Govt 'covering up' school funding plan

[TheDemonLord]

The stumbling blocks you put in the path are your own. It's formed fine enough, but it doesn't have all of the answer to all of your questions and it likely never will.

The irony in your statement is that the current system keeps being added to or removed from... in other words, premature and not fully formed yet.

Your choice though.

There is a truth in that - and I would add that no human created system is ever truley fully formed and perfect....

The difference is however between the current system and the proposed system is that an individual bears the consequences of their inaction in my system - however society bears the consequences of the individuals inaction in yours.

and since my opinion of individuals at large is pretty low, I would rather screw over the individual as opposed to screw over society.

to summarise:

Fuck those poor lazy fuckers - if they weren't so fucking lazy, they wouldn't be so fucking poor

[mashman]

There is a truth in that - and I would add that no human created system is ever truley fully formed and perfect....

The difference is however between the current system and the proposed system is that an individual bears the consequences of their inaction in my system - however society bears the consequences of the individuals inaction in yours.

and since my opinion of individuals at large is pretty low, I would rather screw over the individual as opposed to screw over society.

to summarise:

Fuck those poor lazy fuckers - if they weren't so fucking lazy, they wouldn't be so fucking poor

Yup, society evolves, well, it's supposed to and the evidence I've seen so far doesn't support that argument.

Only 6.5% (can't be fucked looking up the figures) are unemployed, which means that 6.5% of the 55% who claim more benefits than they put in aren't. What percentage of those 6.5% want to work? Next self-created stumbling block please.

[TheDemonLord]

Yup, society evolves, well, it's supposed to and the evidence I've seen so far doesn't support that argument.

Only 6.5% (can't be fucked looking up the figures) are unemployed, which means that 6.5% of the 55% who claim more benefits than they put in aren't. What percentage of those 6.5% want to work? Next self-created stumbling block please.

I want to work by doing a menial task that requires no training and get paid more than minimum wage for it, I also want to do this job in the area in which I currently reside, I do not want to try and upskill, someone should just employ me....

To whom is it a self created stumbling block? Society or the individual?

I remember from history when work was scarce in certain areas (when welfare didn't exist) people would move to locations that had jobs, well it was either you moved or you starved to death....

[mashman]

I want to work by doing a menial task that requires no training and get paid more than minimum wage for it, I also want to do this job in the area in which I currently reside, I do not want to try and upskill, someone should just employ me....

To whom is it a self created stumbling block? Society or the individual?

I remember from history when work was scarce in certain areas (when welfare didn't exist) people would move to locations that had jobs, well it was either you moved or you starved to death....

What's wrong with that? The decision to do a job that needs doing has been taken by someone willing to do the job. Why the financial penalty?

The individual i.e. you.

epic solution that has worked out so well for us.

[bluninja]

Kids as commodities eh, what a lovely thought. I'm assuming that the money you get to select these services with will be removed from ones tax bill so that those who can't afford to send their kids to the smart schools are rightfully disadvantaged?

I agree that there could be better ways to "tailor" learning for kids, but I don't agree that a business model should be applied.

Well, when the gummit talks about investing in training and schooling to deliver the skills for the future they aren't asking parents what they want for their kids are they? They will be chatting with businesses and economists to look at what skills they consider NZ Inc needs in the future. The kids when the grow up will still have a choice in careers, but perhaps little training and no jobs.

ASS U MEh! that's been done to death . I would think a universal education credit system would work. Those with shedloads of money can, as they do now, top up. Those without can at least focus their "spend" on getting the best for their children. Yes you could do it with tax, including tax credits or benefits.....but then there would be some that would just spend that extra money on themselves and not their kids education (though that would still be parents choosing what resources to put towards their kids education ).

Why not a business model for the delivery of education? Is it more special than healthcare (surgeons, doctors, nurses et al)?

[mashman]

Well, when the gummit talks about investing in training and schooling to deliver the skills for the future they aren't asking parents what they want for their kids are they? They will be chatting with businesses and economists to look at what skills they consider NZ Inc needs in the future. The kids when the grow up will still have a choice in careers, but perhaps little training and no jobs.

ASS U MEh! that's been done to death . I would think a universal education credit system would work. Those with shedloads of money can, as they do now, top up. Those without can at least focus their "spend" on getting the best for their children. Yes you could do it with tax, including tax credits or benefits.....but then there would be some that would just spend that extra money on themselves and not their kids education (though that would still be parents choosing what resources to put towards their kids education ).

Why not a business model for the delivery of education? Is it more special than healthcare (surgeons, doctors, nurses et al)?

