skills I imagine!) Yep, I work for PPTA. <br />In regards to your points.<br />1. Okay, now I see how you have derived that I can see that makes sense. However, 42% of schools up to decile 6 may well work out at 80 or 90% of decile 1 and only 10% of decile 6. If they make the decision to take up the offer, presumably it will be because they know it’s going to be worth it. From my experience of being on school BoTs donations income is pretty steady and reasonably easy to predict. <br />On the other hand, one thing that could be hard to model or predict is that some Boards may choose to take up the offer even if it does cost them some money, for the reason that Bhen refers to – accessibility for parents. I know of schools that don’t ask for donations at all for that reason, though the school could get some much needed funding they have philosophically decided that they won’t ask for donations.<br />2. This one I still don’t understand. Do you mean ‘income’ as in locally raised funds? If so, that makes sense, but it’s not the bulk of the school’s total resourcing (even just operational resourcing). Or do you mean it’s 43% of all the discretionary resourcing (i.e. operational funding and locally raised?) With the figures I have, I could see that certainly some high decile schools receive a significant amount from their donations (e.g. Auckland Grammar’s donation this year reached $1000 per student). Of course, most resourcing that goes into schools in paid for directly by the Ministry in staffing.<br />3. Thanks I’m hoping that we can start a proper discussion about this, and part of it would certainly be looking at international benchmarking. One challenge is that different jurisdictions identify ‘low SES’ or ‘decile’ so differently from us. It’s something that the OECD could do in regards to the massive amount of data they put around PISA I think – and better targeting of resources based on need is something that they strongly recommend. One interesting paper I saw recently looked at the long term impact of funding changes to low SES schools in the USA in the 1970s and 1980s – the schools on average received 20% extra per students than previously. Through tracking the students through school and beyond (using some complex economic data sets) the researchers found some pretty significant gains. However, this research wasn’t comparing with high SES schools, but simply with other low SES that didn’t receive the extra funding. <br />4. I don’t agree – for the reason that Bhen says. It’s a nudge in the right direction – encouraging schools to think twice about the practice of collecting donations and recognising the unfairness that inequitable donation income leads to. However, what I’d really like to see is a much more comprehensive look at school funding, including staffing. We should be looking over the ditch at the Gonski review and seeing what we learn from it. I’ve got a strong suspicion that our long practice of funding low decile schools basically the same as high decile (essentially ignoring the massive extra challenges they face) is one of the most significant but least discussed reasons for the relatively large and strong achievement gap that exists in NZ. <br />Yes teacher recruitment and professional development matter a lot – the Investing in Educational Success initiative may offer some solutions to them. But making teaching in, and (for students and families) going to schools in poor communities a really attractive proposition is something that we must look at putting resources into. <br />Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02848791139607231905noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6731509003277280801.post-62579305223350874682014-09-16T11:14:44.692+12:002014-09-16T11:14:44.692+12:00I don’t think that this policy is designed to incr...I don’t think that this policy is designed to increase the amount of funding for schools or improve their performance overall – not significantly. I think the main purpose is to make education more accessible. While ostensibly schooling is free in NZ, as you’ve indicated, many schools still ask for ‘school fee’ donations at the start of each year. For low income parents these fees are potentially very expensive relative to their income. Although the fees are donations there is still a lot of pressure on parents to pay. In some cases there have situations where students at the same school receive special privileges because their parents have paid the donations – as an incentive for parents to pay. A policy such as this would alleviate some of the pressure on low income parents to pay the donations at the start of each year. <br /><br />You might still argue that teacher recruitment and professional development are more important goals and more worthy of the investment but I don’t think that this policy is a complete waste of time. <br />Bhenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16995629279455329761noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6731509003277280801.post-19902520281164241632014-09-16T06:16:56.456+12:002014-09-16T06:16:56.456+12:00Hello Tom
