Labour on reading recovery

September 9th, 2012 at 12:00 pm by David Farrar

David Shearer has announced:

The Party is committing to roll out Reading Recovery to all schools.

Currently only two out of three schools offer the New Zealand-developed scheme, which has an 80 per cent success rate of lifting kids who fall behind in reading.  Just 59 per cent of low decile schools have Reading Recovery.

“Reading Recovery is the gold-standard intervention to help kids that are struggling to learn to read.  It is a proven success, and should be available to every child who needs it,” says David Shearer.

This is a modest, but worthwhile, policy. Having more kids able to read is an excellent thing.

The Government currently spends $40m on reading recovery, and Labour is proposing to lift it to $60m. Only $20m more funding in an overall budget of $10 billion, but it looks to be well targeted towards something that will make a difference.

Tags: ,

61 Responses to “Labour on reading recovery”

  1. Michael (909 comments) says:

    Good show, Labour! (Can’t believe I just said that.)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Redbaiter (8,822 comments) says:

    Deck chairs on the Titanic.

    The NZ education system is fucked, and it is Progressive governments (National and Labour) that have fucked it.

    It can’t be repaired by the same forces that have incrementally destroyed it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. UpandComer (536 comments) says:

    Red, mate. SSSSSHHHHH you’re an idiot. The education system failed you pretty hard brah.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. peterwn (3,271 comments) says:

    It does rather beg the question of what Labour was doing in 1999 – 2008. If it is such a good idea now, then why was it not introduced then.

    I know a school where reading recovery is organised by volunteers who spend a few hours a week with the kids. They come from all works of life and are no doubt police vetted but would not be ‘qualified’ what ever that means. School has excellent ERO report including reading ability. Presumably the school does not ‘officially’ have a reading recovery scheme. Oh, the school has just announced an enrolment restriction scheme for next year as numbers are up.

    Presumably Labour would foist its reading recovery scheme on to schools who do not need it because they already have the reading problem licked.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. jaba (2,141 comments) says:

    I heard Labour (or at least Lou Wall) wants kids to start school at 4 as poor families can’t afford private pre-school fees

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Redbaiter (8,822 comments) says:

    Just did a post on my blog that touches on this issue really, and explains why the education system is institutionally perverted by left wing bureaucrats and unionists to helping the election of Progressive governments.

    Real education comes second to instilling Progressive political ideas in the minds of the young.

    Quote-

    They (our younger generations) have marinated in an unapologetically progressive system that prizes group discipline and narrative over free will and critical thought.

    Without those two important elements, there is no education.
    Unquote.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Redbaiter (8,822 comments) says:

    Correction to above post-

    Quote-

    They (our younger generations) have marinated in an unapologetically progressive system that prizes group discipline and narrative over free will and critical thought.

    Unquote

    Without those two important elements, (free will and critical thought) there is no education.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. nasska (11,491 comments) says:

    …”Just did a post on my blog”…..

    That will be a rerun of the sermon in ‘Eleanor Rigby’.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Redbaiter (8,822 comments) says:

    The Progressives (in this case DownandOuter and nutska) do their best to turn any discussion challenging their political concepts into a flame war.

    This is a smokescreen that allows them to avoid defending their destructive and insane concepts, but ruins the thread. As they intend it to.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. nasska (11,491 comments) says:

    Don’t worry too much about the thread Reddy. It headed down the toilet at 12.36pm.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. kowtow (8,464 comments) says:

    Education ,for a sizable minority of kids in Aotearoa is completly stuffed.

    Labour insisted on “professional” standards in preschool….for finger painting!
    Primary schools spend shitloads of time on non academic stuff,same with Intermediate.
    Kids then go to secondary functionally illiterate! That after 7 years of formal education!

    We don’t need reading recovery we need a purge and the primary and intermediate sectors should be ashamed of themselves.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Redbaiter (8,822 comments) says:

    Farrar, if you really believed in cleaning this site up you would deliver demerits for the above posts by Nasska and UpandComer that are completely off topic, say nothing on the issue, and are aimed at disrupting the thread rather than discussing any part of education reform.

