Snook on charter schools
April 14th, 2012 at 10:24 am by David FarrarThe NZ Herald reports:
The Government has reaffirmed its keenness to implement charter schools despite a damning study which says they may do more harm than good to the under-achievers the Government is targeting.
Under a National-Act agreement, charter schools will be trialled in areas where education achievement is low – South Auckland, Christchurch East, and possibly Wellington.
A group of education experts at Massey University has investigated similar models to the proposed charter schools – Sweden’s “free schools”, England’s “academies”, and privatised schools in the United States.
Oh no, a damning study by the “education experts” at Massey. So who were these experts?
Convener Professor Emeritus Ivan Snook said the group used similar sources of evidence to the Government but came to different conclusions.
Oh Ivan Snook. Having Ivan Snook attack the Government’s education policy is as surprising as having Sue Bradford attack the welfare policy. Professor Snook has spent decades as a champion of socialism, and fighting almost every educational initiative since and including Tomorrow’s Schools. You can read his own version of it here.
Even Trevor Mallard when Education Minister commented:
Ivan Snook advises teachers to continue with their professional reading. I would endorse that advice, with the proviso that teachers find someone other than Ivan Snook to read.
For once I agree with Trevor.
Related posts:
- Another academic attacks charter schools
- Herald on charter schools
- Salmond on charter schools
- Dom Post on charter schools
April 14th, 2012 at 10:35 am
So I guess that Ivan Snook’s solution is to not try anything new at all, and allow “under achievers” to continue to fall through the gaps?
Vote:I’d say that the charter school trial is a good idea, try it for a decent length of time and see if it works. If so, great, if not get rid of them and try something else.
April 14th, 2012 at 10:57 am
Te herald headline screams “charter schools harmful. ” I did not know about Snook but I can safely ignore him. Even Trevor does.
Vote:April 14th, 2012 at 10:59 am
private void ivanSnookSolution() {
Vote:while longTailExists(true) {
println(“We need more resources!”);
publicFunding++;
statusQuo = true;
}
}
April 14th, 2012 at 11:01 am
What would these statist “academics” do if we manage to escape the reservation and run our own lives?
Vote:April 14th, 2012 at 11:01 am
So, is anyone planning to read this report and comment, or is it enough to know that you don’t like one of the authors?
Vote:April 14th, 2012 at 11:09 am
Mike, I haven’t read it all, but most of it appears to be autobiographical.
Vote:April 14th, 2012 at 11:11 am
Such recall, DPF!
Vote:April 14th, 2012 at 11:14 am
adze
Vote:I don’t mean the bit about Snook, but the report on charter schools.
April 14th, 2012 at 11:24 am
Snook represents the worst of our education academics, dressing up polemic as objective research. He has been wrong on just about every educational reform since I was in education. His ideology always colours his findings in my humble opinion.
I love the false dichotomy. Charter schools have the temerity to produce kids ready for employment and further education and training instead of ‘informed’ human beings. Did they consider that if you are fit for the workplace you might also be fit for normal living.
This is such a great out for teachers who want to waste time on yet another aimless project about the Titanic instead of ensuring their kids can read and write to their chronological age – at the very least.
Perhaps it is time we took a long hard look at especially our primary education system (which escapes any public accountability unlike secondary)and ask whether we are getting value for our money. Like Snook, I think I can give you the answer right now.
Vote:April 14th, 2012 at 11:28 am
Yes, we are getting great value for money from our education system.
Vote:April 14th, 2012 at 11:36 am
The brand new beautiful just opened Maori Secondary School in West Tauranga (Bethlehem) is a good example of a Charter School.
Vote:Upon enqiry we are told that it is entirely Maori orientated, and whilst in principle it follow the Education Department guidelines, that is the Maori Version.
Enquiries are met with bland obfuscation.
There is no School sign up yet even, and it is being kept at very low key.
Even has its own busses so not to mix with the hoi polloi.
April 14th, 2012 at 11:44 am
Fair enough mike, the report is here for those who want to read it (took a bit of googling to find).
I note that his suggested alternative to the Charter school trial – and it is a trial, let’s not forget; something that NS did not receive and was criticised by opponents because of that very fact – is smaller class sizes and “differentiated teaching”. The former is in spite of Prof John Hattie’s research that indicates that class size is a relatively unimportant factor in education achievement. There may be value in “differentiated teaching”, which seems to be a euphemism for culturally-inclusive teaching methods, but Snook’s opposition to the trial, in essence appears to be ideological, and his own solution seems to be the typical ‘we need moar resources’.
Vote:April 14th, 2012 at 11:48 am
There in no need to clutter up the brain with the demented scribble of Snook. Even his name is enough. Burn his crap.
Vote:April 14th, 2012 at 11:49 am
Something went wrong with my link. Try this one.
