Hard News: Research Fail
238 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 … 10 Newer→ Last
-
I have heard that Victoria University aspires to be 'the critic and conscience of society'.
It makes you think, doesn't it? Unfortunately, the thoughts in question happen to be NSFW or indeed for any sort of polite company.
-
It also has some of the worst ones. Nobody has ever denied that elitist education works for the elites, you know?
Or that an idle wealthy class system often produces genius. The point is that the genius of the other classes is wastefully and unfairly squandered by such a system. Then there's the other 99% of the population, who also could benefit themselves and society through better education, without fitting into the genius category.
I'm taken back to debating for Auckland University at Princeton when the World University Debating tournament was there. We nailed every American team we met, very narrowly beat an Irish team, and only got knocked down by a Canadian team, and some amazingly articulate Australians. This was not because I and my partner were brilliant - the Americans were just uniformly awful. Nice people though, very good sports. It was a surreal experience, having struggled on what money a student could scrape up to get ourselves to Princeton via the most harrowing cheaparse path we could manage, passing through some of the grottiest industrial wasteland I've ever seen in New Jersey, we land in the snow in a virtual island of privilege the like of which I've never since experienced. To find that rich kid jerks are the same the world over. And you have to tip everyone in America. Don't complain, just factor it in as a tax, about 15%. You'll like the place a whole lot more if you do.
It was weird to watch the final, in which a team from New South Wales convincingly beat the Oxford team, half of which was Australian anyway. These famous colleges ain't so great after all, once you got past being shit scared of them because of the reputation, at the end of it all, they were all just kids, like me, and a bad argument is still a bad argument no matter where you are from.
-
Nice story and well done retroactively :-)
-
From Giocvanni's:
Comment: Have you ever known a private school to go out of its way to take the bottom 20% of anything? I sure haven't.
Factual response (instead of talkback conjecture): Yes. The two best private schools in the world I regularly visit and consult for, each with 3,600 students from early childhood to senior high schools, have a 100% open acceptance policy.
My comment: The United States has the best research universities in the world.
Giovanni: It also has some of the worst ones. Nobody has ever denied that elitist education works for the elites, you know?
Response: I perhaps should have said: the US has eight of the best ten research universities, headed by Harvard (with 40 Nobel Prize winners, one off the criteria for most research "list"), and UC Berkeley generally second (UC Berkeley students and faculty were, of course, in the forefront of demonstrations against the US Government's war on Vietnam). Britain has two: Oxford and Cambridge.
So please, Giovanni: which would you say are the worst US research universities, with emphasis on "research" (opposed to "teaching" universities? (I know of and have visited several "teaching universities" — especially their Education Departments— and found them appalling; I have also visited others and found them excellent in parts and inferior in others.)
Giovanni again: And what America also has, is universities that are not allowed to criticise their sponsors, even when they enslave children to produce their sneakers. Is that what we want for New Zealand?
Of course not. And tut, tut, Giovanni: that sort of question is worthy of a Rush Limbaugh when he occasionally (but very occasionally) allows a critic on the air.
So let me ask you: Is that the level of debate and discussion you expect to come up with answers to NZ's big challenges? If so, I'm in the wrong discussion group on the wrong subject on the wrong blog.
For Hillary: From the last time I took part in a debate with a member of its faculty, it was Massey, not Victoria, that proclaimed (in his words) to be "the critic and conscience of society". I hate putting people into dogmatic "left" or "right" boxes, but he was definitely of "the left".
-
In fairness:
Under Section 162 of the Education Act (1989) a university is defined as having the following characteristics:
(i) They are primarily concerned with more advanced learning, the principal aim being to develop intellectual independence:
(ii) Their research and teaching are closely interdependent and most of their teaching is done by people who are active in advancing knowledge:
(iii) They meet international standards of research and teaching:
(iv) They are a repository of knowledge and expertise: and
(v) They accept a role as critic and conscience of society.
-
So please, Giovanni: which would you say are the worst US research universities, with emphasis on "research" (opposed to "teaching" universities? (I know of and have visited several "teaching universities" — especially their Education Departments— and found them appalling; I have also visited others and found them excellent in parts and inferior in others.)
