Posts by 81stcolumn
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Despite claims at various times that he would leave the politicians to run his party he remains the centre of attraction in the promotion of a political party he owns.
Mmmm how refreshing, someone bankrolls a political party is transparent about doing so and we are under no illusions as to why. Compared to financial trust driven politicking or good ol' lobbying I fail to see the problem here. At least an informed choice may be made. I remain uncomfortable at the thought that my vote may or may not be competing with the Alcohol lobby or those who measure success in yards of tarmac/concrete. Especially when confronted by structures deliberately designed to obscure their involvement.
-
FWIW:
I remember chanting. - "Fuck Thatcher, fuck the tax, we want our country back !"
I was not drunk (though it may have appeared otherwise), it was broad daylight and I was with a large group of youths. I may regret the conjunction of particular verbs and genders now, but I do not regret the sentiment. As someone who had already supported picketing miners before then, I may well have taken offense at any suggestion that I was associated with fascism by virtue of abusing a sitting prime minister. Such a suggestion may have been seen as inciteful at the time. I would also have been quite upset to have my actions interpreted as those of a misogynist would be rapist.
My long winded point, is to suggest that folk take care when labeling the the actions of others. Particularly young people who can be bothered to say anything at all. Perhaps the best answer is not to guess, bringing to bear whatever expectations and prejudices you possess but to ask; you may be surprised by the answer.
-
Hard News: The crybaby philosopher, in reply to Stephen Hill,
I don't doubt that crimes against logic will discuss petitio principii begging the question.
In so far as Whyte assumes material privilege without properly defining or verifying it then he is guilty of the above crime. My privileged white middle class educators taught me to ignore such arguments, specifically because they have no resolution. Consequently they are a distraction from more productive pursuits. ;-)
-
If I may......
We need to stop thinking and reinforcing the view that things like this don't happen in the spaces that we inhabit.
-
"raise the standard of entry into the teaching profession by requiring the Teachers Council to establish and maintain a vigorous process for pre-screening entry into all initial teacher education programmes. "
I did wonder if somone was going to pick up on this.
To what “standards” does this statement refer?
This at best seems miscommunicated. AFAIK universities, not the Teachers Council have the final say over who gets on to courses. I'm pretty sure applicants are police checked and reasonably sure that references are requested. Most institutions undertake personal interviews as part of the admissions process. I'm not sure what latitude the Teachers Council has in this matter. Raising standards may also refer to the way in which teachers are trained or the capabilities/motives of those applying. I would of course be delighted to see teaching become more attractive and rewarding than it is at the moment, which might help a great deal with the quality of those applying. I would also like to see the qualification extended over two years. But I’m not sure this is a problem for the Teachers Council to solve. Indeed on the basis the above statement it is unclear what the problem is. I do know this. Becoming a better teacher, like any other form of learning requires time and support, neither of which is self-evident in the current set of proposals.
-
Hard News: Now win the argument, in reply to linger,
John O’Neill who is widely cited in the Stuff article made a similar point to one which has been raised here: There is a difference between evidence based policy and policy supported by evidence (policy in search of evidence). Both Labour and Nats have fallen into the latter trap, it may also be that NZ is in danger of losing the ability to implement the former process.
Small classes will work if they are supported by a reduction in regulatory and compliance overheads (read testing and national standards) and if teachers are allowed to exploit pedagogies that make best use of the extra available time (not teach to the test).
O’Neill also states the obvious in that if you want to tie in the tail (underachievers) then target your resources at the tail.
I would echo Hattie’s point about the best effects – giving teachers a day a week in which to learn, mark work properly and give proper feedback may be of more benefit.
learning how to give good feedback is not as easy as it seems......
-
Goodbye to one dangerous brother.
-
I don’t know if this really belongs here but I have wanted to get this out for days.
A fair proportion of the work on the pathology* of autism points to early developmental differences that become manifest later in life. There clearly has been a struggle to identify a single common feature that would form the basis of a coherent diagnostic system. This is a problem for anyone figuring out how to help and damning for those who want a cure.
i) Without clarity over causal factors the concept of a cure is improbable if not impossible.
ii) The lack of an unambiguous diagnostic marker at birth or pre-birth means to say that key developmental differences are already in place at the time of identification. These differences are in all likelihood irreversible. In this context the concept of a cure is also redundant.
iii) Evolution provides a developing brain with a high degree of plasticity and the need for coherent environmental stimulus. This is part of what makes us human. Where a brain is formed differently shortly after birth the relationship between brain and environment continues on a different trajectory. This new trajectory is determined by the scope of the original developmental shift but it still continues and is shaped to a greater or lesser extent by environment. The combination of an unexpected trajectory and an unstable environment means to say that each autistic child will have different needs and in turn different brains.
iv) Different brains means to say that any attempt at treatment has to be on a case by case basis. The basic behavioural component of ABA has clear rules, but the environment in which it has to operate is multi factored. The key issue here is; does the behaviour analyst know what to reward and what not to? How would they know? This must involve a degree of trial and error at best. However both the expectations of society and what has worked in the past will be driving factors here. With this in mind trial and error gets harder as expectations conflict with the reality of a different brain that quite often cannot be described by the owner. The point here is that even if ABA were to be recognised as a useful way to steer development, it still needs a model of patient matching which comes back to a better understanding of the condition itself. Interestingly a possible alternative is a lot of structured observation (the sort of thing that siblings and grandparents can be quite useful for). What we have at present is a lottery.
Some other points:
Developing children respond to a diverse range of environmental cues. The life outside “treatment” remains and is influential in unpredictable ways regardless of the intent of caregivers. This can be a good and bad thing.
We have learned from injury studies just how adaptable brains can be. Many of the same life problems can be solved in vastly different but nonetheless effective ways. It happens all the time.
The very fact that I can write this is testament to the power of care, patience and to some extent maturation; I guess I got lucky.
At some point when I am a little more settled I may write about the discourses surrounding adult treatment and cures along with why I personally don’t care for TMS.
Writing like this does have consequences so if you will excuse me….
*What separates “difference” from “pathology” is a moot point - as eccentricity might speak to mental illness. This is the curse of psychology, in that much of what is discussed as illness/pathology has to be socially constructed. The people described as having a particular pathology" should where possible have a significant stake-holding in its construction and description. This is to my limited experience not always the case. -
So poor Judith is the victim in all this:
“It is actually a forum where people can be very abusive towards me and I’m just not doing it.”
Of course, none of the stress she is under has anything to do with her corrupt behaviour or dishonesty….
And to think not all that long ago she was the one scaring people on Twitter. Now that the Twitterverse is turning against her, I wonder if she’ll start calling for it to be Mubarak-ed?
Quiztime! Who said on twitter;
"vile, wrong and ugly, just like her jacket today"?
-
or 50% oregano thanks to the local skinheads we’d buy from
Perhaps more fun than trying to smoke a mixture of curry powder and golden syrup, as was once the case for a bunch of hash fiends of my acquaintance.