Vote:April 14th, 2012 at 12:16 pm
Adze, I found some bugs in your codes. Here is my modification. I have changed the method into ‘public’ so teachers can get access to it.
public void ivanSnookSolution() throw TerminateSnookSolutionException{
Vote:try{
while longTailExists(true) {
println(“We need more resources!”);
publicFunding++;
statusQuo = true;
}
}
catch(SnookSolutionException sse){
sse.printStackTrace();
throw new TerminateSnookSolutionException(“Snook solution must be dismissed or ignored – Trevor Mallard said.”);
}
}
April 14th, 2012 at 12:22 pm
Thanks adze. Now those interested can read it and respond. Or just attack Snook, whichever is easiest.
Vote:April 14th, 2012 at 12:25 pm
The point of charter schools is the element of competition they introduce. The state monopoly, by contrast, is lacking in any market discipline whatsoever. The result in Britain has been a collapse in standards as the sector becomes run for the benefit of teachers rather than pupils. The same thing will happen in NZ unless steps are taken.
In short, whilst charter schools may or may not result in significant improvements to educational standards, they are an insurance against a British-style collapse.
Vote:April 14th, 2012 at 12:30 pm
The point is that it’s stupid to rule out a trial on the basis that there’s not enough evidence. The point of a trial is to generate evidence. I’ve seen nobody who is saying that:
a) parents will be forced to enrol their children in these schools
b) there is any material risk of lowering educational standards for these children
On that basis, it would seem unusual to argue that we shouldn’t try. I can understand saying that you don’t think it will be successful, but surely if Snook were so confident it wasn’t going to be successful he’d just say “sure, go ahead with the trial” confident that when the assessment is done it will show that it is a dismal failure.
Vote:April 14th, 2012 at 12:30 pm
For fucks sake charter schools will not break the cycle of crap uneducated parents turning out other crap uneducated parents.
Because it is a charter school it will help some kid who comes from a home where there are no fucking books, arseholes it will, there is a way to break the cycle but charter schools as sure as fuck are not it.
Vote:April 14th, 2012 at 12:31 pm
Thanks FF. The infinite loop bug though is ironic – “we don’t need to do anything differently because any problem can be solved with either greater funding or control”.
Vote:April 14th, 2012 at 12:35 pm
so mikenmild, clearly you’ve read or are reading Snook’s report. Could you provide us with an executive summary please? I’ve no reason to read the whole thing so would welcome your concise review.
Vote:April 14th, 2012 at 12:39 pm
It’s a good job the govt has access to the panel of superior educational experts here and doesn’t have to rely on ignoramuses like Ivan Snook for advice, eh?
Vote:April 14th, 2012 at 12:48 pm
An appeal to authority fallacy, PM?
Is Prof Hattie also an ignoramus?
Vote:April 14th, 2012 at 12:54 pm
RN
Vote:I’ll get back to you. Just have to finish the chores now.
April 14th, 2012 at 1:02 pm
Well he’s someone at Massey. Massey is run by that slimy prick that once was a Labour Minister. Remeber Maharey.
Vote:Slime personified.
April 14th, 2012 at 1:07 pm
Suggesting that it’s foolish to ignore expert advice because you don’t like the advice isn’t an “appeal to authority” fallacy, it’s a simple truism. Also, Hattie is on record as describing the govt’s charter schools proposals as a politically-motivated waste of time and effort, so he doesn’t appear to be in significant disagreement with Snook on the matter.
Vote:April 14th, 2012 at 1:11 pm
Prof Snook retired in the 1990s, Viking 2.
Vote:April 14th, 2012 at 1:14 pm
Wow, a rather nasty post from DPF. Talk about shooting the messenger, rather than thinking about the message.
I notice that when things are looking a bit tough for National, then the posts start getting a bit nasty. And with the paid parental leave issue front and centre, it certainly hasn’t been a good week for National.
[DPF: Don't be a pillock and start lying about motives.
My point is that this research is not independent research by a bunch of people with an open mind on the issue. It was done by someone who has spent his entire life fighting against the private sector]
Vote:April 14th, 2012 at 1:16 pm
I wasn’t aware that Hattie opposes the concept of charter schools; I would be interested to see why he thinks that. However, he does appear to differ with Snook in what CAN be done to reduce the long tail, at the very least. But, let’s not try anything different, because it’s OK to ignore a right-wing political motivation, just not left-wing ones.
Vote:April 14th, 2012 at 1:35 pm
DPF: We can agree to disagree of course, but there is no doubt in my mind that this is an attack of the messenger simply because the messenger is critical of this initiative. Otherwise the post would be going through Snook’s study criticially analysing it. Not of that happening – just an attack on Snook.
adze – Hattie has stated that he doesn’t oppose character schools per se, just that according to his analysis it will have minimal impact on raising student achievement, and in some cases may have a negative effect.