So you'd limit the job type that are available? And assume that should someone pick a career that doesn't pay much that they'll be dooming their kids to a potentially substandard education? I don't think anyone should be asking anyone coz a kid will change their mind in regards to what they want to do every week. That's where I see the inherent problem. Ideally everything should be made available to every kid irrespective of cost, coz ya may find the next Hawking comes from the "bottom" and why would you want to deny that on the basis that their parents couldn't afford it? Hopefully there will be jobs and training... although I'm seriously beginning to doubt it.

I like the idea behind a universal credit system, but who gets to decide what the credits are worth? Is it 1 credit per subject i.e. physics gets 1 credit, art gets 1 credit? Heh, t'would be nice if the parents focused on the kids, I see that as a problem in itself with both parents needing to work to provide for the little blighters, coz by the time everyone gets home they're all knackered, kids included.

It's not equitable. It'd put more pressure on the kids. It'd put more pressure on the parents. imho.

[TheDemonLord]

What's wrong with that? The decision to do a job that needs doing has been taken by someone willing to do the job. Why the financial penalty?

The individual i.e. you.

epic solution that has worked out so well for us.

Oh well, here we go again:

Me: It won't work - here is why
You: you only say it won't work because you have been raised to think that way
Me: Actually I think that way because of the historical record of human interaction
You: There is no such thing as human nature
Me: there are advantageous evolutionary traits shared by all people from all countries - we call this human nature
You: I don't do it therefore it doesn't exist
Me: it exists in all highly social pack mammals - like Orcas, Lions etc. of which humans are a member
You: I don't do it therefore it doesn't exist
Me: Fine, even if it doesn't exist - it still won't work
You: It will work if people want it to work
Me: My system works (loose use of the term) regardless of whether people want it to or not, yours only works if people buy into it.
You: People will buy into once they see how great it is
Me: People will only buy into because they will see a way to get something for nothing, until this point is addressed, IMO it isn't ready
You: I think its ready if only people will see the light and Praise Now!
Me: Then we are at an Impasse
You: Indeed - Hail to Now, Saviour of the Financial system - repent now and you can be saved

Or at least something like that.

I may have abridged it here and there and added a little artistic licence

[mashman]

Oh well, here we go again:

Me: It won't work - here is why
You: you only say it won't work because you have been raised to think that way
Me: Actually I think that way because of the historical record of human interaction
You: There is no such thing as human nature
Me: there are advantageous evolutionary traits shared by all people from all countries - we call this human nature
You: I don't do it therefore it doesn't exist
Me: it exists in all highly social pack mammals - like Orcas, Lions etc. of which humans are a member
You: I don't do it therefore it doesn't exist
Me: Fine, even if it doesn't exist - it still won't work
You: It will work if people want it to work
Me: My system works (loose use of the term) regardless of whether people want it to or not, yours only works if people buy into it.
You: People will buy into once they see how great it is
Me: People will only buy into because they will see a way to get something for nothing, until this point is addressed, IMO it isn't ready
You: I think its ready if only people will see the light and Praise Now!
Me: Then we are at an Impasse
You: Indeed - Hail to Now, Saviour of the Financial system - repent now and you can be saved

Or at least something like that.

I may have abridged it here and there and added a little artistic licence

Or maybe you missed the context of the post. I merely inquired what was wrong with people not wanting to improve themselves? And asked why they should be penalised for it.

[MSTRS:Me]

Or maybe you missed the context of the post. I merely inquired what was wrong with people not wanting to improve themselves? And asked why they should be penalised for it.

From effort comes reward. Usually anyway.
People with no desire to better themselves should not expect to be rewarded for their apathy. They actually penalise themselves, but perhaps are too stupid to recognise that. So apply the penalty from outside and just maybe they will take note and do something about their situation?

What is worse, is when others are penalised by an individual's lack of performance. Like piss-poor teachers... Penalise them for sure, by rewarding their more successful peers.

[mashman]

From effort comes reward. Usually anyway.
People with no desire to better themselves should not expect to be rewarded for their apathy. They actually penalise themselves, but perhaps are too stupid to recognise that. So apply the penalty from outside and just maybe they will take note and do something about their situation?

What is worse, is when others are penalised by an individual's lack of performance. Like piss-poor teachers... Penalise them for sure, by rewarding their more successful peers.

So you punish people for not trying hard enough. Who decides when a person isn't trying hard enough? Who decides what hard enough is (snigger)? All I can see is you calling to penalise people because of a perceived lack of brains/drive. I look at someone who is "better" than me and shrug my shoulders, they are more talented and may well be more driven if you like. Why should I, and by extension my family, suffer because someone has deemed my effort to be less than that of someone else? Why is it that I should be punished for not bringing myself up to their perceived standard?

