The business-as-usual approach is for the Ministry to pay for builds up front. But an alternative, used by the Key government to build eleven schools, gives Government more certainty over the cost of school builds over their lifespan.
Under those contracts, investors met the up-front costs of building, as well as maintaining the schools for 25-30 years. The Government paid those investors in instalments over an agreed period.
That approach brings two advantages to the state. First, the risk of builds going over-budget is borne by the contractors, not taxpayers. Second, contractors are liable for building defects through the maintenance agreements. There is an advantage for Principals and Boards too: They don’t have to manage cleaning, gardening or maintenance.
This kind of contract has been criticised on the grounds that the deferred payment arrangements potentially lock the Government into ongoing payments for underused schools. But that criticism doesn’t really make sense.
If a school’s roll falls so low that it becomes unviable to keep it open, the government is left with a property asset it no longer needs. That is true irrespective of the whether the contract with the developer required upfront payment, or deferred payments over time.
In either case, the solution is to sell or lease the school. And here, another Government policy might help. Under National’s coalition agreement with ACT, charter schools are making a comeback.
One of the attractive features of charter schools is that they stand to improve choice in education. In that vein, the charter school approach might especially suit groups wanting to set up special character education. That category includes religious schools, Kura Kaupapa, and schools offering alterative curricula like Montessori, Steiner and Reggio Emilia.
Finding premises could be a major obstacle for establishing new charter schools, especially for organisations that lack capital. Leasing a surplus Government-owned school from the Ministry, especially one with a maintenance agreement in place, might be a very attractive option.
Dr Michael Johnston has held academic positions at Victoria University of Wellington for the past ten years. He holds a PhD in Cognitive Psychology from the University of Melbourne. This article was published HERE
That approach brings two advantages to the state. First, the risk of builds going over-budget is borne by the contractors, not taxpayers. Second, contractors are liable for building defects through the maintenance agreements. There is an advantage for Principals and Boards too: They don’t have to manage cleaning, gardening or maintenance.
This kind of contract has been criticised on the grounds that the deferred payment arrangements potentially lock the Government into ongoing payments for underused schools. But that criticism doesn’t really make sense.
If a school’s roll falls so low that it becomes unviable to keep it open, the government is left with a property asset it no longer needs. That is true irrespective of the whether the contract with the developer required upfront payment, or deferred payments over time.
In either case, the solution is to sell or lease the school. And here, another Government policy might help. Under National’s coalition agreement with ACT, charter schools are making a comeback.
One of the attractive features of charter schools is that they stand to improve choice in education. In that vein, the charter school approach might especially suit groups wanting to set up special character education. That category includes religious schools, Kura Kaupapa, and schools offering alterative curricula like Montessori, Steiner and Reggio Emilia.
Finding premises could be a major obstacle for establishing new charter schools, especially for organisations that lack capital. Leasing a surplus Government-owned school from the Ministry, especially one with a maintenance agreement in place, might be a very attractive option.
Dr Michael Johnston has held academic positions at Victoria University of Wellington for the past ten years. He holds a PhD in Cognitive Psychology from the University of Melbourne. This article was published HERE
5 comments:
I can't help thinking sometimes of the fortunate children in under-developed countries who sit cross-legged on dirt floors, in large groups being taught properly by rote learning off their times tables and number facts, writing on little blackboards, learning spelling and phonemes, dong choral reading off the front blackboard How lucky they are to be getting real basic schooling despite poor conditions.
In contrast the schooling of our children is of such appalling quality and infuriating in its destructiveness through being so ideologically driven.
My mother taught a thousand reading failure children in an unlined aluminum
shed with a concrete floor. She was highly successful because she had effective teaching methods of intensive phonics ( structured Literacy) and structured home-based workbooks.
Yes, there are attractive elements about it in terms of short & medium term certainty and I'm assuming there's some sort of balloon payment at the end and the Govt then becomes the owner of the asset? But, that uncertainty and return will be built into the lease payments and so while it's low risk for the school, the cost won't be cheap. Hence why most people seek to own their own home, car, and appliances, which can all be rented - but typically at a premium for the obvious reasons. If schools involved hi-tech construction and other specialist features, then this kind of proposal has more merit and I'd be onboard but, as outlined, without more detail I'd be very skeptical that it was in our best interest. Given many schools in the Wellington region now sit on leasehold (Ngati Toa) land, I see the taxpayer forking out a great deal in time and wondering why? For a country, this is the ultimate investment in the future. We need to proceed with care.
What's wrong with using basic re-locateable classrooms ?
The classic, put in on trailer and move it as required ?
The quality, style of the building doesn't influence the long term results for students, the quality of the curriculum and teaching will .
To Gaynor. In the early 1950s all comers were accepted from various jobs to train a steachers. After a short course many were quite successful. Yet today despite long protracted university course few seem to succeed. Many have expressed the view that they were not actually taught how to teach. At the basic level it is quite simple; parents can grrsp and continue at home. We uregntly need streaming, the end of the extended classes, and a return to simple basics. (The expanded class seems to be a device to milk ability from the able for those recruited primarily for their pro maori and other PC propensities)
It is also considering flogging off land surplus to requirements Of course that's OK A few years ago I made an application to develop an old family property where I grew up in Te Atatu Nth - sorry Te Atatu Penisula. I wanted to build 3 units, one of which was 1m over height 9m to the Waitakere District Plan's 8m limits My application, despite my planner and the Council's consultant planner agreeing it was fine subject to reasonable conditions I was forced by an arbitrary decision by a (jealous?) "Team Leader" feeding a duty "Commissioner" to engage with the Primary school Board on one boundary - reason not given but maybe the property was going to give pervs an opportunity to view young people at school. For that reason and potential effects on other neighbours not required by their consultant planner, I was required to front with a further - $11,000 deposit for limited notification please/thankyou. This was after spending about $50k with Council to get to this stage. I effectively told them to get stuffed and sold the property, but here's the 2 stage rub.
1. Auckland Council sent me a bill for supposed processing charges. I counterclaimed under RMA that they had overcharged me - received an acknowledgement it would be processed then fought debt collectors for a couple of years! Never resolved! Holding your breath?
2. The Unitary plan being developed for the Super City at the time later rezoned my land as suitable for terraced housing with a height limit of 15m, the processing jerks at Council should have known that. But further guess what ... the Ministry of Education - or whatever they're called today had the entire Primary School site so designated for terraced housing. Te Atatu North / Peninsula is not the "nappy valley" of my youth, but the bureaucrats of Aucland Council still want one to bend to their will.
Post a Comment