    “Don’t worry too much about the thread Reddy. It headed down the toilet at 12.36pm.”

    Nasska. Lay off the dull stuff. If you believe the education system is going well then defend it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Manolo (13,767 comments) says:

    The invisible Shearer continues to preach on ways to spend more and more money. Rightly so, nobody listens.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. barry (1,317 comments) says:

    If schools (primary) took as their first prioritory the teaching of reading writting and arithmatic before anything else then we would have no need for these extra programmes.

    But while they give equal prioritory to such things as school trips or cultural lessons or all the other 50 things the activists want them to teach then we will continue to have 20-30% who are unable to read.

    And that is good for those in industry wanting cheap labour. those restricted to being unable to read (by activist pressure to do other things) have no other job prospects and they have to take whats on offer. We wouldnt have workers in McDonalds or KFC if everyone could read…….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Redbaiter (8,822 comments) says:

    Mostly well said Barry.

    Leftists control our education system.

    They make sure the curriculum is designed to deliver the objectives they want.

    That is a population too under-educated to recognise left wing fascism.

    As you can see from what is happening in so many areas of our lives, its a plan that is working really well.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. MH (753 comments) says:

    until the imbalance of women teachers in primary is addressed,the whole discussion is pointless. Even the few decent women teachers don’t know the rules on knock ons and how to get boys to pack down a decent scrum.Pace.possession and position mean nothing anymore. Soccer hooligans and hollywooders will be the result.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. DJP6-25 (1,387 comments) says:

    kowtow 1:07. Pretty much what I would have said.

    cheers

    David Prosser

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Hamnida (905 comments) says:

    Excellent policy outlined be Shearer.

    The more children reading the better.

    Redbaiter – That statement about who controls the education system is incorrect. Tolley implemented national standards against opposition from the groups you blame. Moreover, Tomorrow’s Schools means elected boards of trustees with a parent majority are responsible for each individual school.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. thedavincimode (6,759 comments) says:

    Oh Great Blogger, Tauranga toll liberator and Texas traffic controller, tell us how mere mortals how anything that you have posted on this thread could be even remotely considered discussion on point rather than yet another re-hash of the somewhat exhausted rhetoric of your facile and dumbwitted twenty year grand plan?

    The thread is reading recovery. With all the goodwill in the world (not that there is any) your uncanny observation regarding something that most of us realised some considerable time ago, namely that the education system is fucked, doesn’t quite get you over the line in terms of critically evaluating Shearer’s cunning plan to spend another $20m pa on an existing program to save us all from txt speak.

    Congratulations on finally catching up with the rest of us. However, if you hadn’t stomped off having a sook and wasted all that time frigging around with your whoar-cloned blog, you would know that all the debate nowadays tends to focus on potential solutions rather than re-stating the bleeding obvious.

    Perhaps you might like to take time out to undertake a little private comprehension recovery.

    BTW, how’s that traffic in Austin?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. MH (753 comments) says:

    and still run by PC whimpy women,my bro can’t even train or play tackle rugby/league in Aussie schools because of fears about injury to primary kids on school grounds. What woman can read let alone understand the rules of rugby football?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Hamnida (905 comments) says:

    MH – The majority of primary school teachers are female, but the majority of principals and board members are male.

    That said, surely it is the quality of the teacher, principal, or board member, not their gender that matters.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. nasska (11,491 comments) says:

    Hamnida

    A better way to describe primary school teachers & principals would be women of both genders. The last time I had the misfortune to meet them on their home turf it struck me that the female instillers of socialist crap had higher testosterone levels than their ‘male’ counterparts.

    If they are acceptable role models we’re doomed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. dime (9,972 comments) says:

    lol @nasska

    what normal bloke would want to teach little kids? not I!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Hamnida (905 comments) says:

    Well nasska, what policy to suggest?

