Govt 'covering up' school funding plan

[bluninja]

Or: Behaviours that are rewarded tend to increase, behaviours that are not rewarded (as perceived by the individual) tend to reduce.

"You catch more flies with honey than vinegar." And you don't alienate people in the process.

Sometime behaviour that's punished even increases. Humans are programmed to rebel and some will re-offend just to spite the system.


So what, only teach those kids that are already eager to learn? Talk about widening the divide. You must teach to the pupils that you find in front of you. I the teacher has any talent for the job they will learn how each kid learns and teach accordingly.

There's been various studies and experiments that show a balanced approach with reward and punishment works better than either reward only or punishment only. Punished behaviour (in the Skinnerian context of the meaning) does not cause punished behaviours to increase (with the exception of an extinction spike). The "re-offend just to spite the system" is the actual rewarding behaviour, not the behaviour that is being punished.

You raised a question "only teach those kids that are already eager to learn?" In general, yes; that doesn't exclude parents, family, mentors, or teachers from getting kids excited about learning in the first place. Forcing kids to learn means you've lost the plot in education terms IMHO.

[swbarnett]

They can perhaps teach themselves to the same level, but to get the most out of them, they also need teacher time and learning from a more advanced curriculum.

A good teacher will recognise those with extra ability and teach accordingly. It doesn't have to take more of their time. In my 6th form year I was given a stage 1 university chemistry text book to work from. I certainly had no problem absorbing it on my own with just a little guidance.

The point of school is to maximise potential, not to standardise it.

Yes and no. What kind of society do you want to live in? One where most people are pretty well uneducated and the rest are at a genius level or one where there are fewer geniuses but the general education level of the population is relatively high? I know I'd rather live in the latter. Much harder for the government to pull the wool over everyone's eyes.

School is more about teaching en masse. For the "gifted" extra outside tuition is required (even if that's just being haded a reading list).

Textbooks are just no substitute for contact with a good teacher, no matter how smart the student is.

I work in the I.T. industry at a level where mostly there is no course for the new stuff I need to learn. I have no problem picking up a manual or other relevant book and getting what I need to become "expert" in the topic. No teacher required. The courses I have done I've learned more from the books and hand-on experience than I got from the teacher.

The problem with teacher performance pay, is it is not just the teacher's performance that is in the equation. The kids they get to work with can vary hugely in intelligence.

Totally agree with you there.

[bogan]

A good teacher will recognise those with extra ability and teach accordingly. It doesn't have to take more of their time. In my 6th form year I was given a stage 1 university chemistry text book to work from. I certainly had no problem absorbing it on my own with just a little guidance.


Yes and no. What kind of society do you want to live in? One where most people are pretty well uneducated and the rest are at a genius level or one where there are fewer geniuses but the general education level of the population is relatively high? I know I'd rather live in the latter. Much harder for the government to pull the wool over everyone's eyes.

School is more about teaching en masse. For the "gifted" extra outside tuition is required (even if that's just being haded a reading list).


I work in the I.T. industry at a level where mostly there is no course for the new stuff I need to learn. I have no problem picking up a manual or other relevant book and getting what I need to become "expert" in the topic. No teacher required. The courses I have done I've learned more from the books and hand-on experience than I got from the teacher.


Totally agree with you there.

Which is good, but you still needed a teacher who had the time to spend on you for that; the actual contact time might have been fairly low, but evaluating your need and providing the materials to maximise your potential in that regard is not trivial.

Those are most certainly not the options, I said maximise everyone's potential, not ignore the dumb kids to focus on the smart ones, the dumb ones would stil be taught to their ability, just not above it.

I do similar, but in my experience, it takes longer, and the education is less complete than if I had a teacher; just because it is possible to self teach once a formal education is complete, doesn't mean a formal education should rely on students to self teach. After all, a lot of what is taught, is the ability to self teach.

[swbarnett]

Says who? Oh, the "stated goals of the class", so not the education of each individual student.

Says the curriculum that is set down by the governing body.

Only happy in your fictional world.....still we could get the Herald to do a poll fer ya

No. in the real world. Equity is far more important than equality. That way everyone gets what they need. In an ideal world there would be enough teachers to allow everyone to reach their full potential. However, with limited teaching resources the distribution of those resources should be based on need.