[DPF: I did not attack Snook. I pointed out he has basically opposed every educational reform of the last 30 years, and quoted Trevor Mallard on him]
Vote:April 14th, 2012 at 1:50 pm
bc is utterly opposed to any advances in education unless they involve huge increases in remuneration and an equal and opposite reduction in responsibility by the teaching ‘profession”.
A complete waste of time debating with such a closed mind!
Vote:April 14th, 2012 at 1:52 pm
Adze: here’s Hattie on charter schools in Waiting for Super Schools, NZ Herald:
Professor Hattie’s international expertise lies in analysing the evidence of what makes children learn better. He ranks charter schools 114th out of 150 factors surveyed and says it measures 0.2 on his effectiveness scale, which ranges between 1 and 0.
…
“I think it’s a false wish that we fundamentally believe in New Zealand that creating a different school is going to make a difference, when there’s no evidence for that at all,” Professor Hattie says.
DPF wrote:
I pointed out he has basically opposed every educational reform of the last 30 years, and quoted Trevor Mallard on him
When you find yourself agreeing with Trevor Mallard, it really is time for further reflection. And yes, Ivan Snook has opposed every educational reform that was aimed at increasing managerialism and vocationalism in NZ schools and universities, which means most of the reforms of the last 30 years. He’s been consistently of the view that the purpose of schools and universities is to educate people, not to prepare the future workforce, or to meet the latest managerial compliance fads, or to train people to pass a particular set of exams. That’s definitely put him at odds with pretty much everybody running the education system since the mid-80s, but it doesn’t make him less persuasive.
Vote:April 14th, 2012 at 1:55 pm
It was a good example of yet another nasty, uninformed comment from Trevor. Trevor makes these comments when he is defensive (usually wrong) and so attacks the messenger rather than the message. This site quite rightly takes him to task for it. So why reference him now, if not to have the same motive?
Vote:But like I said, let’s agree to disagree because it’s your site and I don’t particularly want to get offside with the boss!
April 14th, 2012 at 1:56 pm
Johnboy – you forgot to mention that, according to ‘bc’s law’ any increase in remuneration has to be spread equally between the stars and the dross, too.
Vote:April 14th, 2012 at 1:59 pm
Typical johnboy – just saying any old rubbish, but then what do you expect from someone that has to put a smiley face after every bit of crap he types. Trying to hide the stink!!
Vote:April 14th, 2012 at 2:00 pm
We couldn’t possibly consider remuneration based on ability Elaycee. Goes completely against the teachings of Marx!
Vote:April 14th, 2012 at 2:01 pm
The smiley face is my trademark bc. It indicates that I have a fucking good laugh at every bit of crap you write!
Vote:April 14th, 2012 at 2:02 pm
Ahh Elaycee – another nutjub on the loose. Shouldn’t you be stinking up general debate so the rest of us can ignore you?
Vote:April 14th, 2012 at 2:03 pm
Yes the trademark of a 5 year old – well done Johnboy. (Followed by a pat on the head in the hope that he will go away and the adults can keep on talking).
Vote:April 14th, 2012 at 2:04 pm
Another enlightened, intelligent comment from bc!
Vote:April 14th, 2012 at 2:11 pm
Although I suppose that I should be flattered that johnboy and Elaycee as such avid followers of my postings, since they can make such definitive statements about me.
Vote:They must have missed my supportive stance on NCEA though. (Of course NCEA is not perfect, no measure of intellegence/ability is). Here’s the thing about NCEA. It has added considerable workload to a teachers job and yet teachers have not received an additional cent of renumeration for that increased workload. And yet I’m supportive of it – kind of negates your statement about me at 1.50pm doesn’t it johnboy??
April 14th, 2012 at 2:13 pm
Wow, three smiley faces jonboy – the crap is flowing freely today! And you wouldn’t know what an enlightened, intellegent comment is, so why start with you now?
Vote:April 14th, 2012 at 2:15 pm
Not really bc. Nice of you to explain your position. Hope your not getting to het up. Basically we don’t really give a shit about your stance on anything. Speaking for myself of course, I just pick on you because silly little prats like you amuse me really.
ps:
Vote:April 14th, 2012 at 2:17 pm
Comprehension not your strong point either, bc? For the record, I didn’t make any (your words) “definitive statements about me”..
But don’t let facts get in the way… why change the habits of a lifetime?
[Edit:
]
Vote:April 14th, 2012 at 2:19 pm
You say that you “don’t really give a shit about (my) stance of anything” and yet you reply with an idiotic comment whenever I say something. Hmmm, kind of negates what you said again johnboy.
Vote:That’s ok we all have bad days – add a few more smiley faces to make it seem better.
April 14th, 2012 at 2:21 pm
OK.
