Anders W Jonsson’s article on local government grants, it is proposed that a large part of the skolbidragen to be transferred to the general government. It is not the intention as there is in the januariavtalet, where it is clear that the government support for the strengthening of the equivalence, and the generation of knowledge is enhanced. In addition, pursuant to the agreement, to be developed as a basis for decisions that might create the conditions for, state authority. So in the article, the plays hardly with section 54 of the januariavtalet, to paraphrase a well-known leader.
The establishment of the programme, which was adopted by the last centerstämman, it states that ”in Order to ensure an equivalent high school in the entire country, they should be targeting the discretionary government grants to be abolished, in order to get a general subsidy earmarked for the school in which the resources are allocated according to need.” There is a very obvious wording which points in the direction of the state sektorbidrag to and from school.
instead, he suggests that the school is missing out on at least one-half of the discretionary government grants to make, rather than into the general government. The requirement for a ring-fenced grants has shrunk together, and it bidde of a fingertutt. This is not only contrary to the spirit of the januariavtalet, it also runs counter to the self and to the annual general meeting decided on a policy.
There are, of course, to be welcomed to the party by now, came out in the course of the skolfrågorna, but unfortunately in the wrong end of the world. The problem is that Anders W Jonsson, who really wants to solve with his proposal? It is the lack of equivalence in the school. It is the critical lärarbristen? It is the school as it is currently organised, turning out one-third of the students? Anders W Jonsson’s point of view is a different one – of the local municipalities.
There are, certainly, the economic problems of the local communities. Three kinds of solutions tend to be mentioned. It is a matter of raising taxes, increasing government subsidies, and cuts in the public sector. The latter is now being used in full, and that has led to a massive wave of protests. The increased funding from the government, is a matter which is now the subject of a major debate, but, unfortunately, there is no evidence to suggest that in addition to the family will be at a level that will protect the school against the cuts, or even to be donated to the school.
But there was a fourth of the way. In a way that the party itself is on the track when you are writing for a ”general government grant allocated to the school.” Such a government would be able to reimburse local government costs for schools. It would be to be able to relieve the pressure on the municipalities, both in the administrative burden on businesses by Anders W Jonsson, who eloquently describes, but it is also a major expense.
but What’s really important is that this would make it possible to direct resources in a manner that will give students a more level playing field. It is not the only way that local governments have different financial possibilities, they also have a variety of aspirations, and the skills to run the school. It is not good enough. The government has a responsibility to the students, regardless of zip code, must be developed on the basis of their own needs and circumstances. It is only the government that can take on this responsibility.
Link to a graphic
