RugbyRebels

Sing it loud Cas!!

U.K. view on Key

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... p_Facebook

The rats are fleeing the ship...

TPP was basically dead, now it appears it's proper dead. Bill English is still holding out hope though, like some sort of forlorn lover. Seriously, is this a hill worth dying on, Billybob?

cashead wrote:TPP was basically dead, now it appears it's proper dead. Bill English is still holding out hope though, like some sort of forlorn lover. Seriously, is this a hill worth dying on, Billybob?

Trump is like a stopped clock. He'll be right every now and again, through sheer luck mostly, and this is one of those occasions.

The problem of course is he will want to enter a new deal that more heavily favours the US, and our problem was it already too heavily favoured them. So we dodged a rodgering but now they're coming back, just without the lube this time, and I reckon Bill is dead keen.

jared_7 wrote:

cashead wrote:TPP was basically dead, now it appears it's proper dead. Bill English is still holding out hope though, like some sort of forlorn lover. Seriously, is this a hill worth dying on, Billybob?

Trump is like a stopped clock. He'll be right every now and again, through sheer luck mostly, and this is one of those occasions.

The problem of course is he will want to enter a new deal that more heavily favours the US, and our problem was it already too heavily favoured them. So we dodged a rodgering but now they're coming back, just without the lube this time, and I reckon Bill is dead keen.

This is a big problem. Our village idiots are not looking out for us. Good call on the stopped clock. And the lube.

morepork wrote:

jared_7 wrote:

cashead wrote:TPP was basically dead, now it appears it's proper dead. Bill English is still holding out hope though, like some sort of forlorn lover. Seriously, is this a hill worth dying on, Billybob?

Trump is like a stopped clock. He'll be right every now and again, through sheer luck mostly, and this is one of those occasions.

The problem of course is he will want to enter a new deal that more heavily favours the US, and our problem was it already too heavily favoured them. So we dodged a rodgering but now they're coming back, just without the lube this time, and I reckon Bill is dead keen.

This is a big problem. Our village idiots are not looking out for us**. Good call on the stopped clock. And the lube.

**THIS.

This is why Trump won. It's almost the only reason. The political class running the western democracies were handed the sweetest political deal in all of human history and they fecked it up because they couldn't even bother to maintain the pretense of representing their own citizen's interests.

They seriously deserve Trump.

But he's going to roger a serious number of people who don't deserve it. OTOH, until NZrs wake up and overturn the idiocratic duopoly that has controlled NZ politics for at least 12 decades too long, they're going to keep getting the shaft.

September 23rd, motherfuckers.

cashead wrote:September 23rd, motherfuckers.

Cas - how is the TOP party education policy going down with teachers? I see he has just come out against performance related pay as well:

http://www.top.org.nz/performance_pay_f ... _territory

Not getting much press, as expected, but would be interested to hear whether its gaining traction in education circles.

I have no idea about performance based pay, but throwing an entire high school education into a few 7th form exams seems odd, to say the least.

The New Zealand Initiative has profound conflicts of interest here. They are pushing charter schools and privitisation like mad. They were heavily involved in setting up EDUCANZ. Dodgy.

zer0 wrote:I have no idea about performance based pay, but throwing an entire high school education into a few 7th form exams seems odd, to say the least.

Know a couple of NZ teachers over here and they have basically said standardised testing is ridiculous and NZ is moving closer and closer to what they have in the US and UK whereby your entire year is set up around sitting tests. There are usually tests every month or so. The students don't learn, they just memorise stuff for testing. They are both pretty positive about the policy in general, especially the more heavy funding towards ECE as opposed to a later age.

As I understood it you would still earn NCEA credits throughout your school years, they just reduce the amount of standardised exams to one, at the end. EDIT: Also, seems there would still be testing at the end of each year, they would just not be "standardised" or used to rank performance.

Like I said, be interesting to see how Cas reads it.

Maybe its like their tax policy - where they are in the right ballpark but perhaps take it too far (tax on the family home), you can imagine in power it would be the extreme ends of the policy that would go.

jared_7 wrote:

cashead wrote:September 23rd, motherfuckers.