———:)
Vote:April 14th, 2012 at 2:21 pm
Elaycee you quoted a bc’s “law” @ 1.56pm A law is a pretty definitive statement.
Vote:Keep going with the smiley faces – like johnboy you seem to need them to mask the crap you’re saying.
April 14th, 2012 at 2:23 pm
Now you have the idea, johnboy
Vote:April 14th, 2012 at 2:25 pm
Always had the idea bc. Just needed a retard like you to test it on.
I’ll apply for the patent rights on Monday!
Vote:April 14th, 2012 at 2:35 pm
bc – wrong again.
You have a track record on KB of pushing the PPTA position of pay parity and expressing your dislike of performance pay. I reminded Johnboy of your position – hardly a definitive statement about you (personally). Given that you are a school teacher, I’m surprised that you cannot differentiate between a definitive statement and a comment I made to Johnboy.
Besides, ‘bc’s law’ is an oxymoron. Best look that up too.
I’m really glad you’re not teaching my kids. (And *that* is a definitive statement).
Foxtrot Oscar.
Vote:April 14th, 2012 at 2:35 pm
“Besides, bc’s law is an oxymoron.”
That’s because its postulator is an oxymoron bereft of the oxygen component!
Vote:April 14th, 2012 at 2:36 pm
For the benefit of RN and any others who haven’t managed to diges the executive summary of this report:
The basis of the Natonal-ACT commitment to trial charter schools is to address underachievement. Achievement outcome data is not in itself an adequate measure of educational success. Such narrowness of focus has the potential to distort sound educational practices and to militate against optimum learning and teaching relations, particularly for already disadvantaged students.
Education does not exist solely to promote financial or employment success: it serves highly important social purposes
including the promotion of equality of opportunity and informed citizenship.
The proposal asserts that charter schools will raise the achievement levels of the so-called ‘long-tail’ of under-achieving students. Analysis of the research from countries that have such schools suggests only that the vast amount of data on such schools is inconclusive about their actual effects on student achievement.
The inconclusive nature of the research is because:
(i) ‘charter school’ is an ill-defined notion: it is not a philosophy of education or a method of teaching;
(ii) studies of charter schools in one district, state or country (each with their own histories, schooling traditions and challenges) cannot be generalised to all districts, states or countries;
(iii) most studies compare the mean performance of all students which is of little help in determining whether charter schools improve the achievement of the lowest performing students;
(iv) it is very difficult to determine whether any reported improvements in achievement have been worth the
cost in terms of upheaval to the school system as a whole or consequential effects on non-charter schools;
(v) few researchers who study charter schools are neutral: most already have a clear position on whether such schools are desirable or not.
Some lessons can be learned from the example of other jurisdictions where a form of charter school has been
operating: Sweden’s ‘free schools’, England’s ‘academies’ and three case studies of ‘charter
schools’ in the USA.
In Sweden. 2 studies conclude that although there were some short terms improvements in student achievement, these were not sustained. Children of highly educated parents benefited most while there was minimal evidence of benefits to
children from families (including immigrant families) with low levels of education. However, there was no reported evidence of damage to State schools as a result of competition between schools.
The English experience overall suggests that:
(i) many schools which seek and are granted the equivalent of charter status do not serve the most disadvantaged students
(ii) reported achievement gains are largely the result of managed changes over time in the school’s student composition; (iii) less academically able students are often excluded from the new school.
Numerous US studies have been funded or conducted by groups that either support or oppose charter schools. Typically, the findings of charter school supporters are vehemently criticised by their opponents, and vice versa. Where study findings are based on the analysis of official databases of student characteristics and achievement outcomes, the statistical methods are invariably criticised as incomplete, misleading or flawed. For example, the Stanford University CREDO study has been widely cited as showing the very limited success of charter schools in the USA. But two other studies have severely criticised the CREDO study for claimed weaknesses in its selection and application of statistical methods. A lesson for politicians, media, social scientists and teachers in New Zealand is that without a sound base in statistics, none of us is competent even to engage in this debate let alone pronounce on the outcome.
There are arguments for a rather different approach to improved achievement: a focus on research-based teaching approaches to literacy and numeracy, and an associated CSR (class size reduction) strategy especially for students in the first years of primary and secondary schooling.
The charter school proposal and other current policies are based on the belief that the way to improved outcomes is to foster choice and competition, together with rigorous monitoring and control of teachers (using national standards, performance pay, inspection and the like). In fact the example of the highest performing education system (Finland) suggests that this approach is quite misguided: achievement is better pursued by fostering a teaching force which is
highly educated and socially esteemed, avoiding high-stakes public accountability regimes and rejecting streaming and reliance on standardised tests. Finland also embeds its educational policies in a framework of welfare.
