Random Politics

[[Malks] Pixie]

Originally Posted by ilk

I heard a good way of thinking about class sizes: how many direct reports would you be comfortable performance managing?

That analogy makes me deeply uncomfortable for so many reasons - no offense intended towards you though ilk.

Pixie

[crocos]

Originally Posted by ilk

I heard a good way of thinking about class sizes: how many direct reports would you be comfortable performance managing?

8 is ideal, 10 is starting to be unweildy. We've got one bloke at work currently managing 21 (well, 20 as one is on maternity leave) and a small handful of contractors too. Sod. That.

[spigalau]

Originally Posted by ilk

I heard a good way of thinking about class sizes: how many direct reports would you be comfortable performance managing?

The class sizes is a bit of a misnomer. Just because they say they are increasing them, doesn't mean you might see any difference in class size over what you have today.

The MOE funds the primary schools based on the head count of that school, the year 1 students are currently funded at 1:15 rate, the Year 2/3 @ 1:23, etc.

The actual class sizes are more like:
NE/Y1: 1/22
Y2/3: 1/25
Y3/4: 1/30

The MOE teacher funding is also used for additional teaching assistance (eg. reading recovery, literacy support) which also has to come out of the same budget/funding. So if you had 60 Y1 kids, the MOE would fund the school for 4FTE's (Full Time Teacher Equivalent), the school could deploy 3FTE as 3 classes of 20 kids and the additional FTE could be used as a reading recovery resource to cover all 3 classes.

It's all about balancing the funding and applying the $$$'s where it's needed most.

[fixed_truth]

via Clare Curran

[CCS]

ZOMG BURN! Wait... 2005... who... uh... who was in government back then?

[aR Que]

Like my god damn girlfriend, always on about how i shat the bed, it was 2 weeks ago, let it go. ffs.

[plaz0r]

I don't think anybody's disputing that expensive private schools have more money and resources than state schools, are they?

[xor]

Originally Posted by CCS

ZOMG BURN! Wait... 2005... who... uh... who was in government back then?

There is no way John Key would send his kids to a public school, even if he was PM back then and the education system was 'good'. If you've got money you send your kids to the schools that other rich people send their kids. I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make.

Does John Key have private health insurance? Like fuck he does, motherfucker wants to get seen to when his piles starts playing up.

[Saladin]

Originally Posted by plaz0r

I don't think anybody's disputing that expensive private schools have more money and resources than state schools, are they?

The point is more that the government is now trying to sell "class sizes don't matter", and there's John Key saying he prefers smaller class sizes.

[aR Que]

I guess if public schools start charging the same fees as private schools....

[crocos]

Originally Posted by aR Que

I guess if public schools start charging the same fees as private schools....

Then they'd be private schools.

It's not that private have a lower student to teacher ratio, but that the changes Key et al are implementing will increase the student to teacher ratio in state-funded schools despite Key being on record at recognising that a lower S:T is better, despite this BS spin-doctored report.

It suggests that the current National government do not favour education for the unwashed masses.

[Ab]

Hold on, back up. You mean.. private schools are better resourced?

[spigalau]

Originally Posted by Ab

Hold on, back up. You mean.. private schools are better resourced?

Well compare my daughter - year 1 - public school, decile 4, school fees $90 (yes ninety) per annum, vs her good friend - Year 1 - Private School, school fees $20,000 per annum.

They both use exactly the same resources (they compare books), the difference is a) class size (shes 1/20, he's 1/16) and b) his class resources are colour printed & laminated vs b&w printed and c) he has to wear a wanky tie / blazer / beanie outfit.

At the end of the day, both will have been through the same things - well he get a better education for being in a smaller class size ? Probably not, becuase imho the private schooling system in NZ is very insular and dare I say it undomesticated, the students don't have a mix with multiple cultures and lack exposure to a real society.

[CCS]

Originally Posted by xor

I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make.

Really? Are you a bit thick?

Okay... you said yourself that any rich person is going to send their kid to a private school, so that defeats the pic on one level. But the main gist of the pic is they're trying to make out that JK sending his kids to a private school means he doesn't have faith in the public schools that his government runs. Except the big problem with that is that the pic is dated from the time Labour was in charge of the public school system. So it's really a bit of an own goal for Labour.

[xor]

Of course he doesn't have faith in the public schooling system. I bet most labour Mps also send their kids to private schools.

If JK was PM in 2005 he would still send his kids to a private school

[CCS]

I think we're on the same page here.

[fixed_truth]

Key called hypocrite over class sizes

It was not a direct quote, but a picture of Mr Key with the comment alongside was posted on Facebook yesterday and by last night had appeared on numerous blogs and been shared by more than 6000 people.

lol

[pxpx]

A storm of Internet protest!

[cyc]

Originally Posted by crocos

It's not that private have a lower student to teacher ratio, but that the changes Key et al are implementing will increase the student to teacher ratio in state-funded schools despite Key being on record at recognising that a lower S:T is better, despite this BS spin-doctored report.

Exactly. For myself, I take the view that class sizes alone does not matter per se (within reasonable limits, obviously). However, if Key is going to judge lower S:T as being better for his own child in 2005, what I'd like to know is whether (1) he still takes the same view in 2012, and (2) if not, what made him change his mind.

Originally Posted by CCS

But the main gist of the pic is they're trying to make out that JK sending his kids to a private school means he doesn't have faith in the public schools that his government runs. Except the big problem with that is that the pic is dated from the time Labour was in charge of the public school system. So it's really a bit of an own goal for Labour.

I am truly curious as to what made you think this was the main gist of Labour's contention. I read the issue exactly as Crocos did as well. And even if you're right, at best all JK succeeds in doing there is the same kind of lame, oppositional politics that Labour engages in routinely. There's just no evidence of any radical improvements in our schools under this National government as opposed to under Labour.

