It was from here Craic, 140 pages back.
http://www.sharetrader.co.nz/showthr...l=1#post455719
Printable View
It was from here Craic, 140 pages back.
http://www.sharetrader.co.nz/showthr...l=1#post455719
I know you have all been waiting to hear Labour's Leader today, here is the speech he gave to Congress.
http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/07/06...congress-2014/
I think most people would find it hard to disagree with anything he had to say here. These ideas are good, the direction is good, I think the policies will work, especially for middle NZ.
But I have seen the voting stats for poorer decile areas. They just don't vote very reliably, a poor voter turnout. Maybe only 20% vote, that's how low. No wonder National can get away with doing nothing but the status quo for years on end.
Lots of great promises about teachers, class sizes, technology etc. Now can someone tell me why they did not recognise this "priority" during their last term and deliver then? People vote on the world they live in, not on what it might be. Currently the general public are fairly with their lot and this is reflected in the polls. I have no doubt that David Cunliffe will show a significant jump in the ratings because of the huge amount of publicity he has enjoyed this weekend.
Labour's plan to reduce class sizes is not going to fix better education standards period. Reducing a class size by 4 to 6 students is not going to increase the teachers ability to teach to a higher standard. Furthermore, add 2500 to 3000 teachers into the system that can't get a teaching job because of lack of experience or poor results is just going to dummify students more which is what Labour wants. Easier to control when they are adults.
There are good teaches and bad teaches, Labours plan is going to increase bad teaches and reduce quality teaching to private schools only. Further more to that, an average size school will need to increase their classrooms by about ten per school. Before you do the logistics on that, many schools are already at a capacity size (BUILDINGS). That means 260 existing students on average from a school that is at capacity will have to will have to be moved on. Explain how to go about that?
Schools like Auckland Grammar pump out our best achievers not by mistake. They have the best quality teaching staff available. John Key is right over this, quality over quantity will get the best results every time. This is a no brainer and another poorly thought out policy by Labour who is hell bent on promising everybody everything. We saw this kind of bribery from Clark too.
You should support Liala Harre and her mate Pam Corkery - they dislike success too. I do know quite a few financially successful people and they overwhelmingly support charities with their time and financially, as I do, but I am not interested in defending myself against baseless, judgmental accusations. I will say though that I made enough to become financially independent in my 20s under a Labour govt. I have always been grateful to Bill Rowling for his dopey spec tax. it made heaps of people very wealthy, not that I am wealthy. It is always easier to make money when Labour are in. Always.
I'm curious about where Labour gets its figures. 2000 extra classes means 150 to 200 schools possibly. That's a lot of building (a billion at least) plus r and m plus ancillary staff. I doubt that 359 million per annum would look at it. Who costed this one? Parker? I hope not.
There was some research came out overseas about a year and a half ago showing that varying the pupils per teacher didn't actually have an impact. Labour and the Teachers Union have been very determinedly ignoring this.
But for my money, when the historians, media analysts, political scientists look back on the campaign, the defining moment in Labour's loss will be David Cunliffe's wimpish and clumsy announcement that he is apologizing for being a man! I'm still laughing all the way to the polling booth....
My grandson at nine is working through his schooling in London, the best and the worst place on earth to be educated. Fortunately his parents found a home near Barnes Primary and his mother worked tirelessly for the school in various voluntary roles. At nine years of age he was already a top pupil and his parents entered him for consideration by St Pauls, Hammersmith and Hampton. Of 200 applicants, about 15 are selected for the 11+ or whatever it is now and about 8 of those get through. It costs about $200 each, just to sit the exams. He was accepted by both and is frustrated because he has another year-and-a-half at primary before he can gother, probably to St Pauls. His older sister has already moved up to secondary and can't wait to get to school each day. If you want to see a list of teaching staff at the top of the profession in the Western World, Google St Pauls, London. This boys father had to survive some of the most inept teachers this land had to offer. Teacher are only tools used by parents - if the tool is blunt, sharpen it. If it won't take an edge, throw it away and buy a better one.
There's a Stuff poll on class size impact on student achievement - on their Politics page. Not that many voters yet, but so far 70% say minimal or no impact. 18% say it will have a major impact. Hard to see how that could be the case, actually, so maybe they are mainly teachers or Labour supporters.
As a parent, I would prefer better teachers than 4 to 6 fewer kids in a classroom. If it has to be one or the other.
Good point from Cuzzie re all the extra classrooms needed, but it may be costed in. Has anyone seen the cost breakdown for this new policy?