New Zealand students are, on average, consistently among the highest performers internationally. It is, then, very important that, in the political enthusiasm for even better performance, we make sure that we do not destroy the
remaining organisational flexibility, curricular breadth, and teacher freedom which, arguably, have led to superior results.
Given what we know about family background, it is important that the government does not just focus on education but
on policies to eradicate child poverty because socio-economic disadvantage has been consistently demonstrated to be the
strongest predictor of educational and life chances. It is not apparent that the current National led Government has a coherent policy to address poverty and all its accompanying ills, which include lower educational achievement.
While the evidence on charter schools and achievement is inconclusive, we are satisfied from the studies that we have
examined that there is little evidence to support the view that charter schools will:
i. provide choice for large numbers of low income parents: charter schools will cream off the most motivated and leave the rest to cope as best they can with what is provided;
ii. promote greater equality: it is quite possible that a number of individuals will be rather better off but they will remain relatively poorly served in relation to their more advantaged mates: the ‘rich’ will continue to get ‘richer’.
iii. eliminate the ‘long tail of underachievement’: individuals will benefit and the tail may be reduced slightly but equality of educational opportunity will elude the majority until such time as economic and social welfare is promoted ahead of educational reform.
If the government persists with its policy on charter schools it will need to ensure that:
i. charter schools do not cream off the most motivated students from existing schools and so impoverish still further those schools which already labour under financial and social handicaps
ii. charter schools are not captured by business interests, including overseas corporations which will lead to yet another opportunity for our assets to be sold overseas and our children to be indoctrinated with sectional values;
iii. charter schools do not actively recruit the best teachers and leave other schools to cope without their leaders;
iv. charter schools do not hire untrained and unsuitable teachers in order to minimise salary costs and maximise employment contract flexibility;
v. charter schools do not siphon money away from existing grants and programmes which target those most in need (e.g. decile funding, AIMHI, Strengthening Education etc).
We believe that the educational agenda of the past few years is misguided. Finland reminds us that there is a better approach: one which favours high levels of teacher education and on-going professional development, avoids centralised controls and refuses to focus narrowly on the assessment of measurable student achievement outcomes.
Unless the government proceeds with care, it is quite likely that the charter school experiment, far from improving our education system, will be another costly mistake which will lead to further inequality in educational achievement and leave our most vulnerable children at the mercy of the market.
Vote:April 14th, 2012 at 2:39 pm
I could read milky’s post or I could go and solve the GUT.
I think the later would be easier and take less time!
Vote:April 14th, 2012 at 2:46 pm
Here’s a sorter summary for Johnboy:
The charter schools are designed to focus on under achievement, despite NZ kids performing very well educationally. Even so, education is about more than just ‘achievement’. There is very little evidence that the charter schools approach has worked well anywhere else. Other systems offer better examples.
There was some ideological clutter as well, but that was the guts.
Vote:April 14th, 2012 at 2:50 pm
To late milky. I’ve already submitted my thesis to the Nobel committee!
Vote:April 14th, 2012 at 3:05 pm
There was a project in MinEdu a few years ago taking an “Evidence Based” look teaching methodsand their environments. I read a few of the reports and was astounded by the objectivity and lack of pretension in them.
I don’t know if the programme is on-going, (as I remember it the person who spearheaded the work was being pursued by overseas education governance bodies to take herself to their shores and be better appreciated, ) but if it is this would be an excellent topic for one the the studies.
What I particularly respected was the willingness of the researchers to look at the ‘old-school’ approaches, that produced the scientists and bisiness leaders of the second half on the 20th century, without condemnation just because they were old.
As I see things in education today, we are aiming at a broad but shallow base of taught lessons on which a child is expected to build a depth of learning through their own efforts and direction. Pitting this against an approach that looked at each child’s most likely fit into society and ensuring they were as well prepared for that position as posssible, I feel today’s children are being cheated out of their legacy. While equal opportunity is vital for society to prosper, equal expectation of society’s members is not, and should be discouraged; the reality is not everyone can be a doctor, lawyer or entrepreneur, we ust expect some of our co-citizens to be road-diggers and labourers and provide them with the tools to be successful and happy in those roles. It used to be that a girl left school knowing how to make a domestic kichen produce nutricious and tasty food, and a boy left knowing how to change a fuse or tap washer and maintain the basic trappings of a home, today those basics don’t get any attention at all, “sexist” in approach is how they have been characterised and so abandoned.
At what point will we go back to schooling our young people for success, rather than simply insisting that there is no such thing as failure?
Vote:April 14th, 2012 at 3:07 pm
“At what point will we go back to schooling our young people for success, rather than simply insisting that there is no such thing as failure?”
Ka – ching.
Give that man a DB.
Vote:April 14th, 2012 at 3:08 pm
When we clean out the teachers union Dave.