Around the last time that Victoria and Auckland were graded I read an article which emphasised not only how many US universities were at the bottom of the international league tables, but also how many could barely be measured according to the criteria. The bottom was literally falling off.
Yes. The two best private schools in the world I regularly visit and consult for, each with 3,600 students from early childhood to senior high schools, have a 100% open acceptance policy.
Great. Good for them. And... the best two in the world? Wow! Let's say it hasn't been my experience with local schools, but full credit to the ones you're referring to. Too bad it's hardly likely to solve the issue of the ones that won't take those kids.
And tut, tut, Giovanni: that sort of question is worthy of a Rush Limbaugh when he occasionally (but very occasionally) allows a critic on the air.
Oh, I see. So you want a free market approach so that we'll somehow produce these marvellous "world class" research universities in spite of our lack of money to fund them, but you won't entertain any of the drawbacks. Well, that was a fulsome debate! Sorry for bringing up an impolite fact.
-
Gordon Dryden - by 'private school' you mean 'school that teaches students for money'? Yes?
"!00% open acceptance policy" = the parents/guardians will pay whatever is asked, yes?
And these schools arnt found in ANZ, right?
-
"!00% open acceptance policy" = the parents/guardians will pay whatever is asked, yes?
Even so, all other things being equal - that is to say, the parents fronting up with the money - in the New Zealand where I reside private schools will choose the bright kids with good grades (going as far as to poach them from other schools) over the ones at the bottom of the curve. I haven't seen the opposite happening yet, but I keep an open mind.
-
"Bulk funding" (a terrible title) of individual schools versus centralised government funding (I've even forgotten the original term). New Zealand has brilliant public schools which have opted for either method.
I think Gordon you are viewing this through rose tinted glasses or the wrong end of the telescope. Schools are Bulk Funded for their operations grant. This covers all costs except teachers salaries. These are funded centrally through the MOE. Bulk Funding of teacher salaries was only ever trialled by the previous National Govt. It came up with an average amount for the salary of a teacher and the schools were given that amount times the number of teachers according to the staffing roll. The amount did not match what teachers were entitled to according to their employment agreement negotiated by the NZEI. Consequently if you had an older more experienced staff extra funds were needed to cover the salary bill and this would have come out of the operations grant-less money for curriculum etc. Conversely if you had a young staff your salary bill would be less than you were given in the bulk fund and you had extra money to play with. However in the trial the govt topped up the schools who had a shortfall to make the trial look like it was succeeding. Should this system have continued past a trial the next step was to have teachers negotiate individual agreements effectively killing the teacher unions and ultimately keeping teacher salaries low. Vouchers were part of this too as the school funding would be determined by the number of children enrolled and the value of the voucher they brought to the school. It was also a way of the then National govt taking less responsibility for public education. Thankfully we had a change of government and the madness disappeared.....until now!
-
nations with little or no natural resources have wised up and harnessed their brainpower. Right now in NZ our movers and shakers seem bent on the exact opposite.
Tells you all you need to know about their withered intellect and unconfident emptiness of spirit.
-
It was also a way of the then National govt taking less responsibility for public education. Thankfully we had a change of government and the madness disappeared.....until now!
Tony, thanks for this very detailed explanation of bulk funding and particularly for noting the top-ups paid to early adopting schools and schools that lost under the formula. I do wonder if bulk funding isn't back on the agenda; National never ceased promoting it, they simply lost an election. Moreover, some of bulk funding's most ardent extra-parliamentary supporters are now in National's caucus ie. Alan Peachey. Note that Peachey wasn't on the cross-party committee either.
-
Tells you all you need to know about their withered intellect and unconfident emptiness of spirit.
That's my quote of the day. Good one Sacha
-
[stands in pentagram with candles]
I summon the demon of statistics Keith Ng to prove or disprove...
Hypothesis 1: the bottom 20% will largely be in the poorer schools and the parents will not choose to move their kids because they don't have time or resources to pay extra school fees or cart their children around. The home schools will then be penalised a further 25% of the funding for these kids for not achieving.