I just so fundamentally disagree with this. This looks like kids being equalised to produce an efficient "class", rather than delivering the education wanted/needed by an individual.

I actually agree with you here. School is not about producing geniuses. They're about producing an educated society. Geniuses are produced by schools recognising those of higher ability and arranging extra tuition. At University level the situation is even worse. With lectures of several hundred students to one lecturer no-one gets much teacher time. You have to effectively teach yourself.

[swbarnett]

You raised a question "only teach those kids that are already eager to learn?" In general, yes; that doesn't exclude parents, family, mentors, or teachers from getting kids excited about learning in the first place. Forcing kids to learn means you've lost the plot in education terms IMHO.

It's not about "forcing" kids to learn. That just plain doesn't work. It's about finding out what will motivate a kid to want to learn.

I know someone that used to work in the Physiccs department of a major NZ university. The majority of the older lecturers were of the opinion that they should only teach to the bright students and let the rest fall by the wayside. There were others, however, that thought about how to teach to all the students and got some very good results.

[swbarnett]

I do similar, but in my experience, it takes longer, and the education is less complete than if I had a teacher;

I find that I learn faster and more deeply if left to my own devices. A teacher led course can be a good start but in my area is usually pretty shallow.

just because it is possible to self teach once a formal education is complete, doesn't mean a formal education should rely on students to self teach. After all, a lot of what is taught, is the ability to self teach.

Agreed. But it can be a valuable part of the learning process for all students, not just the "gifted" ones.

[bluninja]

Says the curriculum that is set down by the governing body.


No. in the real world. Equity is far more important than equality. That way everyone gets what they need. In an ideal world there would be enough teachers to allow everyone to reach their full potential. However, with limited teaching resources the distribution of those resources should be based on need.


I actually agree with you here. School is not about producing geniuses. They're about producing an educated society. Geniuses are produced by schools recognising those of higher ability and arranging extra tuition. At University level the situation is even worse. With lectures of several hundred students to one lecturer no-one gets much teacher time. You have to effectively teach yourself.

The real problem here as I see it is schools. It's removing choice and responsibility from parents about the education of the children and handing it over to the state. Then everyone moans about one size fits all teaching and the lack of resources.
Distribution of resources based on need? Again this is a judgement call based on what the teacher, school, or society perceives as need; not about what the child (or their parents) perceive as a need. The parent and not the state has the responsibility for raising their children. Parents need the power and resources to get the best assistance in educating their children. I see current society as marginalising parents role in education, taking power away from them. As an example, try taking a kid camping for a week during school and see the flak. However a school can take the kids on the same camping trip during term whilst rorting money from the parents for their child's state funded education.

School age education is not about just learning information, it's about learning skills. How to learn, how to study, how to identify the required resources for a given task, how to communicate ideas. It seems you have acquired the skills to identify and acquire the resources to improve and extend your learning.

Why do we need an educated society? why not en ethical society, a caring society, a productive society? I realise they are not mutually exclusive, it's just where the primary focus should be. Are we "better" than aboriginal societies just cos we know more stuff?

You need a genius to advance learning so that others can use the tools to improve our lot in this world. It may take genius to create an automatic defibrillator, but anyone that can follow simple instructions can use one to try and save a persons life.

[bluninja]

It's not about "forcing" kids to learn. That just plain doesn't work. It's about finding out what will motivate a kid to want to learn.

You raised a question "only teach those kids that are already eager to learn?" In general, yes; that doesn't exclude parents, family, mentors, or teachers from getting kids excited about learning in the first place. Forcing kids to learn means you've lost the plot in education terms IMHO.

Looks like you're just repeating my words back to me. So you agree then?

I know someone that used to work in the Physiccs department of a major NZ university. The majority of the older lecturers were of the opinion that they should only teach to the bright students and let the rest fall by the wayside. There were others, however, that thought about how to teach to all the students and got some very good results.

I now feel like a poorly performing teacher in that I clearly haven't found the correct way to communicate with you


Being "eager to learn" is in no way proportional to learning ability; you don't have to be a bright student to be eager to learn. You point out lecturers with a limited aptitude and attitude to teaching. One could extrapolate that as it's university then the students MUST be eager to learn but I don't see this as a truism. This issue raised here is lecturers with one teaching style that works only for those that respond to, lets call it "Bright Student Style", but are unable to teach others with a different style. Those eager to learn may well have different learning styles.