Cas - how is the TOP party education policy going down with teachers? I see he has just come out against performance related pay as well:

http://www.top.org.nz/performance_pay_f ... _territory

Not getting much press, as expected, but would be interested to hear whether its gaining traction in education circles.

With much contempt. The whole idea of "performance pay" in education is actually ridiculous, because it punishes teachers that have to work within conditions and with factors outside of their control.

A stark example are my Y9 classes - one is low ability, full of kids from rough households, and occasionally with drug issues (3 of them in my low ability Y9 class last year got smoking the reefer last year, and I half-expect the same to happen later this year. One of them has basically been expelled for assault a couple of weeks in, the fucking divot); the other is an extension class that I love to bits. I'd hug the lot of them, if I could. If I struggle with the low ability class, there will be a lot there that is caused by shit outside of my sphere of influence. With the extension kids, I know I'm going to go gangbusters with them. Does that mean I should earn a bonus for that? Fuck no. It's something I lucked into. If I deserve a performance bonus for anything, it's that I managed to drag a shitload of senior students - including ones I don't even teach - across the line at L1 and L2, including pushing them to get Merit and Excellence endorsements - and that only happened because I sacrificed most of the free time I had last year for them. Not that I expect nor feel entitled to a bonus or anything of the sort.

Basically, it's likely to punish teachers working in mid-to-low decile schools, who struggle to get much out of kids that end up shitty because they live shitty lives with shitty families.

cashead wrote:

jared_7 wrote:

cashead wrote:September 23rd, motherfuckers.

Cas - how is the TOP party education policy going down with teachers? I see he has just come out against performance related pay as well:

http://www.top.org.nz/performance_pay_f ... _territory

Not getting much press, as expected, but would be interested to hear whether its gaining traction in education circles.

With much contempt. The whole idea of "performance pay" in education is actually ridiculous, because it punishes teachers that have to work within conditions and with factors outside of their control.

A stark example are my Y9 classes - one is low ability, full of kids from rough households, and occasionally with drug issues (3 of them in my low ability Y9 class last year got smoking the reefer last year, and I half-expect the same to happen later this year. One of them has basically been expelled for assault a couple of weeks in, the fucking divot); the other is an extension class that I love to bits. I'd hug the lot of them, if I could. If I struggle with the low ability class, there will be a lot there that is caused by shit outside of my sphere of influence. With the extension kids, I know I'm going to go gangbusters with them. Does that mean I should earn a bonus for that? Fuck no. It's something I lucked into. If I deserve a performance bonus for anything, it's that I managed to drag a shitload of senior students - including ones I don't even teach - across the line at L1 and L2, including pushing them to get Merit and Excellence endorsements - and that only happened because I sacrificed most of the free time I had last year for them. Not that I expect nor feel entitled to a bonus or anything of the sort.

Basically, it's likely to punish teachers working in mid-to-low decile schools, who struggle to get much out of kids that end up shitty because they live shitty lives with shitty families.

Their policy is strongly against performance-related pay. In fact the article linked to highlights the exact things you just said - it will see all the teachers trying to move to better schools and increase the inequality of teaching standards.

I'm guessing its not carrying much weight then, if people don't get it?

Sorry to butt in on your turf but a similar argument is/was being had in the UK over performance related pay (it seems to have gone away with Gove). The way it was trailed as working here was to base it on progression/improvement of a class and the kids within it rather than on pure exam grades. Last year's results were also used this way to rank schools, ie you were given a mark for how much your kids improved against their base test. Therefore, if you took a bunch of no hopers from (using UK grading from my years in school) F up to D you performed better than someone who took an average class from C up to B. There are some flaws in the system, as there always will be, but it seems a much fairer way of ranking schools and, if performance based pay is introduced, those teachers with the schools.
It also allows for smoothing/averaging over a career and if you get the odd class full of Lord Lucans you can prove they are an anomaly. It also allows for the incentive for teachers in poorer schools (standards not money) to earn a lot more as there is more scope to improve the students.