    Masters Degree or higher to teach? Targeted recruitment of male teachers?

    I think Shearer should have gone a step further and guaranteed maths recovery too. You can not allow children to fall behind in reading or maths.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. nasska (11,491 comments) says:

    Hamnida

    I reckon that the entire state primary education system is a total trainwreck. The teachers are mainly socialist hacks who place little value on teaching their charges anything they may find useful during the next seventy odd years of their lives. Every time the fact that about a quarter of the kids get shunted up to college functionally illiterate gets a little awkward the goal posts move & the system gets dumbed down a little more.

    ‘dime’ pointed out that few men would want to teach little kids…..only girly men would work with the feminist harridans who have hijacked education in this country.

    The only possible solution is to break the teaching unions & encourage private schools.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Viking2 (11,470 comments) says:

    And they still have women teachers. Need them in fact.
    Boys are better taught in the workplace where real men can mentor them. But that’s been fucked up as well.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Sofia (857 comments) says:

    Here, shoot this down in fucking flames, but I would suggest the imbalance of adult roles in primary schools – the lack of males, stemming from the Peter Ellis hysteria or there abouts – is a greater malfluence on kids, boys in particular, than any effects of gay marriage will be.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. wat dabney (3,756 comments) says:

    As a state monopoly the entire education system exists to serve teachers rather than the children.

    So of course Labour – the political face of the state-sector unions – is happy so “spend more on education.”

    It’s a euphemism which means “we’re going to spend more taxpayers’ money on ourselves.”

    Basically they are using the children as hostages.

    But as least they got an excuse for running a state-monopoly (even if that excuse is ‘to plunder the workers for our own benefit.’) What’s National’s excuse for not whole-heartedly backing charter schools?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. duggledog (1,556 comments) says:

    One of my kids at primary is exceptionally bright, and has a reading age far above average. Possibly because all my kids were read to every night from very young.

    At a parent teacher evening recently we asked her teacher where she would be in the class for reading – top, middle, where. The teacher refused point blank to say where even though we knew where. Nobody else was listening.

    I’m fucked if I know what goes on at teacher’s college. I’ve always thought ‘No Child Left Behind’ was an odd slogan because they have cross country don’t they and there’s always a fat kid Left Behind.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Cactus Kate (551 comments) says:

    More contracting out of parenting.
    Reading and feeding.
    Children need to be taught about books and reading from their parents. By age 5 it’s almost too late.
    But then call us old fashioned I thought it was a parents job to feed their kids as well.
    Apparently not.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Reid (16,447 comments) says:

    Here, shoot this down in fucking flames, but I would suggest the imbalance of adult roles in primary schools – the lack of males, stemming from the Peter Ellis hysteria or there abouts – is a greater malfluence on kids, boys in particular, than any effects of gay marriage will be.

    I doubt it would have equivalent impact Sofia given the imbalance in influence over a child of parents vs schools, but it’s just another negative, isn’t it. Ironically of course or perhaps if you understand social engineering dynamics you might conclude it was by design it’s been done by the same forces: feminism and political correctness – the same mad, mental and totally unnecessary things like the way Air NZ won’t seat a child beside a male if there’s a female. It’s totally nuts, all of it, and it’s also evil, one can tell that by looking at effects such as you mention.

    But nevertheless, you’re correct, both things cause degradation in a child’s growth into healthy balanced adulthood. As does any situation which causes a child to grow up without his or her mum AND dad. All kids of both sexes need both, and that’s what feminism in particular, can’t stand. Feminism’s camouflage is that it promotes human rights for women, but in reality what it does is attempt to distort and break essential links between people which are not only desirable, they’re essential for generating caring, loving, unselfish, disciplined and capable people for the next generation and the next and next after that. It used to be that way before the 1920’s but it started then and continues like an angry Indian elephant rampaging and trumpeting through the villager’s rice paddys, to this day.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Sofia (857 comments) says:

    Does Labour have the planning or intelligence to do anything really? I mean you dump …
    • Remedial reading – earlier item today
    • Call to lower school age to four – Member for Gay Marriage, seemingly acting independent of Shearer, and now
    • Free Food Plan
    … all on one day?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Brian Smaller (4,023 comments) says:

    Yeah – this is a waste of time. For every hundred kids this program will intercede with, maybe ten percent will become independent readers. The rest will just see the example of their families and they be lost to literacy. Maybe some of you lefties need to get out into the homes of the lower classes. I have had a lot of experience in lower decile homes with one of my jobs, and one thing you just don’t see is books.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. MajorBloodnok (361 comments) says:

    It is also a waste of time, because it is a hopeless system: “Look and Guess”.

    Read and weep, about how good it could really be compared with what Reading Recovery offers. http://pc.blogspot.co.nz/2012/08/graham-crawshaw-1931-2012.html (especially the second half of the blog post — the obituary to Marie Clay).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Hamnida (905 comments) says:

    Brian Smaller – Couldn’t agree more re: books. My father introduced me to a senior Belgium-based OCED education official back in 2007. I asked him, “What one policy would make a difference in education?” He said, “Parents must read to their children every day.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Reid (16,447 comments) says:

    That’s a very good thought Hamnida. If only we’d make that a govt objective and policy to make that happen for all parents and if the parents can’t read we’ll teach them how, it would do a great deal of good.

    Much more good than Bradford’s anti-smacking bill ever would. You’re better than Bradford Hamnida and you’re not even a politician, yet.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Hamnida (905 comments) says:

    Reid – No doubt about that. Reading to children far more important than anti-smacking legislation.

    I don’t have any political ambitions. There are many socialists far more talented than me out there.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Lee C (4,516 comments) says:

    I like this policy from Labour and I like the policy about feeding them too. If poverty is on the rise, because the gap between rich and poor is widening, government, rather than throwing kids to the wolves, need to step up and look after the most vulnerable and needy.

    I’d be more likely to vote for this than ‘limited sales of State assets’ because in short, on my reading of what it is supposed to be doing, the profits aren’t designed to be trickling back to the most poverty-stricken.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Hamnida (905 comments) says:

    Lee C – Yes, asset sales means inequality rises further in New Zealand.

    Reading recovery and food for children reduces inequality.

    I think the Neolibs gave up on their ‘trickle-down’ argument a long time ago. Perhaps after Max Bradford said privatising power would reduce energy costs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Reid (16,447 comments) says:

    I’d be more likely to vote for this than ‘limited sales of State assets’ because in short, on my reading of what it is supposed to be doing, the profits aren’t designed to be trickling back to the most poverty-stricken.

    That’s right the proceeds are distributed across the entire community with all sorts of things like schools etc being done with the proceeds. What’s wrong with that, given the net taxpaying community (which appears to be shrinking daily as more people consume more than they put in), totally 100%, supports the maintenance of our way of life for EVERYONE including those who cost more than they put it. Why is it unfair if you were saying that Lee, to not have the people who paid for the damned things in the first place, share in the proceeds? You seem not to have faith in the distribution mechanism. You seem to be saying a significant amount will be stolen by “the bankers” (whoever they are).

    Edit: Hamnida, the above applies to your post too:

    Lee C – Yes, asset sales means inequality rises further in New Zealand.

    No, it doesn’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. thor42 (971 comments) says:

    MajorBloodnok is RIGHT. The article he mentioned is right.
    Let me shout this from the rooftops –
    ***WE DO NOT NEED MORE “READING RECOVERY”!***
    That program is a complete ***disaster***.
    This policy of Labour’s will make NO DIFFERENCE at all.
    Dame Marie Clay has an AWFUL lot to answer for, with her FOOLISH “whole language” nonsense. THAT is the methodology (actually, more of an IDEOLOGY) that “reading recovery” is based on.