Honestly don't know how many other questions I could ask, but basically
you're picking out a perceived cream of the crop and giving them more than many many others purely on the basis that the cream are perceived to be better. The "best" still need to be supported else they cannot become the best. Who supports the best if not the less best? Why penalise them for supporting the best? So you're better than someone else and have a drive to want to be more, and? You don't think that there are other external factors that stop people from not improving themselves? Or is that HTFU territory?

As for teachers. They do a job. It looks to be getting harder. Some teachers will shine because? Results? Coz the kids are good in their class? They're a friend of the board? They look to be a shining example of teacherdom? I'm not saying that there's shit floating around, but labeling anyway that isn't up to the highest of standards as shit and rewarding them appropriately is just fuckin wrong and displays a massive ignorance in regards to the effort that a less capable person has had to put in to get to that stage.

It comes easy for some, not so for others, so reward those who find it easy? Shit's fucked up man and worse still, they get penalised on the basis that someone else has decided that they're not trying hard enough. An attitude to sink a planet if I've ever heard one. yadda yadda smiley smiley, who really gives a fuck about those less able, not in a position, not ready to be all they can be (apart from me like )

[bluninja]

So you punish people for not trying hard enough. Who decides when a person isn't trying hard enough? Who decides what hard enough is (snigger)? All I can see is you calling to penalise people because of a perceived lack of brains/drive. I look at someone who is "better" than me and shrug my shoulders, they are more talented and may well be more driven if you like. Why should I, and by extension my family, suffer because someone has deemed my effort to be less than that of someone else? Why is it that I should be punished for not bringing myself up to their perceived standard?

Basic Skinnerian behaviour modification. Behaviours that are rewarded tend to increase, behaviours that are punished (as perceived by the individual) tend to reduce. In the post you responded to there was an absence of reward put forward rather than the addition of a "punishment".

Honestly don't know how many other questions I could ask, but basically
you're picking out a perceived cream of the crop and giving them more than many many others purely on the basis that the cream are perceived to be better. The "best" still need to be supported else they cannot become the best. Who supports the best if not the less best? Why penalise them for supporting the best? So you're better than someone else and have a drive to want to be more, and? You don't think that there are other external factors that stop people from not improving themselves? Or is that HTFU territory?

Whenever an investment is made someone, somewhere will look at the ROI. Typically they will invest in things with the best return. So if you wish to be an Olympic athlete then you need to demonstrate the potential to succeed both physically and mentally. If a surgeon only has 40 hours a week to do life saving heart surgery then they invest their time in those patients with the best clinical outcome. If an astrophysics teacher has 40 hours a week to teach advanced astrophysics then they will invest in those pupils with the ability to understand the learning and the interest (at that time) in the subject matter.

External factors for not improving ones self? That would be that the behaviour has been demonstrated to be unrewarding or punishing. I guess it also depends on what (and who) considers is personal improvement.

As for teachers. They do a job. It looks to be getting harder. Some teachers will shine because? Results? Coz the kids are good in their class? They're a friend of the board? They look to be a shining example of teacherdom? I'm not saying that there's shit floating around, but labeling anyway that isn't up to the highest of standards as shit and rewarding them appropriately is just fuckin wrong and displays a massive ignorance in regards to the effort that a less capable person has had to put in to get to that stage.

Life is hard, and then you die. Fuck the teachers! many other professionals are not rewarded based on their skills, experience, or work ethic based on the parameters above; the surgeon who has a patient die in surgery, the defence lawyer who works hard to ensure that "scumbags" and other people in trouble with the lawyer have good legal advice.

It comes easy for some, not so for others, so reward those who find it easy? Shit's fucked up man and worse still, they get penalised on the basis that someone else has decided that they're not trying hard enough. An attitude to sink a planet if I've ever heard one. yadda yadda smiley smiley, who really gives a fuck about those less able, not in a position, not ready to be all they can be (apart from me like )

The "reward" for those that find it easy is to have the opportunity for more challenging work. I received lots of abuse from a teacher in school that had the same thinking (you appear to have) about "gifted" children. For me, you are a person that should be kept away from educational policy making.

[Banditbandit]

That was the point - every social choose has good and bad consequences and usually the difference is one that is slightly less shit but less effective, vs one that is slightly more shit and more effective.

I'd take the one that results in a better education for greater population - whatever that choice might in fact be

Seeing as how we had an education system that ranked higher in the OECD listing than many other countries, including GB and the USA BEFORE the Nats decided to "improve it" why would we want to change that ???