Hypothesis 2: the top 5% will largely come from high decile schools with committed parents. They will easily achieve whatever standards are set and thereby gain extra funding.
Hypothesis 3: More importantly (for Acts supporters), some of the parents (with either the highest or lowest) will have enough money to top up to meet the tremendous cost of private schooling. In essence, it is a scholarship which can be taken up only by the wealthy.
[steps back, nothing happens]
-
For various reasons I’ve been thinking a lot about schools that beat the odds lately (schools with high need student populations but which get high achievement out of them). My inclination has been to agree with people who think that if we could figure out which schools do beat the odds we might learn something useful from them (the best argument against this was recently put to me by an expert on whole school reform who said that finding out what naturally occurring schools that beat the odds do would not tell us anything about what policymakers could actually make schools do, which is the useful thing we are trying to learn). But are there, in fact, any schools that beat the odds, and if so do we know which ones they are?
It seems that the answer to the second question really is no.
Very interesting post which I commend to you all. The cherry picking of students comes up.
-
Tells you all you need to know about their withered intellect and unconfident emptiness of spirit.
You what occured to me today? This is government is just like the Shipley one. Bereft of imagination, pinched and spiteful. And what is the link? The dismal double dipper Bill English, bringing the same brand of narrow minded provincial shop keeperism back, as if the decade he spent in opposition never happened.
-
So let me ask you: Is that the level of debate and discussion you expect to come up with answers to NZ's big challenges? If so, I'm in the wrong discussion group on the wrong subject on the wrong blog.
I'm not sure if the triumphal tone of your response was warranted by the quality of your argument there, Gordon.
-
Ah, now I have got it.
So: Giovanni, in his 4020th post to Russell's website, after being challenged on his claims about the top US RESEARCH universities, starts quoting an article about how many US (non-research) universities have been quoted at the bottom of world tables.
Welcome back, Rush.
Then, after challenging me to name even one private school who accepts students without discrimination of grades (and I quote the two that, from my own personal experience, are the best in the world (to be fair, I should have explained the best that I have personally visited in the last 20 years of personal and in-contact research), and I mention two that I am personally associated with . .
comes back: "Too bad it's hardly likely to solve the issue of the ones that won't take those kids." (a completely different issue).
And then, in answer to the charge that he's sounding like Rush Limbaugh from "the left", comes back: "Oh, I see. So you want a free market approach so that we'll somehow produce these marvellous 'world class' research universities in spite of our lack of money to fund them, but you won't entertain any of the drawbacks. Well, that was a fullsome debate! Sorry for bringing up an impolite fact."
Yeah. Right? Can't remember arguing for a "free-market" or any other discussion, except for an open-minded debate comparing all the best things that work in the world, analysing them, comparing them and then seeing if we can come up with something better.
I thought I had spelled out how, around the world (and especially in NZ) I had found some great private and public schools (mostly public) and teachers who were and are achieving incredible results for students. Now I am wanting "a free-market approach so that we'll somehow produce these marvellous world-class universities."
Sorry, guys, but I thought this was advocating the scientific the scientific method (but then I left school— public one— illegally at 14).
Now comes "Islander" ( in his 1865th post), saying:
"Gordon Dryden: By 'private school', you mean a 'school that teaches students for money? Yes?"
Answer: No. All schools cost money to run, and some are paid for out of taxes (money) and some are paid for in contributions from students or their parent (money). In both cases, teachers are paid with money, and so are all other operational expenses. In some systems, if parents opt out of the government funded system, the Government allows them a tax rebate or other dispensation to back their own judgement. So whether teachers are employed by gthe government or privae schools, they teach students as a career (and often with great passion) and are paid with money.