    Here – let me ram the point home. I will quote to you from a Listener article called “Superphonics” (from the Listener of Mar4-10 2000). The article mentions Don Buck Primary school in West Auckland.

    Quote – “Whole language enthusiasts, such as Reading Recovery founder Dame Marie Clay, have taught a generation of teachers not to emphasise letter sounds or spelling patterns lest these interfere with story comprehension. Meaning is the thing, context the buzzword.The idea is that “literacy will develop naturally”…..”

    Now, back to Don Buck school and its change from “whole language” to phonics.
    Quote – “We introduced “Jolly Phonics” in 1996. By the end of that year, every child was reading. Same teachers, just a change of methodology.
    For a few hundred dollars, an off-the shelf-phonics kit had done what all the shared reading and tens of thousands of dollars of reading recovery tuition couldn’t. ”

    Need more proof? California got caught up in the “whole language” craze and saw their reading scores drop to the worst in the US. They have now abandoned “whole language” and gone back to phonics.

    And yet this ***FAILED*** methodology – “whole language” – is what Labour is pushing with “reading recovery”! DO NOT BE CONNED.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. thor42 (971 comments) says:

    PHONICS is the answer.
    Does anyone remember Doris Ferry? The legendary reading teacher from the Kapiti Coast?
    She was in HUGE demand from parents whose children had reading problems.
    What methodology did she use? Phonics.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Brian Smaller (4,023 comments) says:

    @Hamnida – scary. We have agreed two days in a row. This is the Twilight Zone.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Hamnida (905 comments) says:

    Hopefully there will be more big education announcements from Labour on the way.

    I just can’t think of a better use of tax-payer’s money than reading recovery, books, and food for poor youngsters.

    Reid – I don’t think we’ll ever agree on asset sales. I think the policy raises inequality because:

    1. Privatising power leads to increased prices. The poor spend a high percentage of their income on power than the rich.
    2. The rich are more likely to purchase shares and off-set higher power prices against their share dividends.
    3. The government’s income from dividends in the once 100% owned asset will decrease and social spending will have to fall as a consequence.
    4. The adversing and marketing expenses associated with the asset sales could be better used on other government projects.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. freemark (580 comments) says:

    “Shearer also said he wanted to introduce ”clear and easy to understand school report cards so that parents know whether their child’s school is up to scratch”.

    The Education Review Office (ERO) should be ”beefed up” to look into the health of schools and report on them in clear easily understandable language.

    ”I want to see a school report card. And, if the school is falling short in any area, I want to know what is being done to remedy that,” Shearer said.

    ”I want to see ERO – staffed with senior teachers and former principals – able to get alongside schools under-performing and lift them back to health.””

    Is this the same Shearer leading a lefty opposition screaming blue murder at National standards & league tables? Keep the guy on I say.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. thor42 (971 comments) says:

    Dear Hamnida –
    What proof do you have that the “whole language” method of teaching reading works?
    ( I have given you the example of California to show you that “whole language” does **not** work. )
    What proof do you have that it is the best way to teach reading?
    Shouldn’t we ONLY be putting money into a methodology that WORKS?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    @Hamnida,

    1. Privatising power leads to increased prices.

    Like that former state monopoly of telecommunications? Sure you are not seriously suggesting that people derive less value from their telecommunications dollars than they did before privatisation??

    2. The rich are more likely to purchase shares and off-set higher power prices against their share dividends.

    Aside from the fact they would need a whole passel of shares in order for the dividends to hugely offset their power expenses, your claim that the rich are more likely to get holdof the shares is somewhat eroded by the guarantee that anyone investing up to $2000 at the initial will be granted those shares – the playing field has been well and truly levelled for people to participate.

    Given the experience we have with telecommunications pricing and service, the dividends disadvantaging the poor is a red herring.

    3. The government’s income from dividends in the once 100% owned asset will decrease and social spending will have to fall as a consequence.

