15 November 2012

Government funding cuts strips tutors from Manukau

The Manukau Institute of Technology (MIT) is looking to cut courses and staff in its English, foundation studies, business services, horticulture, automotive and trades schools. The cuts follow a decision by the Tertiary Education Commission several weeks ago to cut the polytechnic’s funding for 400 full-time students.

The course closures are the result of a decision by the government earlier this year to put one-third of its foundation level student achievement funding up for tender – $38 million out of $115 million. When the minister announced the results of that tender process two-thirds of polytechnics missed out on funding needed to run foundation courses, including MIT.

The polytechnic also plans to cut carpentry staff after losing industry training work. Together the reviews propose a staffing loss of the equivalent of 25 full-time teachers.

Sandra Grey, TEU national president, says the loss of funding is a huge blow to education in South Auckland.

"This is on top of institution-wide reviews which shed over 50 staff at the end of last year."

"The government is sacrificing well-established and resourced programmes in its hunt for cheap delivery."

TEU understands funding for level 1 and 2 horticulture has gone to the Apostolic Church. Another private training company that won funding to deliver level 1 and 2 automotive programmes is now approaching institutions such as MIT in search of programmes and facilities to run the courses for which it tendered.
ends

© Scoop Media

Public Address Link:
A (Sweary) Analysis Of Urgency Abuse And
The Consititution

Keith Ng: You’re looking at the Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) for the Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill. Basically, the courts said that the Government had to pay family members who looked after people with disabilities (because not doing so was discriminatory), so the Government passed this law to say: “Yeah nah.”

The RIS isn’t just redacted for the public – it was redacted for MPs. *Parliament* voted on this, with all the relevant facts blacked out.

Sure, it’s understandable, right? If you’re passing a law that’s really dodgy, you don’t want advice from civil servants saying “uh, this is pretty illegal” to be public. But actually, that’s not really a problem here, because in the same piece of legislation, THEY SAID THEY CAN’T BE TAKEN TO COURT. More>>