Vote:April 14th, 2012 at 3:19 pm
Snook clearly sees the main benefit of monopoly state schools being the scope for social engineering and the shaping of young people’s minds.
In fact, as history teaches us, this is precisely why the government shouldn’t run schools.
Vote:April 14th, 2012 at 3:27 pm
I don’t think that is a fair characterisation of the report, wat. Snook et al just say that education needs to be broader than just some specific learning ‘outcomes’. I can ignore the ideological baggage in the report without throwing out the key messages. Otherwise we can just all follow DPF and say it’s not worth reading because we don’t like one of the authors.
Vote:April 14th, 2012 at 3:33 pm
@wd
“Snook clearly sees the main benefit of monopoly state schools being the scope for social engineering and the shaping of young people’s minds.”
This is not unusual among the academics (the Enlightened Marxist Elite). The following is a lecture by retired professor H. Douglas Brown from S.F. State at the U.C. Berkeley campus.
“Teaching as a Subversive Activity”: The Theory of Political Indoctrination
All part of ‘Critical pedagogy’
http://pjmedia.com/zombie/2012/04/12/teaching-as-a-subversive-activity-the-theory-of-political-indoctrination/?singlepage=true
Vote:April 14th, 2012 at 3:43 pm
“I don’t think that is a fair characterisation of the report, wat. Snook et al just say that education needs to be broader than just some specific learning ‘outcomes’.”
If that’s the case then I would agree with him, but at the same time observe that a state monopoly is the very last thing that is going to result in diversity.
Let a thousand flowers bloom.
Vote:April 14th, 2012 at 3:59 pm
Elaycee @ 2.35pm
Wow, so much rubbish there! Again a lot lot of stuff just made up. That’s your style, Elaycee – just make stuff up as if it was a fact.
Case in point: “Given that you are a school teacher..(blah, blah, mindless abuse).” Who says?
As for the rest of the post – when the only thing you can be is abusive, then we all know you have lost the plot.
Vote:April 14th, 2012 at 4:05 pm
mikenmild, I did have a wee read of it earlier, not in too much depth as frankly I don’t believe it’s going to make any difference to what this National led government does, so it’s purely academic (in more ways than one).
Vote:My summary is – “we (the Massey academics) think it’s a bad idea because we don’t believe National and their pals are competent to do it very well.”
April 14th, 2012 at 4:20 pm
Snook clearly sees the main benefit of monopoly state schools being the scope for social engineering and the shaping of young people’s minds.
“Social engineering” is a meaningless pejorative, and “the shaping of young minds” is more how conservative schools like Auckland Grammar or the various privates see their role. As a description of Ivan Snook’s ideas, it’s pretty much completely arse-about-face.
This is not unusual among the academics (the Enlightened Marxist Elite).
More dim-bulbery. Snook is about as Marxist you are.
Vote:April 14th, 2012 at 4:25 pm
“Case in point: “Given that you are a school teacher..(blah, blah, mindless abuse).” Who says?”
Actually, unless someone has taken over the nom: ‘bc’ then you are Bill Courtney who linked himself to Khandallah School in a post months back about pay parity.
Are you the same Bill Courtney or not?
Vote:April 14th, 2012 at 4:39 pm
@PM
“More dim-bulbery. Snook is about as Marxist you are.”
Talk about ‘dim-bulbery’.
Vote:You need to read PM. I never said Snook was a Marxist.
Saying that, critical pedagogy (which Snook seems to like) is based in Marxist theory.
April 14th, 2012 at 4:41 pm
Come to think of it, bc I doubt that you are Bill Courtney of Khandallah School. Whilst I don’t agree with a lot of what Courtney says, I don’t think he is into telling porkies – and of course, you have a track record in that regard.
In any event, I’m real glad you don’t teach my kids. I doubt that you’d be hired at their schools anyway – given your poor comprehension skills I doubt you’d make the cut.
I owe an apology to the real Bill Courtney.
Vote:April 14th, 2012 at 4:46 pm
Never apologise until a Lord Birkenhead lookalike has you as trussed as a Christmas goose Elaycee!
Vote:April 14th, 2012 at 4:47 pm
@Elaycee
This Bill Courtney?
The one that gets wheeled out by the NZEI for every protest, from pay-parity to National Standards?
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2010/11/bill_courtney_on_national_standards.html
Vote:April 14th, 2012 at 4:54 pm
I am not Bill Courtney.
Vote:But it certainly is a good example of your style Elaycee – make stuff up and just go with it.
I’m glad you have good teachers for your kids – poor sods having your genes. Maybe you might want to thank those teachers every once in a while for the great job they do. I know it’s not your style, but just try it. If you remain bitter and twisted all you life then you could even up like redbaiter.