    Actually social spending will increase as a result of the Mixed Ownership Model as the income from the shares release is being pledged to the Future Investment Fund for just such spending. Broadband and school infrastructure are two of the first target areas.

    Funds that were not released through the share release would otherwise have to be borrowed, else those social initiatives would not happen at all. The MOM programme obviates the need to pay interest on further loans for socal initiatives. At say 5% interest, the MOM will save more in loan interest than the loss in dividends (as the govt will still retain 51% of the total dividends.)

    4. The adversing and marketing expenses associated with the asset sales could be better used on other government projects.

    These expenses are being funded through the share release. They are not funds the govt could otherwise have spent elsewhere (unless they borrowed the money.)

    Perhaps you should be rethinking your opposition Hamnida…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Reid (16,447 comments) says:

    Reid – I don’t think we’ll ever agree on asset sales. I think the policy raises inequality because:

    1. Privatising power leads to increased prices. The poor spend a high percentage of their income on power than the rich.
    2. The rich are more likely to purchase shares and off-set higher power prices against their share dividends.
    3. The government’s income from dividends in the once 100% owned asset will decrease and social spending will have to fall as a consequence.
    4. The adversing and marketing expenses associated with the asset sales could be better used on other government projects.

    Privatising power leads to increased prices.

    Why? I don’t disagree but why do you think they do?

    The poor spend a high percentage of their income on power than the rich.

    Yes that’s the mathematical outcome Hamnida, well done you big clever you.

    The rich are more likely to purchase shares and off-set higher power prices against their share dividends.

    By rich you mean anyone with a spare $1,000 don’t you. And you’d say how many in the nation would have that on the date of the float? 750,000? 1,000,000? 2,000,000? I’d personally reckon on say, a 4 million total base Hamnida, the number of people who’d have that, regardless of whether they wish to invest, would be over 3 million people, because almost every old person has that, and almost every worker over thirty could russle that up if they wanted to and ever single worker above them of all age groups, so how many is that?

    The government’s income from dividends in the once 100% owned asset will decrease and social spending will have to fall as a consequence.

    Yes we lose the dividends Hamnida but we avoid 50% of the capital cost. The thing that lefties don’t seem to even understand, because they never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever talk about it, ever, is that holding cash locked up in an asset, any asset, costs money relative to what that capital could be doing were it better employed elsewhere to generate more return. That’s the engine which drives the economy. If we don’t do that, the economy stops. Simple as that. Period. End of discussion. Over and out. And the extent to which we re-employ that capital efficiently is the extent to which the machine functions like shit through a goose whose got explosive diarrhoea which is what everyone wants, for if every economy did that so it could be like 2006 all over the world all the time, even the poor people would be able to buy a Rolls-Royce. Of course you lefties would probably be still complaining the poor only have one Rolls Royce when the rich have twenty-five thousand rollers each.

    The adversing and marketing expenses associated with the asset sales could be better used on other government projects

    One could conclude that only if you were ideologically disposed to ignore the benefits. What would you think Hamnida if some of money from the proceeds were spent promoting your brilliant, and it is brilliant, insight into a campaign to get all parents, all of them, to read to their children every night? I put this to you not to bribe you with one vs the other but as something to illustrate what it’s all about, which is balancing LIMITED resources against SERIOUSLY conflicting priorities. And the key is understanding they are not free, diversion always costs another group, and this is because they are limited, not unlimited, and the profound utterly IMO evil flaw in Liabore’s thinking because I believe they really do, do this on purpose because it can’t be out of ignorance, given the access all MP’s have to the Parliamentary Library shame in all of this is if Lefties stopped pretending money is free and if only the rich would give more the world would be a better place, when all along they know the definition of “rich” in Cullen’s view once was people over 60k, this is fucking mental Hamnida.