I like the concept of performance based pay. And you're right we should stop paying them. But this is what I have said all along. Voting for politicians is like picking a treadmill speed. No matter who you pick - you working for someone else to do nothing and go nowhere.
Even unemployed have more ambition.

Let me see .. let's make an analogy with Motorcycle training - I will employ you to teach people to ride motorcycles .. Instead of paying for your time, or for the number of students who enter your course, I will pay you a set amount for each person who gains their licence. However, I will ONLY pay you for the ones who are still alive after two years ..

Will you take the job ?

[mashman]

Basic Skinnerian behaviour modification. Behaviours that are rewarded tend to increase, behaviours that are punished (as perceived by the individual) tend to reduce. In the post you responded to there was an absence of reward put forward rather than the addition of a "punishment".

Just had a quick internetz search and it would seem that the one thing that wasn't taken into account was that which people would respond to. I guess because we use money that it is only rational to use money as the punishing factor. It is by default a negative result/consequence given that the cost of living is rising and the reward is to give to a smaller number in order for them to be able to easier meet that cost of living?

Whenever an investment is made someone, somewhere will look at the ROI. Typically they will invest in things with the best return. So if you wish to be an Olympic athlete then you need to demonstrate the potential to succeed both physically and mentally. If a surgeon only has 40 hours a week to do life saving heart surgery then they invest their time in those patients with the best clinical outcome. If an astrophysics teacher has 40 hours a week to teach advanced astrophysics then they will invest in those pupils with the ability to understand the learning and the interest (at that time) in the subject matter.

External factors for not improving ones self? That would be that the behaviour has been demonstrated to be unrewarding or punishing. I guess it also depends on what (and who) considers is personal improvement.

Fair enough. I don't see leaving people behind as a sensible option. I don't see those who have the aptitude to go further being held back by those who don't. Yes the resource (teacher, mentor etc...) will spend more time with those who need more help, but who's to say that the outcome isn't worth that effort? Surely having more upskilled is better than having 1 superskilled?

External factors = shit happens. Something Skinner looks to have decided as not important (I couldn't see any reference, but it wasn't exactly an extensive read), but I guess it was a different era. We've moved on, it doesn't look as though the methods have.

Life is hard, and then you die. Fuck the teachers! many other professionals are not rewarded based on their skills, experience, or work ethic based on the parameters above; the surgeon who has a patient die in surgery, the defence lawyer who works hard to ensure that "scumbags" and other people in trouble with the lawyer have good legal advice.

It is, but it needn't be made more so by adding financial pressures in to the mix in order to give "security" to a few. The binman ensures that the streets are clean and there is minimal disease and rodent infestations. the sewerage worker keeps our shit flowing. The water treatment worker keeps our water clean. The cleaner makes sure that our skin flakes are limited. The meat processing worker keeps food as clean as possible. The diamond miner keeps women and girly men in jewels. The green keeper keeps the greens green and divot free. The emergency services that rescue us, keep us safe and patch us up etc... those supposedly unskilled jobs allow the supposedly skilled surgeons, lawyers, CEO's etc... to be allowed to perform their function yet they don't get the reward because of some outdate notion of importance. Sorry, those who are perceived as excelling get rewarded, the rest get punished for not being as good. We've clearly lost focus of what is important.

The "reward" for those that find it easy is to have the opportunity for more challenging work. I received lots of abuse from a teacher in school that had the same thinking (you appear to have) about "gifted" children. For me, you are a person that should be kept away from educational policy making.

Interesting. I'm not against "gifted" children at all. If the "gifted" are finding the work easy, then give them harder work. What's so hard about that? It happened with me when I did my bridging year between life and Uni. I excelled at the maths side and finished the module early. I was left to my own devices and was given tutelage when required. Others needed far more time, yet they still got there. On the flip side I didn't do so well with the "clerical" subjects as the others did. Are those experiences so different to any child in any educational establishment? Did the other students hold me back? They're still just kids. There's plenty of time for them to excel, but catering for the "special" ones will yield similar results as with our carrot stick approach to work, you end up with few who are special and many who have received sub-standard rewards because they aren't special enough. I don't see that as a positive in education, especially in the early years.

[bluninja]

Just had a quick internetz search and it would seem that the one thing that wasn't taken into account was that which people would respond to. I guess because we use money that it is only rational to use money as the punishing factor. It is by default a negative result/consequence given that the cost of living is rising and the reward is to give to a smaller number in order for them to be able to easier meet that cost of living?