April 14th, 2012 at 4:56 pm
@Other Andy: Yup – Bill Courtney is an NZEI spokespuppet and as I said before, I don’t agree with much he writes, but he appears to be able to stick to his political agenda without resorting to porkies.
Vote:April 14th, 2012 at 4:59 pm
Hell I’m glad all my children are in their thirties when I read the bile that bc spews.
Hopefully none of my grandchildren are pupils in a school it teaches at!
Vote:April 14th, 2012 at 5:01 pm
I think bc is a little frustrated that no one is taking issue with the substance of the paper that prompted this post, but are indulging in the usual potshots and irrelevancies. But that’s just how Kiwiblog works, bc.
Vote:April 14th, 2012 at 5:06 pm
That’s how it works for the bc’s of this world milky!
Vote:April 14th, 2012 at 5:07 pm
Then again that’s how the WORLD works for the bc’s of this world!
Vote:April 14th, 2012 at 5:09 pm
Than again, when I were a lad, we were strapped or caned till we’d lurn’d our ABCs and times tables and look where I am now…unemployed.
Vote:April 14th, 2012 at 5:11 pm
“But it certainly is a good example of your style Elaycee – make stuff up and just go with it.”
Bwahahaha – have a look at your own comments on this thread and get someone to explain to you what ‘hypocrisy’ means. When it became apparent (due to your poor comprehension skills) that you were not ‘Bill Courtney’ I immediately apologised to Bill Courtney. I hope, in time he will forgive me for the slur.
BTW – kids are doing fine – thanks for your interest. And yes, they have very good teachers who have no issues with the concept of performance pay. Great isn’t it? And despite their genes (from their father), they are growing up as level headed kids with good manners and a rounded upbringing. Must be the influence of their Mum!
Now, if you send your address to DPF, I’ll send you a 50c Telecom Card so you can ring up someone who cares.
Vote:April 14th, 2012 at 5:13 pm
bc: this blog’s comments threads are about mud-wrestling with circus freaks, not enlightened debate. I find there’s usually some useful argument on the thread to engage with, but there’s also scope for doing a bit of mud-wrestling if you’re in the mood. The trick is not to get into the mud with the circus freak unless you want to.
Vote:April 14th, 2012 at 5:14 pm
milkmilo: “Than again, when I were a lad, we were strapped or caned till we’d lurn’d our ABCs and times tables and look where I am now…unemployed.”
Not flash – not at all.
But perhaps you could lend your inconsiderable knowledge of the ‘Dambusters’ to get a job with Sir Peter Jackson?
Vote:April 14th, 2012 at 5:14 pm
Don’t apologise to Bill Courtney Elaycee.
It will only encourage him to write even longer, meaningless letters to the DomPost!
Vote:April 14th, 2012 at 5:15 pm
I’m applying to be a Elf – http://www.trademe.co.nz/Browse/Listing.aspx?id=466059679
Vote:April 14th, 2012 at 5:16 pm
Welcome to the bog Psycho!
Always value the opinion of an up him self tosser!
Vote:April 14th, 2012 at 5:21 pm
@milkmilo: Whaaat? To be an Envin extra in The Hobbit you have to be taller than 182cm?
Vote:April 14th, 2012 at 5:23 pm
I am. I’ve also signed philu up to play a bouncing bomb in the Dambusters.
Vote:April 14th, 2012 at 5:25 pm
Shouldn’t that be spelled ‘Bumb” ?
Vote:April 14th, 2012 at 5:26 pm
Haha – Perhaps you could raffle the opportunity to hold the ‘release’ button…
Vote:April 14th, 2012 at 5:31 pm
Sir Peter is just a bit worried that phliu is a bit dense – the bomb has to be able to skip across the water.
Vote:April 14th, 2012 at 5:36 pm
A couple more joints and Magpie could foxtrot the water!
Vote:April 14th, 2012 at 5:38 pm
A couple more and he’ll be auditioning to play Digger the dog – who gets hit by a car and buried at midnight while the raid goes on.
Vote:April 14th, 2012 at 5:38 pm
Johnboy @ 4.59pm
Vote:I know you a bit befuddled, but as I stated a while ago that I’m NOT Bill Courtney – do try and keep up!
Or do you just parrot Elaycee mindlessly johnboy, without thinking for yourself?
April 14th, 2012 at 5:40 pm
Digger??? err…. ummm … Nah.
That one’s gone through to the keeper.
Vote:April 14th, 2012 at 5:42 pm
“Now, if you send your address to DPF, I’ll send you a 50c Telecom Card so you can ring up someone who cares.”
Vote:April 14th, 2012 at 5:44 pm
milkenmind @ 5.01
Vote:no, the idiots like johnboy and Elaycee don’t bother me. They should be pitied rather than get annoyed at.
