Posts by Mikaere Curtis
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
In an ideal world it would be more inclusive and have more genres, but to suggest cutting it because it only represents one culture is cutting off your nose to spite your face.
I didn't suggest cutting it, I said it was difficult to make a case for it from a public good perspective, and I pointed out that there is probably room in the market for a (likely mainstream) classical music station. And I meant that as it currently stands - if we had a Concert FM that was truly representative of our bi-cultural and multi-ethnic society, then yeah, the public good argument would be rock solid.
As it stands, Concert FM could be seen as being elitist (albeit with token concessions to other music genres), and is that really what we want ?
You owe me a desk.
Maybe so, but your point is ?
-
The Concert FM is an artefact of our colonial heritage, from a time when "culture" was viewed through an entirely Eurocentric lens. It is clear from any rational review of the content that this is largely the case today, despite the few hours of non-classical content each week.
It certainly does not appear to be reflective of our current bil-cultural society. I couldn't find any Maori or Pasifika content when I took a look at the site.
I agree with Sacha and Danyl, it is difficult to make a case for Concert FM from a public good perspective. If classical music is as popular as it has been suggested in this thread, then the market would surely be able to deliver it ? Perhaps the main reason preventing the market supplying an alternative is the Concert FM enjoys a natural monopoly.
-
Let's parse the text, then...
"If boards don't play ball, at the end of the day [replacing them] is the ultimate sanction but we're nowhere near that stage.
versus
"If boards don't play ball, at the end of the day [replacing them] is the ultimate sanction.
IMO, both statements contain an element of threat. Why would a minister make such a statement, if not to convey an implicit threat ?
Good on Sue for drawing attention to this. I note that it is getting excellent coverage at RNZ, so perhaps those who work there, and actually know what's going, on agree that there is something to this story ?
-
The amount of the particular student’s scholarship would be developed using a formula that weights for the particular student’s needs48—this will mean that portions of monies currently bulk-provided under different headings may need to be redirected if a fiscally neutral system is the only option. Providers will also be incentivised by receiving more per capita than they currently receive.
What they are saying is that kids who qualify as gifted or struggling will be given extra funding because they cost more to educate. Assuming fiscal neutrality (as mentioned in the above quote), that funding will be at the expense of ordinary kids.
Bonuses are paid for substantially lifting the performance of low achieving students or gifted students to new levels.
So, where's this money going to come from, if not from the budgets of non-provider schools ?
So, yet another Act-led scheme based on failed policies, and which predictably has the effect of enabling a rort of tax-payer money.
I'm very disappointed that the Maori Party went along with this rubbish.
-
The most sensible option – skittling the ugly sheds on Queen's Wharf and installing high-quality temporary structures for the tournament – also has the considerable virtue of being the cheapest, at $23 million (although even that seems relatively high).
I took a long, hard, look at them last time I came back from Waiheke. Good God they are an eyesore. The tourists next to me concurred.
It really doesn't seem that hard.
It certainly looks like the prime motivation is really an attempt to create McCully's Folly on the harbour.
-
Very interesting post, Gordon.
Shanker says he is bowled over with what we are attempting here. New Zealand is already top five in the world for its quality of education -- something he is puzzled to find we do not seem too aware of.
Quite.
One of the features of the post-Bill English National Party is the way they constructed memes around "Labour has made us the worst in the world". High taxes, low educational attainment, red tape holding business back - all of these memes are the opposite of objective reality, but they persisted in the memes, supported by a lazy and compliant MSM.
I've thought of a solution to the League Tables problem:
If the problem is incompetent teachers, the solution surely rests with the BOT and the Principal. MOE knowing the name of an underperforming teacher is not going to help at all.
So, we could simply submit all the data anonymously, using teacher and class codes known only to the school. The cohort of school data would be similarly coded, and include regional and demographic data, so we could analyse by regional, demographics etc.
Ministry could data mine and compile lists, and schools could be informed of where they stack up and which teachers need assistance, but unless you have access to all the school codes, you would not be able to create a league table, and certainly not drill down to individual classes or teachers.
-
Great post, Russell.
I've had a cursory scan of some of the documents on the MOE site, and what I've seen look pretty well though out. As Russell points out, those charged with deliverying this seem to be doing their best at creating a mechanism for ascertaining a child's progress.