I guess because you appear so focused on money that is what you see as the reward. For money to be a punisher one would have to remove it from a person who valued it. Why do people (teachers included) remain in a role that doesn't seem them adequately rewarded, especially when they could move to a more lucrative jog? Perhaps because there are greater rewards than money for most people.

Fair enough. I don't see leaving people behind as a sensible option. I don't see those who have the aptitude to go further being held back by those who don't. Yes the resource (teacher, mentor etc...) will spend more time with those who need more help, but who's to say that the outcome isn't worth that effort? Surely having more upskilled is better than having 1 superskilled?

I'm now seeing the pattern of straw man arguments through your responses. I didn't suggest that people are left behind (a deliberate act), however people over time will find their own place based on opportunity, attitude, and values. The speed with getting to that place would be proportional to the resources available to them.

External factors = shit happens. Something Skinner looks to have decided as not important (I couldn't see any reference, but it wasn't exactly an extensive read), but I guess it was a different era. We've moved on, it doesn't look as though the methods have.

Indeed shit does happen. If the shit is rewarding then the subject may repeat behaviours to illicit the same reward. If it is random shit then there is no behaviour that would cause a consistent repeat and the behaviour would no longer be rewarding and would reduce or become extinct. I disagree that we have moved on in terms of our behaviours, or our responses to reward and punishment.

It is, but it needn't be made more so by adding financial pressures in to the mix in order to give "security" to a few. The binman ensures that the streets are clean and there is minimal disease and rodent infestations. the sewerage worker keeps our shit flowing. The water treatment worker keeps our water clean. The cleaner makes sure that our skin flakes are limited. The meat processing worker keeps food as clean as possible. The diamond miner keeps women and girly men in jewels. The green keeper keeps the greens green and divot free. The emergency services that rescue us, keep us safe and patch us up etc... those supposedly unskilled jobs allow the supposedly skilled surgeons, lawyers, CEO's etc... to be allowed to perform their function yet they don't get the reward because of some outdate notion of importance. Sorry, those who are perceived as excelling get rewarded, the rest get punished for not being as good. We've clearly lost focus of what is important.

You may have lost focus on what's important, but don't include me in your "We". Seems like you are doing a lot of psychological projection. As for high skills generating greater financial rewards.; two words Justin Bieber. You don't get punished for not being "as good" you merely get no (or less) reward; unless you are Justin Bieber

Interesting. I'm not against "gifted" children at all. If the "gifted" are finding the work easy, then give them harder work. What's so hard about that? It happened with me when I did my bridging year between life and Uni. I excelled at the maths side and finished the module early. I was left to my own devices and was given tutelage when required. Others needed far more time, yet they still got there. On the flip side I didn't do so well with the "clerical" subjects as the others did. Are those experiences so different to any child in any educational establishment? Did the other students hold me back? They're still just kids. There's plenty of time for them to excel, but catering for the "special" ones will yield similar results as with our carrot stick approach to work, you end up with few who are special and many who have received sub-standard rewards because they aren't special enough. I don't see that as a positive in education, especially in the early years.

I see this as blinkered thinking, a sort of academic elitism. Who put you up to judge how someone should develop and use their gifts? Perhaps the gifted students want to get the work out of the way so they can improve their social skills, or not have to spend the evening doing homework when they could be out learning lots of other valuable stuff. Perhaps they see the reward as passing the exams that allow them to go and pursue a particular career rather than acquisition of academic skills and knowledge.

I'm glad you weren't held back by kids....being held back by teachers or an educational ideology is another thing. Why should a "gifted" person have less time spent on them because they find something easy (academic, practical, or sports). My first memory of childhood schooling was being punished for talking when we had our enforced afternoon rests. Think what I might have achieved if I had been allowed the freedom to explore and talk instead of lying on a fold up bed for 2 hours each school day. It is just as harmful to give little attention to a gifted pupil, being ignored as a child repeatedly is pretty much child abuse, yet you seem to be advocating that for the academically unchallenged.

[TheDemonLord]

Seeing as how we had an education system that ranked higher in the OECD listing than many other countries, including GB and the USA BEFORE the Nats decided to "improve it" why would we want to change that ???

Source for that?

The reason I ask is when I lived in the UK, I attended a UK grammar school (with all the Pomp and ceremony that entails) yes there was some very very archaic things that used to piss me off, but the upside was the teaching standard was for the most part excellent. Now in the UK I was in the top Maths and top Science classes...

Then I moved to NZ (Rangitoto College in particular), and I shit you not I had covered stuff in the equivelent of 2nd/3rd form in the UK that we didn't do until 6th form in NZ

And bearing in mind this was from 2002 - 2005 (so in Labours administration)

So how was it ranked Higher?