Let me quote a personal example and a current one:
1: In 1945, at a state secondary school in Christchurch, I wanted to become a journalist, and wanted to learn shorthand and typing. The school ruled that only girls could do that:-) They also insisted that I should read only one book in three months ("The Merchant of Venice") and be tested on that, when I was personally reading four books a week. So I left school and (a) worked on a farm while I took and paid for two courses from the International Correspondence School, in journalism and short story writing (fortunately they earned me a job in journalism) and then (2) I went to Gilbey"s private "commercial school in Wellington" and (at a fee which I paid) learned shorthand and typing.
So in both cases, two non-government schools helped me achieve my ambitions - from non-Government companies that provided a service (for which I paid) and, out of that, they earned both an income to pay the people who taught me and (hopefully a profit).
In other words, in the govt system that diseriminated against boys, and in the other two, both employees "taught for money"."!00% open acceptance policy" = the parents/guardians will pay whatever is asked, yes?
That was not the question raised: Giovanni's claim was that
"private" (and I will look as that separately in a moment) schools deliberately screened out those whose low pass-rates would lower their reputation."And these schools are not found in NZ, right?"
The two I mentioned are not in New Zealand (when challenged to name one).
But how many would you like to name? Let's start in Auckland where I live:
1. It is a a standing joke (unfortunately) that, wherever they go after high school, 39 percent of Auckland university students drop out at the end of the first year, and the next 11 percent (making 50% in total) drop out at the end of year 2. Universities don't complain because their income (what teachers do for money) comes from the government "from bums on seat" and not for results.
2. In the field where I earn my income (interactive, multimedia communications), we have some great competition from three big state-funded (does that mean "public") institutions: Unitec, Auckland University of Technology and Manukau Institute of Technology; and from some independent ("private"?) colleges such as the Media Design School. Now, if you want to check on who the smart employers employ (in, say, the field of video editing), let me tell you what you will find: Even the good graduates come after a three year course for which their institutions are paid for "bums on seats" for three years — and it's a joke that up to a year of that is spent on "the history of television (which any student could learn in a weekend). However, the students of Media Design School don;t normally attend it until early in their 20s (after some early work experience—as I did in journalism—), and then spending between 9 months and 18 months. at their own expense, to learn the specific work-skills they have decided they need.
So "by private school, you mean a school that teaches for money"?
No: in my experience, great teachers — whoever their employers — teach because they love it, and almost the money they earn is incidental (invariably they can earn much bigger money in international schools around the world — those, for instance, which oil companies have to run in the tropics to attract staff).
Tom Parker: Good queries on "bulk funding" - or, really, the concept of local communities running "charter schools" (ie, all New Zealand schools) and then receiving the same govt income as other schools with the same number of pupils.
For the life of me, I can't see the argument against this. I call it democracy.
Let's go back to the argument for setting up Tomorrow's Schools at the end of the 80s but in practice in the early 90s.
1. Instead of splitting the total govt budget between a govt dept of Education, regional education boards and individual schools, the Picot Report (commissioned by David Lange as PM and Minister of Ed) opted to abolish the dept and Education (apart from a small advisory Ministry) and turn all funds over to individual schools to both (a) achieve national curriculum standards and (b) aim to achieve excellence in specific fields (like dual-Polynesian and English languages).
2. Even before that came in, New Zealand had excellent schools achieving that aim. Let me tell you of three I personally visited in 1990:
* Carterton Intermediate, which ran its own trout hatchery, forestry and farm ( in a rich farming area), so students learned to link their classroom (and school studies) with their farming community. (OK, gang, please write your blog why you feel it is better to be lectured in a classroom than to use the whole world as your school?)
* Tikipunga High in Whangarei, already the model for setting up a high school where students of any age (I interviewed an 80 year old learning to type) could achieve their goals. (By the way: most schools are used foe about 210% of the waking hours of their sudents.. Think that great ? Or crazy? And
* Freyberg High School in Palmerston North, the scene of an incredibly innovative experiment in "integrated studies", where students (in a joint research partnership between Massey University, IBM and Freyberg) went out and studied real-world problems and produced great results.
Islander: I still get a kick showing video around the world to demonstrate those great New Zealand initiatives — and many more — all at state-funded ("public?") schools. (Guess which union chose to make sure these did not go ahead?)