    Anyway, that’s why I quite like asset sales and someday I hope I get stopped by some roving TV reporter so I can say what I just said on national telly. Thanks for listening.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Redbaiter (8,822 comments) says:

    The thread is reading recovery. With all the goodwill in the world (not that there is any) your uncanny observation regarding something that most of us realised some considerable time ago, namely that the education system is fucked, doesn’t quite get you over the line in terms of critically evaluating Shearer’s cunning plan to spend another $20m pa on an existing program to save us all from txt speak.

    Unlike the National Progressive Party, I don’t dance to Labour’s tune.

    If you or any other National party supporter or MP truly believes that the education system is derelict then they SHOULD FUCKING WELL STAND UP AND SAY SO.

    They don’t though. They waltz all around the real issue because they’re too damn gutless too speak out and because they’re too damn dumb to have an argument and because they’re too damn inarticulate to express an argument even if they had one.

    “the debate nowadays tends to focus on potential solutions rather than re-stating the bleeding obvious.”

    No, National are too timid to state anything that is “bleeding obvious”. Too frightened of Labour and its mainstream media mates. They’d rather dance to Labour’s tune and work on the “we can do Progressivism better” angle.

    Forget Labour, the problem in every institution in NZ, education included, is the National Party’s complete and utter failure to stand by its founding principles. If it had, NZ education would be working.

    Here’s how you fix education in NZ now. First you sell off (or better still close down) TV One and Radio NZ. Then you withdraw all government advertising from The NZ Herald and the Dominion and TV3. This deprives the left of their main propaganda outlets and cripples their private sector suckholes.

    Then you state the Education system is beyond repair and in need of complete reform. Then you ask for pre-qualification bids from private organisations to run all schools and universities in NZ. As part of the pre-qualification you ask that prospective tenderers submit documentation outlining how they would address current problems of left wing control of the industry (and associated racism and separatism) with a priority on de-politicising the curricula. Then you fire all teachers and privatise all schools and universities. Let the companies who win the tenders re-hire as they see fit.

    This can all be achieved without any fatal political backlash if the motivations and the methods and the objectives ARE ARTICULATED to the public.

    The main problem with the above plan is that there is nobody in the National Party with the gonads or the ability to follow it through. Let alone the spineless leader Jellyback Johnny.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Reid (16,447 comments) says:

    Sorry everyone, I mistook the thread for GD. Hamnida if you reply here, I’ll take my reply to GD.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Hamnida (905 comments) says:

    Reid – It’s like I said. I don’t think I can convince you and you have not convinced me. I do, however, understand your arguments and the time taken to advance them.

    Rebaiter – Your whole argument is based on the fact New Zealand’s education system is bad, when it fact it’s third best in the OECD.

    Room for improvement – Yes.

    Crisis – No.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. thedavincimode (6,759 comments) says:

    Reddie

    You haven’t answered my question. How’s that traffic in Austin?

    Fuckwit

    it’s third best in the OECD.

    So what (assuming it is and that the measure is relevant). How do literacy, arithmetic/mathematical skills compare to 20/30/40 years ago. Or are employers just imagining that they pull their hair out more with each successive generation?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Reid (16,447 comments) says:

    Reid – It’s like I said. I don’t think I can convince you and you have not convinced me. I do, however, understand your arguments and the time taken to advance them.

    Yes but the question Hamnida is, why do you think: “Privatising power leads to increased prices?”

    As in: I think it increases prices because…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Lee C (4,516 comments) says:

    I think it increases prices because there is no mechanism to control price hikes. Look at Petrol stations. Seriously, are they in cahoots to keep the price of fuel rising, or did I miss the part where ‘competition’ works to make ‘competitors’ ‘competititive’ and offer ‘choice’ to ‘consumers’ based on a desire to ‘win’ their ‘loyalty’.

    Bullshit.

    They ramp up prices each time thre is a ‘glitch’ in supply. Then keep it there. They then follow each other up the scale, knowing we have no choice but to buy fuel if we want to work for a living. (And before you start, I cycle to work, so don;t offer the ‘it;s your choice’ argument at me – clearly people need cars), But regarding petrol companies, I never once saw them drop the price of fuel after the supply returned to normal.

