ACT would reinstate training fees for first year

[Lilith7]

Well of course they bloody well will - can't have the peasants getting anything free, who knows what they might want next, & besides they might learn stuff.

 People who have education tend to have ideas, about things like democracy & fair govt....

What a bunch of absolute elitist  bastards they are.


https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politic...government


"ACT Party leader David Seymour says the fees-free policy is an "unfair, unprincipled and unaffordable bribe" and would reinstate it if it was part of the next government.

Fees-free education offers students their first year of tertiary study or two years training, up to the value of $12,000, free of charge. The Labour Government brought it in in 2018.

But Seymour said it primarily benefits young people from wealthier background. "They’re being funded by less well-off taxpayers whose children are less likely to go into tertiary education," he said in a statement. 


No it damn well doesn't; my youngest grandson was able to use this because his parents were only just over the income limit. Bloody politicians.


Seymour said the $30,000 tertiary element of this policy, however was different from the fees-free scheme because it was a one-off payment.

National Party deputy leader Nicola Willis, and education spokesperson Erica Stanford, have both promised their party would keep the scheme. "We wouldn't touch it," Stanford said. 


The ACT Party's education policy also sets out a radical shift to the sector. It would give each child a Student Education Account at the age of two. Each year until a student is 18, $12,000 will be placed into that account. At the age of 18, they will receive a further $30,000 for tertiary education, with up to $50,000 available top academic achievers through a scholarship program. Over half of students will receive a scholarship.

[Oh_hunnihunni]

So, really they are just swapping a Labour freebie for an ACT freebie. Albeit a delayed one...

[R2x1]

I rather doubt that it will be as simple as it is lightly implied to be.
Or that it will be targeting those that would reasonably be assumed to return the greatest good to the country.

Must be Friday, I mistrust politicians on Fridays. (And the days between them.)

[Oh_hunnihunni]

Funny thing about lifelong education... it has absolutely no downside.

[Lilith7]

So, really they are just swapping a Labour freebie for an ACT freebie. Albeit a delayed one...

Trust you to point out the bit we're not supposed to notice - or comment on...

---

I rather doubt that it will be as simple as it is lightly implied to be.
Or that it will be targeting those that would reasonably be assumed to return the greatest good to the country.

Must be Friday, I mistrust politicians on Fridays. (And the days between them.)

Of course it wont be simple - people will use it if its simple, & I suspect the idea is to make it as difficult to access as possible. 

Politicians are especially good at doing that, while beaming & telling all & sundry how very,very generous & benevolent they are. 

[C_T_Russell]

Good policy, the govt has better things to spend the money on and these kids just go overseas to work in a better paying economy.

[Oh_hunnihunni]

Keeping people uneducated is a good policy?

[C_T_Russell]

Keeping people uneducated is a good policy?

Act and national actually have a good education policy with incentives to keep our workforce here.

[Oh_hunnihunni]

Both do not want an educated population. That isn't their voter base.

The higher our education level the better our voting decisions become, because critical thinking impacts those choices.

[C_T_Russell]

I'm pretty sure they have sn education policy where they pay your training, bit you have to work in NZ for 5 years or something. I thinknit only applied to the health sector.
But I agree, education is important, ideally it should be free like it once was, but right now NZ can't afford it.
Not until all this covid debt is sorted.
One needs to question what went so wrong that back in the old days the govt could afford things like paying for university education?
The govt needs to stop wasteful spending and fast.

[Lilith7]

Good policy, the govt has better things to spend the money on and these kids just go overseas to work in a better paying economy.

Utter bollocks.  There are few benefits greater than a good education - ideally freely availabe to us all rather than just the wealthy, as ACT would have it. 

But you can easily comprehend why right wing politicians aren't in favour of educating people; education gives people ideas, about things like democracy, fair pay, good housing, healthcare, all of which are seldom if ever, on the agenda of the ACT party.

[C_T_Russell]

Good policy, the govt has better things to spend the money on and these kids just go overseas to work in a better paying economy.

Utter bollocks.  There are few benefits greater than a good education - ideally freely availabe to us all rather than just the wealthy, as ACT would have it. 

But you can easily comprehend why right wing politicians aren't in favour of educating people; education gives people ideas, about things like democracy, fair pay, good housing, healthcare, all of which are seldom if ever, on the agenda of the ACT party.

But as ACT has said, the current policy was only benefiting the wealthy anyway.

[Oh_hunnihunni]

Rubbish. The rich can afford to send their children to university. The fees free first year enable a lot of impoverished families to get their kids into higher education, even if it was only for that first year.

That was a truly wonderful thing.

The people who disagree that education shouldn't be free, accessible, and open to all are those who have either never had that experience, or those who had it and never valued it, or those who want to profit from it by keeping some out.

So, ask yourself, which one is ACT speaking for? Which one are you?

[Lilith7]

Utter bollocks.  There are few benefits greater than a good education - ideally freely availabe to us all rather than just the wealthy, as ACT would have it. 