BTW when you go to university to study for a degree it's normally described as "Reading" eg Reading Physics rather than "Learning" or "Being Taught" physics.

[mashman]

You need a genius to advance learning so that others can use the tools to improve our lot in this world.

Hi my name is Gordon. Are you ready to change your mind yet? Genius is a bit strong mind.

[Ocean1]

No. in the real world. Equity is far more important than equality. That way everyone gets what they need. In an ideal world there would be enough teachers to allow everyone to reach their full potential. However, with limited teaching resources the distribution of those resources should be based on need.

Searches on the topic produce returns that make it difficult to avoid the conclusion that academia have either invented the word "equity" or hijacked it. Presumably because the word equality didn't produce the desired results.

So let's narrow that down a bit, eh? Equality of access to resources is what's usually considered a fair suck of the sav. Equality of outcomes is what's increasingly being proposed as "fair".

What's "fair" in this case is giving every kid equal access to education resources. Attempting to apply sufficient resources to the lower performers to achieve similar results to the top performers is a waste of those resources, and it deprives the high performers of their share.

Even the old socialist states supposedly attempted only the former, "Equity of outcomes" is a step beyond that again. In short, it's a piece of radical bullshit presented as representing the only "fair" way to manage society. In fact it's far from it, and more to the point it's hugely wasteful and anything like widespread implementation would be civil suicide.

[mashman]

Searches on the topic produce returns that make it difficult to avoid the conclusion that academia have either invented the word "equity" or hijacked it. Presumably because the word equality didn't produce the desired results.

So let's narrow that down a bit, eh? Equality of access to resources is what's usually considered a fair suck of the sav. Equality of outcomes is what's increasingly being proposed as "fair".

What's "fair" in this case is giving every kid equal access to education resources. Attempting to apply sufficient resources to the lower performers to achieve similar results to the top performers is a waste of those resources, and it deprives the high performers of their share.

Even the old socialist states supposedly attempted only the former, "Equity of outcomes" is a step beyond that again. In short, it's a piece of radical bullshit presented as representing the only "fair" way to manage society. In fact it's far from it, and more to the point it's hugely wasteful and anything like widespread implementation would be civil suicide.

Equity transcends definition man.

[Winston001]

The reason I ask is when I lived in the UK, I attended a UK grammar school... 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

My daughter is at Southland Girls High School, one of the handful of NZ schools which has the Cambridge system for 12 - 13yr children. She is now 16 and breezing through because she already knows science and maths from earlier years. To be fair it was tough for her but we supported the higher demands.

The downside is she is an overachiever, outstanding student twice, and can't be told anything. Dang.

[Ocean1]

Equity transcends definition man.

It certainly transcends any definition by you, it's primary meaning is related to finance, a topic so far beyond your grasp as to be invisible.

As far as academia is concerned it means this: "Educational equity, or equity in education, is the study and achievement of fairness in education. The study of educational equity is often linked with the study of excellence and equity. Fairness is often equated with equality, but equity deals with accommodating and meeting the specific needs of specific individuals. Such needs-based accommodation will not result in equal treatment of all students."

Read that last bit again, according to the industry itself educational equity does not represent equality and is therefore unfair to those deprived of their share of educational resources.

[Banditbandit]

My daughter is at Southland Girls High School, one of the handful of NZ schools which has the Cambridge system for 12 - 13yr children. She is now 16 and breezing through because she already knows science and maths from earlier years. To be fair it was tough for her but we supported the higher demands.

The downside is she is an overachiever, outstanding student twice, and can't be told anything. Dang.

I generally wonder why we pick up an assessment system designed by a country ranked lower than us on the OECD education scale to test the product of the "lower" colonial education systems to see if they meet the English standards for entry into their universities ...

[TheDemonLord]

My daughter is at Southland Girls High School, one of the handful of NZ schools which has the Cambridge system for 12 - 13yr children. She is now 16 and breezing through because she already knows science and maths from earlier years. To be fair it was tough for her but we supported the higher demands.

The downside is she is an overachiever, outstanding student twice, and can't be told anything. Dang.

That is what happened to me - except I am not an over-achiever (waaaay too lazy)