    Of course the government are lining up for their cut too, but I forgot, it’s all completely ‘free market’, isn’t it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Mark (1,488 comments) says:

    Redbaiter (708) Says:
    September 9th, 2012 at 12:36 pm
    Deck chairs on the Titanic.

    The NZ education system is fucked, and it is Progressive governments (National and Labour) that have fucked it.

    It can’t be repaired by the same forces that have incrementally destroyed it.

    Redbaiter you’re blathering. The education system in NZ is far from being fucked. It is a very successful system by world standards and has been improving annually over each year of the last labour and national governments. It is not perfect and always needs improvement but by any measure it is not fucked. We have dedicated and well performing teachers in the main with a commitment to our kids performance. There is no doubt there are teachers who do not perform but that is not the exclusive domain of the teaching profession.

    It seems to be the anthem of the right to belittle the efforts of the teaching profession because they are unionised. Yet PISA data has NZ in the top 6 of the OECD in terms of education performance. I am all for improving the system, having a properly moderated national standards programme but this irrational bagging of the teaching profession simply does not stand scrutiny.

    I am not a teacher but sit on a school Board of Trustees. The teachers I have had to deal with are dedicated and very professional and deal with kids with behavioural issues, poor home environments etc and they just get on with it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. MH (753 comments) says:

    edible books and alphabet soup,these are the corpse policy of the Labour party. Sign up to Citizens for Shearing or just make a mark on the form. No phonetic correction fanatic supporters allowed,correction aloud.

    shirley,at least 40% of enrolments at T cols should be men with deep voices,some work experience and a sense of vocation and a good knowledge of the rules of Rugby Football and willing to work in the holidays and stay after school to participate in sports and demonstrate that men can be seen as role models to counter the single mums brigade. Some schools have never seen a European male teacher in years,bring back compulsory rural tenure for new teachers – get them into the Ureweras etc. Put their leftist theories into pracice in the real communities.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. mpledger (425 comments) says:

    thedavincimode (3,732) Says:
    How do literacy, arithmetic/mathematical skills compare to 20/30/40 years ago. Or are employers just imagining that they pull their hair out more with each successive generation?
    ~~~~~~~~

    Given that 20/30 years ago 50% of kids failed School English which meant they couldn’t progress and now 80% of 6th formers get NCEA level 2.

    Employers want more than they did 20/30/40 years ago. There just aren’t the entry level jobs anymore for todays kinds of kids who failed School C (even if there are fewer of them nowadays).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. MH (753 comments) says:

    the gender balance in the profession…- in 1971 38% of teachers were male by 2004 this had halved to 19.5%
    Teacher numbers increased by around 6,000 from 17,500 to 23,500, but the number of male teachers declined from 6600 in 1971 to 4,600 in 2004.

    This from Teacher numbers in NZ: Attrition and replacement -NZ Journal of Teachers’ Work 2006.

    Can anyone provide more up to date stats than that?

    That’s yer bloody problem,right there,you don’t need any other arguments,the solution is before your eyes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Boglio (78 comments) says:

    When my wife trained for Reading Recovery it was a specilaised program of one on one trained teacher in RR to one student. The second program that she also worked in was Remedial Reading where the ratio was one helper to a small group. Often the helper leading the group was a teacher aid or volunteer with no teacher training. I assume the announcement by David Shearer refers to Reading Recovery which will require a large training program to be put in place. In my wife’s case as a trained teacher she did a course over a one year part time and was expected to undertake refresher courses each year thereafter.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. mpledger (425 comments) says:

    My family tree is full of male teachers but in my generation the only males still teaching are the ones in Canada (3 out of 4 male cousins) where they get paid mega-bucks and have really good retirement provisions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Paulus (2,627 comments) says:

    Hooray – at last “Tomorrows Schools”.

    Have waited many years for this.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote