Comments on: The fastest school spending spree in history doesn’t add up

By: Ian

Ian — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

It’s time for the national media to start asking questions about the execution of a program that the PM himself admits is the biggest national logistical challenge since World War 2, writes Stephen Mayne.

It’s time the national media started getting behind the PM and his governtment. Neo cons are dead in the water. Get used to it and get over it.

By: Peter R

Peter R — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Stephen Mayne is well known for his neo con economic views; he simply doesn’t like the idea of government borrowing money. Fair enough, but he shouldn’t use school funding as a weapon in his war on an alternative approach to economics. The neo con mantra of reduced government spending has left almost all schools, the exception being wealthy private schools that don’t need the extra cash (but no doubt will take it and run), in a parlous state. There may be some logistical problems created by having to plan and implement short term building projects but I doubt that there is a principal in the country who would rather not have the chance of making significant improvements to his or her school. Kevin Rudd is making two vital contributions to this country: stimulating economic activity in the short term in a away that will have maximum multiplier effects and making a start on fixing the destruction of our country’s schools that the madness of the last forty year’s mantra of “government spending bad, anything else (including outrageous individual exploitative gain) good (apologies to George Orwell)!

The funding programs are not logistical and/or bureaucratic nightmares - I know I’m an independent school principal who also knows that trying to get fair funding through nonsensical accountability provisions invented by ideologues who hate the idea of giving government money to schools is the real nightmare . True, they have created more work but I really don’t mind. Even when the building is finished and having taken on the extra role of project manager, I know it will have been worth it for me, for the school and for the economy. Stephen may not agree on the last point but the approach he supports doesn’t have a particularly good record from our current view point, does it? A system built around unregulated money grabbing by a small number of supposed leaders and holders of knowledge and power will never provide for decent schools for all children - a few maybe.

By: steve

steve — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Mayne is not a neo-con otherwise he would have a history of railing against rampant middle class welfare in the form of the taxpayer subsidies totalling billions annually paid to private schools.

By: Noel

Noel — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

I am a tad confused about the presentation of $3m dollars to all medium sized schools.
Some of them have falling numbers of pupils, with empty classroom but are being told they have to build new buildings - very confusing.
Could some of the money be used for the invisble computers?

By: fehowarth

fehowarth — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

At least under the Rudd plan, money is going equally to all. It is a long time since any handout has been allocated so fairly. Past practice was to leave it to Ministers to allocate politically, where the most votes could be gleaned.

By: Pete Bondurant

Pete Bondurant — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

2 year period? How stupid. Surely this is supposed to be the short/medium term phase of the stimulus package.. ie getting tradies buying gear, pouring concrete, wiring buidings and plumbing pipes - now. With the added bonus of it benefiting our schools. Individual school infrastructure projects (unlike roads, de-sal plants) can be mobilised quickly making it a very useful stimulus method. To me the rudd plan kinda makes sense. Cash bonus to cover the short term, school infrastructure works in the short/medium term and major works (rail, roads etc) in the medium/long term. I’m afraid Stephens article aint as convincing as I’ve seen in the past.