The good news is that they aren't specifying specific assessment mechanisms, and include concepts like Overall Teacher Judgement and Moderation which implies flexibility and peer review.
The bad news is that it is politcally driven, right from the ramming through under Urgency. My reading of it is that Key and Tolley are expounding the meme that the teacher union, in opposing this rushed legislated programme, are attempting to protect incompetent teachers.
I've seen first hand what it takes to identify and address the problem of an incompetent teacher, and I can tell you that you certainly don't need a National Standard to do it.
No, what I think Key and Tolley are doing is setting the union up as the cause of failure when their soundbite-based programme gets itself into strife.
Here's how it will go down:
1. Schools will invest significant resources in modifying their assessment mechanisms to measure against the stipulations of the National Standards.
2. Parents of kids who are currently struggling will not be surprised by the confirmation that their kids are struggling
3. Schools now have reduced resources to deal with the kids that we already know are struggling
4. Parents of struggling kids will be unhappy, and because schools are actually communities, all their mates who have kids above the measurement line will be pissed off too.
5. Key and Tolley will attempt to spin this as a problem with the teachers and their union, not their half-pai plan.Back to the implementation, my big problem is that multi-age learning groups, which has been the norm for my kids, is now going to become a defacto interim measure success against the standards, one that will be painfully obvious to all the kids.
Throughout primary school, my kids would learn in groups associated with their level, and do tasks associated with the level of ability. It was normal to mix age groups up.
In Tolley's half-arsed vision for our educational future, kids will work out that if they are in with pre-dominantly younger kids, it is because they are FAILING. What a shit message to send to our kids.
My other problem is that I haven't been able to figure our what the standards will be for bilingual or immersion programmes. My son's primary school has three bilingual units (Maori, Samoan, French), and I think it is indicative of the blithe approach that Tolley has to her portfolio that these appear to have been neglected. You can't just map English-medium outcomes onto a bilingual programme, so I suppose my son (and his unit) run the risk of being measured as failures because of this - despite the fact that current research indicates that bilingualism results in markedly better outcomes in the learning of BOTH languages.
Typical of many of the Key ministers - ignore the research, adhere to dogma instead.
-
But Corporations don't act on heart. They act out of wallet, first and foremost.
The current Apple strategy will never force Corporations to change.
In my experience, corporations are politically driven first, and rational second.
We demoed a mobile application to a large corporate customer last year. Their first question was "What does it look like on an iPhone ?". No one at the meeting owned an iPhone, and someone had to rush around the floor until they found someone who did.
Apple has a certain zeitgeist which seems to be able to defy some rational constraints.
-
My favourite is Breaking Away. Even the series (made about 10 years later) wasn't as bad as you'd expect.
I was at Linford Christie stadium to watch the '95 RWC final. It was an incredible atmosphere. We were so bummed when we lost. God it was depressing, we were all speechless. Then I said: "Look, this is the first time since ending Apartheid that South Africa can really hold it's head high in the international community." It helped a bit.
Y'know, I went to school with Walter Little and he's a good mate of my brother, but it's never occurred to ask him about that food poisoning incident. Meh, we lost and that's pretty much the end of it.
Still, I made 5 quid on a bet with an Englander work colleague from the ABs vs England semi. And it was really cool to start my OE with NZ being so high in the public eye.
-
If Apple can engender real passion in their customers, more power to them. It wasn't so long ago the the personal computing industry was characterised as one massive effort to catch up with Apple. As of Windows 7, Microsoft may have finally caught up.
I like the wow factor of some of Apple's products. The iPod and the iPhone have really cool interfaces that seem really intuitive the first time you use them. A few years ago a workmate was extolling the features of his iRiver. You could mount it as an external drive etc. I told him he'd traded cool for functionality. He didn't get it.
Me, I've only got the one - an iPod mini (thanks again, Mr Slack) - but I can certainly see the benefits of the other products in the Apple stable.
Right now, the iPad doesn't fit with my needs. Sure, it would be great to have one floating around so you can surf while watching TV, but unless it can run those Facebook apps my wife and daughter are so fond of, it remains a non-started. Maybe version 2.0...
I'm not so bothered about the openness of it, if I want open then I'll stick to my laptop.
Flash is a vampire and Adobe needs to fix it.
Maybe the iPad should simply support Silverlight instead ?