Mellsblue wrote:Sorry to butt in on your turf but a similar argument is/was being had in the UK over performance related pay (it seems to have gone away with Gove). The way it was trailed as working here was to base it on progression/improvement of a class and the kids within it rather than on pure exam grades. Last year's results were also used this way to rank schools, ie you were given a mark for how much your kids improved against their base test. Therefore, if you took a bunch of no hopers from (using UK grading from my years in school) F up to D you performed better than someone who took an average class from C up to B. There are some flaws in the system, as there always will be, but it seems a much fairer way of ranking schools and, if performance based pay is introduced, those teachers with the schools.
It also allows for smoothing/averaging over a career and if you get the odd class full of Lord Lucans you can prove they are an anomaly. It also allows for the incentive for teachers in poorer schools (standards not money) to earn a lot more as there is more scope to improve the students.

It was an interesting step in the right direction, but from what I hear the issue is there is still a huge focus on standardised testing. My Kiwi mate who teaches in a secondary school in North East London said the amount of tests his kids had to sit (in History and Geography) went up - he said his curriculum was basically laid out in month-long cycles, whereby the students spend 3 weeks revising for a test, sit the test, then he gets one week of actual two-way, thoughtful dialogue before they have to start revising for the next test to "make sure they are on track".

jared_7 wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Sorry to butt in on your turf but a similar argument is/was being had in the UK over performance related pay (it seems to have gone away with Gove). The way it was trailed as working here was to base it on progression/improvement of a class and the kids within it rather than on pure exam grades. Last year's results were also used this way to rank schools, ie you were given a mark for how much your kids improved against their base test. Therefore, if you took a bunch of no hopers from (using UK grading from my years in school) F up to D you performed better than someone who took an average class from C up to B. There are some flaws in the system, as there always will be, but it seems a much fairer way of ranking schools and, if performance based pay is introduced, those teachers with the schools.
It also allows for smoothing/averaging over a career and if you get the odd class full of Lord Lucans you can prove they are an anomaly. It also allows for the incentive for teachers in poorer schools (standards not money) to earn a lot more as there is more scope to improve the students.

It was an interesting step in the right direction, but from what I hear the issue is there is still a huge focus on standardised testing. My Kiwi mate who teaches in a secondary school in North East London said the amount of tests his kids had to sit (in History and Geography) went up - he said his curriculum was basically laid out in month-long cycles, whereby the students spend 3 weeks revising for a test, sit the test, then he gets one week of actual two-way, thoughtful dialogue before they have to start revising for the next test to "make sure they are on track".

Yeah, the amounting of testing/exams has gone through the roof. Gove had a hard on for them. I think the system, with literally no professional basis on which to comment, has become too slack but Gove was obsessed with learning by rote and old fashioned academic rigour. He, and his top SPAD, was far too dogmatic and tried to push things too far too quickly - I think a lot can be blamed on his SPAD - and he paid the price. There were some good ideas in there - ranking by improvements rather than grades being one of them - but he just lost the plot.

jared_7 wrote:

cashead wrote:

jared_7 wrote:
Cas - how is the TOP party education policy going down with teachers? I see he has just come out against performance related pay as well:

http://www.top.org.nz/performance_pay_f ... _territory

Not getting much press, as expected, but would be interested to hear whether its gaining traction in education circles.

With much contempt. The whole idea of "performance pay" in education is actually ridiculous, because it punishes teachers that have to work within conditions and with factors outside of their control.

A stark example are my Y9 classes - one is low ability, full of kids from rough households, and occasionally with drug issues (3 of them in my low ability Y9 class last year got smoking the reefer last year, and I half-expect the same to happen later this year. One of them has basically been expelled for assault a couple of weeks in, the fucking divot); the other is an extension class that I love to bits. I'd hug the lot of them, if I could. If I struggle with the low ability class, there will be a lot there that is caused by shit outside of my sphere of influence. With the extension kids, I know I'm going to go gangbusters with them. Does that mean I should earn a bonus for that? Fuck no. It's something I lucked into. If I deserve a performance bonus for anything, it's that I managed to drag a shitload of senior students - including ones I don't even teach - across the line at L1 and L2, including pushing them to get Merit and Excellence endorsements - and that only happened because I sacrificed most of the free time I had last year for them. Not that I expect nor feel entitled to a bonus or anything of the sort.

Basically, it's likely to punish teachers working in mid-to-low decile schools, who struggle to get much out of kids that end up shitty because they live shitty lives with shitty families.