I was more bothered by DPF’s original post. He usually writes more thoughtful stuff – maybe he was just in a flippant mood. Quoting Trevor Mallard was pretty pitiful. That was the point of my early posts.
Then dumb and dumber arrived and it went downhill from there.
April 14th, 2012 at 5:45 pm
mikenmild
But at least you are educated & unemployed……imagine if you had been educated at “today’s schools”. You’d probably be innumerate, illiterate AND unemployed!
Vote:April 14th, 2012 at 5:45 pm
No bc. Bill Courtney doesn’t teach according to him, just prates the teachers line to the DomPost.
I thought you did teach, from your vehement posts.
I stand corrected.
You are not a teacher.
Mea Culpa!
Vote:April 14th, 2012 at 5:48 pm
Elaycee. Do you think we should form an “Idiots Club”?
It would be a really neat place. No bc’s or Psycho’s (apart from us of course!
)
Would you mind if I invited Jimmy and Yvette?
And nasska of course.
Vote:April 14th, 2012 at 5:54 pm
Psycho Milt @ 5.13pm
Vote:I know, I keep telling myself that life is too short to associated with the likes of johnboy and Elaycee on kiwiblog but to quote Al Pacino “They just keep pulling me back in!”. It was such a nice sunny day too. Note to self: ignore the people who deliberately like being ignorant.
I used to think they were trolls – after all no one could be that stupid.
Then the way they repeat each other, I thought they were the same person.
No I realise that it is just one brain shared between the two of them!
April 14th, 2012 at 5:55 pm
It sounds like a plan, Johnboy.
But please leave Shrek at home.
Vote:April 14th, 2012 at 5:57 pm
“no, the idiots like johnboy and Elaycee don’t bother me. ”
Haha – wrong again. Because you just can’t stop yourself from responding…. Bwahahahaaaaa…
Vote:April 14th, 2012 at 6:03 pm
bc is such a twat.
Trying to sound like a real grown up intellectual sort of fellow.
Pathetic really!
Vote:April 14th, 2012 at 6:03 pm
When you have to appeal to Psycho for support you are fucked really!!
Vote:April 14th, 2012 at 6:05 pm
Shrek is house trained Elaycee.
I’ve even taught him to say G_D.
Vote:April 14th, 2012 at 6:07 pm
Trying to get things back on track… there’s a wider issue here that I find a little bit of a concern. There seems to be a fear from some people here of academics. It’s almost like someone having a love of learning should be mistrusted. The only purpose of going to school is to get a job – there is no other reason to be educated.
Vote:On an even wider issue some people seem to take pride in their ignorance and/or bigotry. It’s kind of sad. Hopefully their children will grow up more open-minded and show them how much happier you are as a person if you are not bitter and twisted.
April 14th, 2012 at 6:07 pm
“When you have to appeal to Psycho for support you are fucked really!!”
How true, Johnboy. Its hardly evidence that he / she has had his / her application for MENSA membership accepted.
Vote:April 14th, 2012 at 6:09 pm
Mensa trained folks (wot are superior to us dickheads) try to get things back on track.
Look above!!
Vote:April 14th, 2012 at 6:11 pm
Back on track means following the party line of course.
What party? I will of course leave up to the reader to decide!
Vote:April 14th, 2012 at 6:14 pm
Elaycee @5.57pm.
No you don’t bother me. You said you have kids – I’m trying to help you.
The kind of people that your thinking appeals to are a dying breed, eg johnboy, redbaiter.
At some point you will be an embarassment to your children. They will not want to be associated with someone who acts like a bitter and twisted old man, ignorant and angry at the world.
It’s not too late to make a personal change for the better!
Anyway, I’m going to take my own advice and have a pleasant evening. Take care, look after yourself.
Vote:April 14th, 2012 at 6:18 pm
@bc – see, you just HAD to respond.
Haha – told ya.
Now don’t let the door smack your arse on the way out.
Vote:April 14th, 2012 at 6:22 pm
bc
It’s not that there’s anything terribly wrong with being an academic…..just so long as they don’t expect to get the undivided attention, nor the gratitude of those who have to contend with the semi literate graduates of today’s education system. Most employers require a job seeker to be able to express a thought in writing (note, text jargon is not writing) & have sufficient mathematical nous to know whether they’ve pushed the wrong button on the calculator.
Having ‘well rounded’ applicants for a position would be nice but since we are discussing the real world where employees are paid real money the minor details I outlined above seem important to us.
Whether one is fluent in Te Reo & conversant with the teachings of Marx frankly just doesn’t matter.
Vote:April 14th, 2012 at 6:22 pm
My children and grandchildren will sleep happier in their beds tonight just knowing that a selfless fellow such as yourself has supplanted my generous attentions and replaced them with your touchy-feely stuff bc.
My God. We as a nation are so lucky to have folks just like you!!
Vote: