Posts by giovanni tiso
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I have read John Hattie's long and thoughtful commentary on the standards, and I have spoken to teachers who I respect, and it is that reading and those conversations which are the basis for my concern.
Listening to the experts still means forming an informed opinion. Hattie incidentally is one of the researchers whose words were twisted to support the case for the national standards.
-
In the end what does it achieve anyway?
Nothing, that much is clear.
-
* BTW, I'm happy with the level of assessment and reporting of my kids, and if I have any questions then I front up to the teacher interview and ask for a clarification.
Not all parents have the attitude or indeed the ability needed to do so. I think the "plain English" idea, even though it was worded rather crudely, does have something commendable about it. But as I say, all it needs is a half page memo from the ministry and a warning that ERO will make it part of its focus.
-
Sorry if I've got this wrong, but am I to understand that we're pro someone biffing a statue at Berlusconi and breaking his nose & teeth?
Trust me, yo don't know the guy. I'm as anti-Tory as they come, but would hate for something like that to happen to John Key outside of a proper insurrection.
(Although come to think of it, the egg in young Prebble's face... but hey, no actual damage inflicted there.)
-
Very sorry to hear that, Sacha.
-
Well, so long as Craig has in fact a factual argument in favour of national standards, wouldn't it be valuable for the discussion if we could hear it, instead of being told that we would reject it on principle anyway? I'm a little puzzled.
-
You guys know I love you all, right? So my fairly neutral reading is that Gio and Sacha and Craig could all do with hopping off the Snark Pony on this one, okay?
Sorry, Miss, but so long as Craig has accused Sacha (and by extension, everybody else) not to have read the policy and to be opposed to it on ideological grounds, and since more than one commenter as since then bothered to explaine in detail why they are against the policy, what's wrong exactly with asking that he return the favour? If that qualifies as snark, then I think we're setting the bar a little low.
-
I think you're more in the mood for Photoshopped pix of Tolley rogering a kitten.
No, I'm not. Since you obviously read the policy and support it, I'd like to know how and why. Alternatively, you could just hide behind a wall of snark like you *always* do at this point of a conversation.
-
Craig, let's assume you are right, and everyone who ticked National for their party vote was totally down with Tolley's policy. How many of them were voting for this legislation to go through under urgency ?
Come on now: to suggest that the government doesn't have a mandate for national standards is ridicolous. They did campaign for them and of course it's not like each individual policy is voted for separately, but we can hardly claim that this one was introduced by stealth.
I'm with you on the urgency thing, the rules of the house need to be amended on that score, but it's a separate issue.
-
But is that a bad thing? Or is it that the whole thing is thought to be A Bad Thing by those in the know (i.e. teachers at the sharp end)?
Could schools do a better job of reporting to parents, and could they more uniformly make use of the national performance metrics that are already at their disposal? Sure, I guess, but that's hardly new policy - all it takes is a half page memo and a warning that it will be part of the test (ie the next round of ERO reports).