Their policy is strongly against performance-related pay. In fact the article linked to highlights the exact things you just said - it will see all the teachers trying to move to better schools and increase the inequality of teaching standards.

I'm guessing its not carrying much weight then, if people don't get it?

Sorry, I was thinking of the other policy suggestion. Me am read words gud.

Yeah, ol' Gazza Morgan's been met with some skepticism because if there's anything our country needs, it's a rich, old white man telling everyone what's what, right?

Ardern's elevation to Deputy Leader of Labour is now a mere formality (the internal vote happens on Tuesday), having been nominated by Little.

Raymond Huo is expected to return to Parliament as a list MP as a result of Ardern's landslide win in Mt. Albert.

Yeah - a whole 29% of the electorate voted in the Mt.Albert election - 71% could not be arsed - landslide indeed ...
Ardern will go far - not sure where though

I voted in Mt Albert, mostly so I can complain later.

What was dumb was the only candidates with any realistic chance were already MPs. What we were voting on was really a choice between the two no-names next on the Lab and Green Party lists.

I also don't get all this gushing over Ardern's looks. First, it's fucking irrelevant and frankly shameful in this day and age. Secondly, she might look ok next to other MPs but in reality she looks like Hugo Weaving in a wig.

Lizard wrote:I voted in Mt Albert, mostly so I can complain later.

What was dumb was the only candidates with any realistic chance were already MPs. What we were voting on was really a choice between the two no-names next on the Lab and Green Party lists.

I also don't get all this gushing over Ardern's looks. First, it's fucking irrelevant and frankly shameful in this day and age. Secondly, she might look ok next to other MPs but in reality she looks like Hugo Weaving in a wig.

Yeah, but would you?

canta_brian wrote:

Lizard wrote:I voted in Mt Albert, mostly so I can complain later.

What was dumb was the only candidates with any realistic chance were already MPs. What we were voting on was really a choice between the two no-names next on the Lab and Green Party lists.

I also don't get all this gushing over Ardern's looks. First, it's fucking irrelevant and frankly shameful in this day and age. Secondly, she might look ok next to other MPs but in reality she looks like Hugo Weaving in a wig.

Yeah, but would you?

I wouldn't let someone with teeth like that anywhere me.

The nearest I've got to getting my member into a Member was at uni when I had a brief tryst with the daughter of a then-now-former MP.

She could eat an apple through a letter box, but I'd have a go.

Key announced he's signing off from Parliament in April. Re-posting this from my Facebook.

I know it's proper form to be nice to a guy who's signing off, but he's had 8 years in power and 10 in Parliament proper, with nothing positive to show for it. No grand, lasting monumental contribution to NZ society that he can hang his hat on, nothing that he can point to and say "that was my grand vision." Michael Savage had the state homes, Norman Kirk had the welfare state, Helen Clark's terms in office gave us Kiwisaver. What positive impact has Key got?

The negative impact he's had though, is palpable and likely to be long-lasting. We've seen national debt skyrocket to 6 times what it was when he took office, he's overseen the crippling through systematic underfunding of the public sector, his educational policies have resulted in the academic progress of our children stalling, 1 in 3 children are now living in poverty under his watch, he twiddled his thumbs while the metaphorical Rome that is Auckland burned in the metaphorical fire of the ongoing housing crisis - during which state houses were put on the market, he casualised some worrying rhetoric surrounding refugees, he wasted over $100million of public money for a flag referendum that ended up meaning nothing while crying poverty to justify funding cuts elsewhere, the privatisation of prisons saw appalling human rights abuses, he introduced employment law that was regressive, predatory and exploitative, he retroactively legalised illegal surveillance by our intelligence agencies and gave them worryingly sweeping powers, systematically defunded and undermined watchdog organisations and bodies like the office of the ombudsman, and the damage done by cuts to mental health and sexual assault support that relied on that money to survive can only be speculated on - is it awful, or is it terrible? This is his legacy, this is what he's got to show for his 8 years in office.

I work in the coal face with kids from the very demographics that have been victimised by his policies, and I can not think of one positive thing to say about him. I know it's form to canonise him now that he's gone, but I refuse to play ball. He's a smarmy scumsucking bottomfeeder, and I am glad that he's on his way out.

You will not be missed, John Key. You cunt.