Govt 'covering up' school funding plan

[awa355]

Source for that?



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

Not unusual, we have had a lot of european exchange students over the past 15 years. Their level of education in science, maths have been years ahead of the form level they have been put into for their NZ year.

[mashman]

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.

Is money not what the govt are going to be using to reward those teachers who excel? True, if it had have been a trophy I wouldn't have batted an eye lid. I agree with you in regards to why people are doing the job, tis one of the reasons I see NOW working because as you say, many people do the job because they want to. So why isn't a trophy reward enough, or peer recognition?

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.

I know you didn't suggest that people are left behind, never said that you did... I was pointing out that it is a consequence, not a deliberate act. The speed of getting to that place would be whether the person is ready to get to that place or not prior to the resource issue being raised. We don't all choose or feel the need to be at the pinnacle of our professions at the same time. That's the same as the above where people choose to do the job they wish to do at that moment in time irrespective of the carrots that are available.

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.

I would say the increasing number of protests around the globe highlights that we have moved on in regards to our behaviours and out responses to reward and punishment. My personal attitude/behaviour toward reward and punishment has radically changed in the last 6 years and I'm not the only one who feels the same. But make no mistake, I have changed and my priorities have shifted. You may not have noticed, but my family and friends most certainly have. On that basis it looks as though Skinner has failed to take into account change and has, as you seem to be agreeing, decided that a human being will display predictable behaviour from cradle to grave. That is most definitly a huyge flaw in his analysis. We can react to the exact same circumstances in many different ways given how we feel at that moment in time i.e. we could be tired, we may well have had an argument that morning, we may not yet have had a coffee, we may be on an acid comedown etc... Sure you can say if A wants X that A will do F to get X, but that isn't likely to remain a constant for everyone throughought their life is it?

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

Ok, tag on a imho to the WE. @Bieber. Am I projecting? I accepted my shortcomings a long time ago and have rationalised them against the theory that no 1 person will be the best at everything. Even at that I realise that I am capable of everything until I prove that I'm not. I am better than some. Some are better than me. Meh. Still not a sound basis for financially punishing people by giving those who are better than me more and those who are less better than me less. We're all needed is what my above example was trying to highlight. Oh, and I'm financially ok... just letting you know in case you wish to roll out the envy carpet or tall poppy or or or or or. (WE time) If we're fucking people over because we believe that we are better than them in anyway shape or form, then yes, we have lost focus of what is important. There is not justification for it.

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.

No one made me judge and I'm kinda confused as to where the elitism comes from... yet you are emminently qualified? Business is qualified? who gets to decide, because sure as hell someone is going to be judge and the down side is it ain't the kids leading the adults. As for your perhapssss, I agree, but I wouldn't restrict that to the gifted only. Where would you draw the line? The first 5 that finish early? the first 10? Is homework in itself a lesson? Is socialising with perceived less gifted children a bad thing? Is socialising with gifted children only a good thing? I gotz no probs with kidz making their own minds up, but it won't be the kidz setting the environment under which they learn, it'll be the adults... which makes your speech about the gifted ones moot as they won't have that choice?

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.

The lack of time will be by default of there being other kids in the classroom that need more help. That does not mean that the "gifted" kids will suffer does it? They will still get the time they need won't they? If you're concerned about it, put more teachers in the classroom. Doh, sorry, costs too much , yet it is something I would love to see instead of teachers working in maccas etc... You got a fold up bed? Fucksake I had to stand. You had it easy . I wasn't for a moment suggesting that students are deliberately ignored due to them being more capable than others at that point in time (even though I know it happens, not in a bad way though, more of a consequence of others needing more help).

[Scuba_Steve]

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

But you didn't even have to go international for that shit, I moved from Porirua to Palmy Nth; 3rd & 4th form in Palmy was nothing more than a repeat of 1st & 2nd form in Porirua maybee even going back to S4 & I was in "advanced stream" classes in Palmy
The worst part, this college would probably be one to get the good pay

[swbarnett]

Behaviours that are rewarded tend to increase, behaviours that are punished (as perceived by the individual) tend to reduce.

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.

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.

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.

[swbarnett]

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.

It's actually been shown that having the more able students help teaching those less able actually results in better learning for both. I was in this position back when I was in school. The person I was paired with had a very low aptitude for maths but by the end of the year they understood everything that they were taught (and could use it). And I certainly had a better grasp of the material as a result of teaching it.

[bogan]

It's actually been shown that having the more able students help teaching those less able actually results in better learning for both. I was in this position back when I was in school. The person I was paired with had a very low aptitude for maths but by the end of the year they understood everything that they were taught (and could use it). And I certainly had a better grasp of the material as a result of teaching it.

Not only that, but the ability to teach your peers gives you communications skills which are very useful in themselves.

[swbarnett]

Why should a "gifted" person have less time spent on them because they find something easy (academic, practical, or sports).

Because the name of the game is equity, not equality.

Take a 90yr old granny and a 20yr old star athlete. The granny needs 500calories daily for their body to do what they want it to, the athlete needs 1500. Each day there is 2000calories worth of food to distribute. In the interests of equality they both get 1000calories worth of food each. Result: the granny gets fat (or the extra food gets trashed) and the athlete slowly starves to death (or at least fails as an athlete). Equity, on the other hand, would see the granny get the 500calories she needs and the athlete the 1500calories they need. Definiately not equal but both are happy with their allocation.

The same goes for students. The bright one that picks up the material fast needs less time to achieve the stated goals of the class and the less bright one needs more. It just makes sense to aportion the teacher's time equitably, not equally.