But you can easily comprehend why right wing politicians aren't in favour of educating people; education gives people ideas, about things like democracy, fair pay, good housing, healthcare, all of which are seldom if ever, on the agenda of the ACT party.

But as ACT has said, the current policy was only benefiting the wealthy anyway.

Complete & utter nonsense - my youngest grandson was able to use the first year of uni free & his parents are by no means wealthy; their income was only just over the limit so very clearly not only 'benefiting the wealthy'. 

Which is something close to the heart of ACT, so obviously they want to claim otherwse this close to the election.

[Oh_hunnihunni]

One of the points many miss about making higher education more common among the population is the economic benefit that it brings to the country as a whole. A highly educated population is happier, healthier, and more productive than an uneducated one. Of course, it does threaten low pay economic strategies, and challenge systemic racism and social inequity, but swap that out for increased innovation and 'stem' area progress and maybe the bargain is a positive one.

Of course, if someone's wealth and power depends on keeping those negatives they aren't going to be happy about supporting that kind of change. Which is why we should look closely at the kind of people we are putting into government.

[Lilith7]

One of the points many miss about making higher education more common among the population is the economic benefit that it brings to the country as a whole. A highly educated population is happier, healthier, and more productive than an uneducated one. Of course, it does threaten low pay economic strategies, and challenge systemic racism and social inequity, but swap that out for increased innovation and 'stem'  area progress and maybe the bargain is a positive one.

Of course, if someone's wealth and power depends on keeping those negatives they aren't going to be happy about supporting that kind of change. Which is why we should look closely at the kind of people we are putting into government.

I'm with Mark Twain on that - those showing a desire to become a politician should all be prevented from ever becoming politician.

[SueDonim]

I think much more needs to be spent at primary and secondary level so that those leaving school do so with a well-rounded knowledge of how to get on in the world and what kinds of options are available to them in the next stage of their lives. For some that needs to be academic tertiary education. For others it might be an apprenticeship. And for others moving forward into some kind of business structure that includes working to learn. All are equally valid and should be supported equally.

At the moment we have an appalling situation of schools not teaching their students: basic language so that they can communicate properly; reading and critical analysis so they can interpret the information they are bombarded with; health, fitness and nutrition so they can be the best they can be physically; financial management so they can manage their money and make it work for them; social skills so they can respect others and cope with negative interactions. Etc.

Then when they leave school they would be much better able to make informed decisions and succeed in whatever they choose to do next. The ideal would be full support for all of the future options, but getting the basics right at school level needs to come first, and that includes giving teachers the resources they need, and expecting a much higher level of performance from them in return. Only some careers require higher academic education. Other have different needs that also need to be supported.

[harm_less]

I think much more needs to be spent at primary and secondary level so that those leaving school do so with a well-rounded knowledge of how to get on in the world and what kinds of options are available to them in the next stage of their lives. For some that needs to be academic tertiary education. For others it might be an apprenticeship. And for others moving forward into some kind of business structure that includes working to learn. All are equally valid and should be supported equally.

At the moment we have an appalling situation of schools not teaching their students: basic language so that they can communicate properly; reading and critical analysis so they can interpret the information they are bombarded with; health, fitness and nutrition so they can be the best they can be physically; financial management so they can manage their money and make it work for them; social skills so they can respect others and cope with negative interactions. Etc.

Then when they leave school they would be much better able to make informed decisions and succeed in whatever they choose to do next. The ideal would be full support for all of the future options, but getting the basics right at school level needs to come first, and that includes giving teachers the resources they need, and expecting a much higher level of performance from them in return. Only some careers require higher academic education. Other have different needs that also need to be supported.

There also needs to be better appreciation of kinaesthetic or tactile learners. These individuals often flounder in the classroom and aren't well suited to formal tertiary education methods and are often better suited to trade related vocations.

[Oh_hunnihunni]

Most unis have strategies in place now for alternative learners, the best courses are very proactive in that regard. But a lot does depend on the pathways selected by students being appropriate...

As for the purpose of higher education - it isn't just about jobs. Learning has so many benefits for human beings, it is actually what keeps our brains functioning efficiently. Interestingly enough the more challenging the learning the more benefit we accrue. It can even stave off cognitive decline as well as improve physical health outcomes.

Win win!

[Lilith7]

Most unis have strategies in place now for alternative learners, the best courses are very proactive in that regard. But a lot does depend on the pathways selected by students being appropriate...

As for the purpose of higher education - it isn't just about jobs. Learning has so many benefits for human beings, it is actually what keeps our brains functioning efficiently. Interestingly enough the more challenging the learning the more benefit we accrue. It can even stave off cognitive decline as well as improve physical health outcomes.

Win win!

Absolutely - ideally I'd like to see free education for every human on the planet for their entire lives, in basic stuff budgeting,parenting,cooking, gardening etc. etc. as well as everything else. And for older people, learning new things may help stave off dementia or Alzheimers.
If we could somehow manage that, I'm sure it would in time make an enormous difference to us & our planet.



But we seem to be slow learners really; its only a relatively short timne since our schools have finally recognised Dyslexia & learned how to cope with kids who have it. Not sure about Dyscalculia though.