[Jodi]

Originally Posted by spigalau

Probably not, becuase imho the private schooling system in NZ is very insular and dare I say it undomesticated, the students don't have a mix with multiple cultures and lack exposure to a real society.

Exactly, the only point of going to a private school is to make friends with the rich people's kids who will be running stuff when they get old due to being rich. Very insular.

[Ab]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

via Clare Curran

Turns out he said nothing of the sort. Another curranfail!

[fixed_truth]

Yep it's not a direct quote as the quotation marks imply so it is a fail in that respect. Though unless the interviewer is making shit up or paraphrasing Key's response incorrectly (has Key responded?) then it is a summary of his stated reasons why his kids go to private school.

This is the paraphrasing it's from:

It might be sick, but it also might be why Key’s children – Stephanie, 12, and Max, 10 – go to private schools. Mostly, he says, that decision was for educational reasons. Their schools have smaller classes and are better resourced than most state schools. But he acknowledges that the connections children make are also important.

So although it's not a direct quote, it seems it was how Key responded, it has hit a nerve with the public and is approaching 10,000 (gone viral?) facebook shares. I think that's a win.

[Golden Teapot]

My kids go to the local public school. Sure we could easily afford to send them to a private one but we see no point. So long as the vast majority of kids going to a public school come from homes that value education then the outcome will be generally good - it's primarily the attitude of the kids that make the difference.

The only improvement I'd like to see is for good teachers to be paid more and for poor ones to be fired.

[crocos]

Originally Posted by Golden Teapot

The only improvement I'd like to see is for good teachers to be paid more and for poor ones to be fired.

With the exception I'd like to see if the poor teachers can have their game lifted (on the grounds that no one will become a teacher if it's too black & white in the assessment), I agree - the reward should be matched to demonstrated ability.

[Ab]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Yep it's not a direct quote as the quotation marks imply so it is a fail in that respect.
So although it's not a direct quote, it seems it was how Key responded, it has hit a nerve with the public and is approaching 10,000 (gone viral?) facebook shares. I think that's a win.

Deliberately misquoting a politician and spamming the media with it is the sort of thing one expects from Fox News. Great to see that the NZ Labour Party has set its standards so high.

[fixed_truth]

So according to the original facebook post - it was actually put together by activist Chris Glen. Claire shared it on Labour's Blog.

[A Corpse]

Without fact-checking? Seems stupid at best.

[CCS]

Clare Curran. Heh.

[fixed_truth]

Cullen accepts honour he helped scrap

[crocos]

... And your point is? Or do you just like the headline? The man is a well-known monarchist, and has been so for a long time.

[fixed_truth]

I thought he disagreed with Labour's getting rid of titles but he seems to have contradicted himself in different interviews.

A politician for almost three decades and MP for St Kilda (later Dunedin South) for 18 years, Sir Michael said he had largely agreed with Labour's decision to abolish titles, although the move did not get wide public support and the honours abbreviations introduced by Labour "had not been very imaginative".

http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/21...od-and-razzing

I was more amused that it was probably something he was against (ie abolishing knighthoods) at the time but had to toe Aunties line. Guess he got the last laugh, by getting a knighthood.

edit: calling Helen Aunty seems wrong now. Thanks The GC

[chubby]

all can be accessed electronically.

http://thevoyage.co.nz/

[Ab]

National just forced itself into an embarrassing backdown - like, fucking humiliating, its first real fuckup since being in power - on school class sizes, and all Labour is going on about in the House is ACC.

WTF?

[CCS]

What's amazing is that some people still support Labour and think that those buffoons are fit to run the country.


What's even more amazing is that some people think it's a good idea to give the Greens ever more power.

[chubby]

and all Labour is going on about in the House is ACC.

discount cocksuckers standard drivel.....check the most common activity here for the last couple of days.seems even 'smart' peeps prefer trivial and distracting detail.

(though yeah..they still suck and dont deserve to win.)

[Saladin]

Originally Posted by CCS

What's even more amazing is that some people think it's a good idea to give the Greens ever more power.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by chubby

discount cocksuckers standard drive

Let's be honest, who doesn't?

[CCS]

Labour wants electioneering ban removed

Seriously.

The Labour Party wants a ban on electioneering on election day to be scrapped, saying it was "puritanical" and "from a bygone era."

Labour's General Secretary, Chris Flatt, told the justice and electoral select committee it was time for the ban to be reviewed and there was no logical reason for all election advertising to disappear by midnight the night before.

He said provided there were laws to prevent intimidation of voters, there was no reason why electioneering should not be allowed on election day as was permitted in Australia and several European countries.

"The puritanical view in New Zealand could be reviewed, especially in light of the number of people who make up their mind to vote in the last week of the election campaign, and the 12 per cent who make up their minds on the day itself."

However, Chief Electoral Officer Rob Peden told the committee that it had been part of the political culture since the late 1800s.

"New Zealanders may not be experts on many aspects of electoral administration but one thing most know is that you can't electioneer on the day."

That part in bold is exactly why I think there should not be electioneering on election day. Although people typically don't, I would rather voters make their minds up based on something more substantial than who can get their hoardings closest to a polling place so that Politician X's dumb grin is the last thing they see before they cast their vote.

We should really be doing more to help the public make educated votes, rather than dumbing it down even more.

[chubby]

like a hoarding the day before?
you're way too easily distracted.

[CCS]

Yes. Like a hoarding the day before. But that hoarding is gone by the time the punters reaching the polling place. You understand that, right? The vast vast majority of people won't vote before election day. You understand that, right?