[mashman]

It's actually been shown that having the more able students help teaching those less able actually results in better learning for both. I was in this position back when I was in school. The person I was paired with had a very low aptitude for maths but by the end of the year they understood everything that they were taught (and could use it). And I certainly had a better grasp of the material as a result of teaching it.

You'll be pleased to note that that practice continues and my daughter appreciates it from both a "teaching" perspective for the subjects she's strong in and from a "learning" perspective for the subjects she's less strong in. I love the idea.

[mashman]

Because the name of the game is equitly, not equality.

Take a 90yr old granny and a 20yr old star athlete. The granny needs 500calories daily for their body to do what they want it to, the athlete needs 1500. Each day there is 2000calories worth of food to distribute. In the interests of equality they both get 1000calories worth of food each. Result: the granny gets fat (or the extra food gets trashed) and the athlete slowly starves to death (or at least fails as an athlete). Equity, on the other hand, would see the granny get the 500calories she needs and the athlete the 1500calories they need. Definiately not equal but both are happy with their allocation.

The same goes for students. The bright one that picks up the material fast needs less time to achieve the stated goals of the class and the less bright one needs more. It just makes sense aportion the teacher's time equitably, not equally.

cannot green again.

[bogan]

Because the name of the game is equity, not equality.

Take a 90yr old granny and a 20yr old star athlete. The granny needs 500calories daily for their body to do what they want it to, the athlete needs 1500. Each day there is 2000calories worth of food to distribute. In the interests of equality they both get 1000calories worth of food each. Result: the granny gets fat (or the extra food gets trashed) and the athlete slowly starves to death (or at least fails as an athlete). Equity, on the other hand, would see the granny get the 500calories she needs and the athlete the 1500calories they need. Definiately not equal but both are happy with their allocation.

The same goes for students. The bright one that picks up the material fast needs less time to achieve the stated goals of the class and the less bright one needs more. It just makes sense to aportion the teacher's time equitably, not equally.

Only to a point, the granny doesn't benefit from getting fat, however any student can benefit from getting more teacher time and accelerated learning when required. It's why classes are often streamed by intelligence. Leads to why performance based pay is unlikely to be a good thing, teaching to a set standard then focusing on those who haven't achieved that, it doesn't allow the smarter ones to reach their potential.

[mashman]

Only to a point, the granny doesn't benefit from getting fat, however any student can benefit from getting more teacher time and accelerated learning when required. It's why classes are often streamed by intelligence. Leads to why performance based pay is unlikely to be a good thing, teaching to a set standard then focusing on those who haven't achieved that, it doesn't allow the smarter ones to reach their potential.

She'd be warmer in winter.

[swbarnett]

Only to a point, the granny doesn't benefit from getting fat, however any student can benefit from getting more teacher time and accelerated learning when required.

Agreed.

It's why classes are often streamed by intelligence.

This is where it falls down. A class of 30 geniuses can pretty much teach themselves given a text book and a little guidance. They hardly need a teacher. A class of 30 low aptitude students needs one teacher per student.

This is why mixing the two groups is better for all. The geniuses get to help with the teaching (you don't really know something until you have taught it) and the low aptitude students get more one-on-one tuition.



I think also there may be some confusion as to what exactly constitutes "performance pay". The simplest example I can think of is piece work. My mother-in-law made trousers for a living and got paid so much for each pair. The more she made the more she earned. This is performance pay. For teachers it would be the better the students do the more they get paid. Their pay would go up and down from year to year. This is not what is used for most businesses where one's pay may go up at a yearly performance review but will never (or very seldom) go down.

[bogan]

This is where it falls down. A class of 30 geniuses can pretty much teach themselves given a text book and a little guidance. They hardly need a teacher. A class of 30 low aptitude students needs one teacher per student.

This is why mixing the two groups is better for all. The geniuses get to help with the teaching (you don't really know something until you have taught it) and the low aptitude students get more one-on-one tuition.



I think also there may be some confusion as to what exactly constitutes "performance pay". The simplest example I can think of is piece work. My mother-in-law made trousers for a living and got paid so much for each pair. The more she made the more she earned. This is performance pay. For teachers it would be the better the students do the more they get paid. Their pay would go up and down from year to year. This is not what is used for most businesses where one's pay may go up at a yearly performance review but will never (or very seldom) go down.

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

My 7th form year we (about 8 pretty clued up students) had a pretty shit run of teachers in chemistry; the last one taught us more in about 9 weeks than we had learnt through the rest of the year. Textbooks are just no substitute for contact with a good teacher, no matter how smart the student is.

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.

[bluninja]

Because the name of the game is equity, not equality.

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

Take a 90yr old granny and a 20yr old star athlete. The granny needs 500calories daily for their body to do what they want it to, the athlete needs 1500. Each day there is 2000calories worth of food to distribute. In the interests of equality they both get 1000calories worth of food each. Result: the granny gets fat (or the extra food gets trashed) and the athlete slowly starves to death (or at least fails as an athlete). Equity, on the other hand, would see the granny get the 500calories she needs and the athlete the 1500calories they need. Definiately not equal but both are happy with their allocation.

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

The same goes for students. The bright one that picks up the material fast needs less time to achieve the stated goals of the class and the less bright one needs more. It just makes sense to aportion the teacher's time equitably, not equally.

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.

[Banditbandit]

Source for that?

Here's the 2012 rankings ..

http://www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfindings...s-overview.pdf

Go to page five for the table .. we rank just above the UK and a little above the USA.

Go here for the 2009 ones -

http://ourtimes.wordpress.com/2008/0...tion-rankings/

scroll down to the second table .. NZ is in 7th place .. (except maths in 13th) United States in 17th place and the UK in 26th place for reading (with some variance in the other columns) ..