Firstly, thanks for the detailed reply...Hello Tom <br /><br />Firstly, thanks for the detailed reply. It's always good to meet someone with an interest in school funding. Do you work for PPTA?<br /><br />My responses to you are as follows:<br /><br />1. My data published above is correct. The conclusions you do above make very good sense when done on a national level - dividing the total donation income by total # of students in each decile would seem to suggest that schools up to and including decile 6 would take up the policy. This was the same conclusion I came to before I looked at the school-level data (my ingoing hypothesis was that Labour had got their numbers right!). However, when you look at the school level data and model it on a school level, a different picture emerges - the one I paint in my post that only 42% of all schools will take the policy up. ( The cause of this difference between our two methods is, I strongly suspect, to the significant differences in fundraising capacity between schools.)<br /><br />2. My answer to your second point is similar - according to the school data I am using,43% of an average decile 10 school's income is from donations. <br /><br />(I am very happy to share this data with you if you would be interested?)<br /><br />3. I found your paper and insightful - you ask exactly the right question (i.e. is 3/4% the appropriate amount for a socio-economic status 'premium'). I would be interested in any wider benchmarking if you have it to what other systems do?<br /><br />4. I would be very interested in your comment ref. my main point - that this whole policy is a waste of time and effort. Everyone accepts that school funding is a driver of performance - but as Hattie and others have demonstrated - it is definitely not the most important lever. Before we get into a (politically fraught) argument about decile funding and banning donations, I would much rather the argument focused on what actually matters (like teacher recruitment and professional development).... Thoughts?Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07317486985320119316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6731509003277280801.post-40829135266770586642014-09-15T15:54:03.704+12:002014-09-15T15:54:03.704+12:00Google very unhelpfully just deleted a very long r...Google very unhelpfully just deleted a very long reply from me. Will reply again after work.Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07317486985320119316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6731509003277280801.post-12368864057038828862014-09-15T10:27:11.473+12:002014-09-15T10:27:11.473+12:00This is an interesting piece and it's great to...This is an interesting piece and it's great to have some detailed discussion about this policy. However, I think there are some figures that are wrong in here. The Ministry has released locally raised funds figures - including all sources (donations are one part- other important ones include foreign fee paying students, trading sales, fundraising). These are available here: http://www.parliament.nz/resource/en-nz/QWA_00301_2014/cca59562a319b6228c6f900c3eb4d6f1efedec0c<br /><br />Comparing this with the number of students in each decile band (not schools, this is important, as there are far more students in high decile schools) - it shows that up to decile 6, on average schools receive less than $100 per student in donations. For example, decile one schools received $3,093,352 in donations in 2012, and there are 53,139 students. On average, therefore decile 1 schools received $58 per student. Compare this do decile 10 schools, which received on average $281 per student.<br />Further, this claim in the post "43% of a school's budget in decile 10 is comprised of donation income; 1% in decile 1" is rather baffling. Presumably Simon means operational budget only (not total school funding including staffing & property). Even if this is the case I don't see how it can be possible. Decile 10 schools raised $106,980,128 form local sources (including donations and the other things I mentioned above) in 2012. Donation income is less than a third of the total. If Simon is counting all locally raised funds as 'donations' that may be possible (though I don't think the figures will be that extreme). However, that leaves the Labour policy in tact - as it explicitly doesn't count in other sources of income - only the donations income. <br />The wider point, that schools in wealthy areas can raise much more money than ones in poor areas of course remains - and Simon's right that this policy won't do much to fix it. From calculations I did for a paper on wider school funding issues (available here.. http://www.ppta.org.nz/membershipforms/doc_download/1778-a-needs-based-model-of-resourcing-for-schools-time-for-a-national-discussion shameless plug ;-) it does appear that on a per student basis that decile 1 schools have slightly more funding available than decile 10 when counting in the differential funding available for decile, as well as all sources of locally raised funds. However, it only works out at about 3-4% of the total per student funding. Decile 3 schools receive the least on a per student basis, as their 'top up' from the state is a lot less than decile 1, while their capacity to raise funds is still relatively small. <br />I think the question is - how more more does it cost to give a student from a disadvantaged background the same educational opportunities as a students from a well-off background?In New Zealand our answer seems to be it costs a 3-4% more. In contrast - the Gonski review of school funding in Australia recommended a total of 50% more for students in high poverty schools from the lowest SES quintile. Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02848791139607231905noreply@blogger.com