The Picot Committee's report recommended that individual school communities should encourage their schools to be innovators in similar ways, and that the money saved, by slicing through bureaucracy, should be given to the locally-elected school board to achieve their innovative goals.
In my view, it was a great disaster that the teacher unions united to stop this kind of initiative because they opposed "bulk funding" for individual schools.
For the record, I am not anti-union (former Slaughtermen's Union Delegate at a leading meat company, later editor of the Meat Workers Journal).
But teachers' unions (around world) represent their own vested interests as much as the Medical Associations and tenured university professors.
Have a stimulating night, team
-
(By the way: most schools are used foe about 210% of the waking hours of their sudents.. Think that great ? Or crazy? )
Typing mistake: should read 20%.
Russell: re
I'm not sure if the triumphal tone of your response was warranted by the quality of your argument there, Gordon.
Sorry, mate: I just feel I have tuned in, at times, to a Leighton Smith talkshow (the comments, not your generally well-structured open-minded discussion-leads).
But I guess, with up to 4000 contributions from some of your team, I should keep reading your blog each day (and Graham Beattie's Blog, and others around the globe) but perhaps not get involved in follow-on discussions. Otherwise, at almost age 79, my 120 over 80 blood pressure may finally rise.
-
-
If so, I'm in the wrong discussion group on the wrong subject on the wrong blog.
Good luck with finding a better one..
-
Gordon:
For the life of me, I can't see the argument against this. I call it democracy.
You mean, the very clear argument Tony made in which he laid out exactly why NZ's experiment with bulk funding ended up cutting funds from school operational budgets? Because it's just up the page. You could read it again. When you combine that sort of statement with your later ideas about 'innovation' and 'slicing through bureaucracy' and a slam on teachers' unions for being self-interested, you're now at alarm-bell-levels - perhaps, dare I say, talkback radio levels? - of weasel words.
More trivially, I am deeply troubled by your assertion that anyone could learn the history of television in a weekend. My entire life is now a lie. :)
(Also, tallying everyone's post count as some sort of insult - I assume? - is... a little odd. Yes, indeed, some people have posted here at Public Address System many times. What's your point?)
-
But I guess, with up to 4000 contributions from some of your team,
Hey! Just one of them popping in, but That was a bit snarky. Can I suggest, don't be so rude. All sorts of people understand things differently, and you are just one thing.so if you feel like being that dismissive, I guess comments and your argument are'nt good enough, and I guess you can't see another either. Sorry you cant get everyone agreeing with you. Must be frustrating eh?
-
Gordon Dryden - in most ANZ schools, parents will pay some fees over and above their taxes - e.g. school trips, stationary, etc.
MOST ANZ parents will *not* be paying several thousand dollars a term for their child's/children's education. You know that perfectly well. Your comments are disengenuous - and you know that too.
O - the slightly snide bit 'bout posting totals?
Some of us have been posting for years- I'm a relative newcomer but note the earliest post...
-
I am deeply troubled by your assertion that anyone could learn the history of television in a weekend. My entire life is now a lie.
I fear the same. I am currently researching the second 25 years of television in New Zealand (1985-2010) and, one year into it, I feel I need another 5 or so years to do it full justice (policy shifts, programming, technological change, audiences etc etc). So, it is not so much that we disagree with you holus bolus, Gordon. I reckon it is individuals responding to particular assertions you make, which tend to undermine the good stuff.
-
No: in my experience, great teachers — whoever their employers — teach because they love it, and almost the money they earn is incidental
Really? The great teachers I know are feeding families and servicing mortgages. And they're grateful for what their union has been able to do to improve their incomes in recent years.
(invariably they can earn much bigger money in international schools around the world — those, for instance, which oil companies have to run in the tropics to attract staff).
"Invariably"? You don't think there might be quite a few great teachers with any number of personal and professional commitments to New Zealand? I can't see that suggesting they can leave if they don't like their pay rates is going to help.
Anecdotes are interesting, we all like flexible and innovative schools -- but there's some good research on charter school systems (including the huge Stanford study I noted upthread), and overall it's not that encouraging.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.