Posts by Lucy Telfar Barnard
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Ziggackly. If Massey's going to go all franchise-y on us (McDonalds University anyone? (with deepest apologies to my father, who I hope will appreciate that I am being flippant rather than intentionally insulting)) it could at least open a grill in Wanganui, where it might be useful.
-
Someone once told me that back in the 1960s when they were deciding where to put Massey, they had a choice between Palmerston North and Wanganui. They decided on Palmerston North because they thought it wouldn't survive as a town otherwise, whereas Wanganui clearly would (they thought).
Every time I've driven through Wanganui, I have rued the tragedy of that decision. Imagine if Palmerston North had been left to become the westerly version of Masterton it really wants to be at heart, and Wanganui, so much more attractive, were a bustling university town. If only we could turn the clock back (or, alternatively, if someone could just build a university in Wanganui and poach all Massey's staff, that'd work for me too!)
-
I live in Wellington. I wasn't offended. I would be even less offended if I could put my hand out and Aucklanders gave me money. Which in a sort of a way they do, since the source of my salary is ultimately the taxpayer, and there are more taxpayers in Auckland than there are in Wellington.
As to why I'm not offended, well, as Wellingtonians, we naturally like to think that we're smarter than your average taxpayer and therefore understand that when non-Wellingtonians say "Transferring wealth to Wellington" they mean transferring wealth to Government.
However, I'd argue that although that while "transferring wealth to Wellngtonians" might not be what Russell meant, it could be the truth: Wellingtonians are the highest paid of any city in NZ, and much of that pay comes out of the public purse, and therefore...[see first paragraph].
-
1. They've got the wrong bird call. It's meant to sound like this
2. Tell them you're just pleased to see them.
3. Ummmm... a garden gnome? Oooh, no, this one, this one!
4. Sell shares in Cauldron Energy. Buy shares in Shell
5. See #1.
-
I'm not sure what, but giving a prosecutor the power to seek life without parole for a drink driving ... causing death charge seems excessive. Some manslaughters you want to count as as strikes – some ... you really don't.
There may be some manslaughters you don't want to count as strikes, but why on earth would drink driving causing death be one of them? (N.B. This is a quite different argument from whether or not the three strikes policy is a good idea in general). I view drunk driving causing death as at least as serious as any other type of manslaughter - more serious, in many cases, because I view it as premiditated: you make the decision, when sober, to take your car with you; you make the decision, when your car is with you, to drink anyway; and you make the decision, albeit now under the influence, to put yourself in control of a deadly weapon and go out on the streets, rather than seek alternative transport. I think there's so much premeditation in that that it should count as murder, not manslaughter.
And how is that less bad than what I presume would be the standard manslaughter situation, where someone hits someone else in a rage, who then falls down and hits their head and dies?
-
I see you've all pretty much moved on from this topic, but I'm going to persevere:
Earlier I noted that I'd considered telling the school that I refused to allow my children to be assessed, but that other sources (not the school) had told me the school wouldn't have any choice because it was the law.
So I read the law (I tend to find laws easier to understand than policies). And as someone else has pointed out upthread, school boards just have to have in their charter "the board's aims, objectives, directions, priorities, and targets" in regard to "student achievement, including the assessment of students against any national standards...".
That's a slightly different thing from saying "boards/principals/teachers must ensure every student in their school is tested against national standards".
Now, I gather (trying to find the quote...) Mrs (?) Tolley has declared that opposition to the new regime is based on ideology rather than evidence. I disagree, but if that's what the government position is, I'm going to work with it.
Ideology is political opinion. Freedom from discrimination on the grounds of political opinion, in the area of education, is protected under the Human Rights Act 1993. Therefore, as a parent, I can say that it is my politiical opinion that I disagree with the new national standards, and that I therefore refuse to allow my children to be tested (or alternatively, refuse to allow my children's results to be forward to the Ministry of Education), in the same way that parents may refuse to allow their children to participate in swimming classes because it is against their religious beliefs. The HRA protects both me and my children from suffering any adverse treatment because of this refusal, and, more importantly, protects the school and the board from being required to enforce testing on my children.
Can anyone think of anything I've missed? If not, I think I'll run with it.
-
Just to be contrary: I don't actually think people need to have read the policy in order to object to it. I am not an education expert, (though I do have a small, voluntary, education-related role) and I'm not sure that I'd be able to pick out the precise bits of the policy that are going to problematic, vs the bits that won't. Instead, I base my opinion of the policy on the opinions of those I consider experts in the field (which does not include Anne Tolley. A stint on a School Board doesn't make an expert.) 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.
-
Part of the problem is not just differences between the policy and what's delivered, but also that we have to vote for a policy package. So people might have voted for National because they felt particularly strongly about one issue (*snore* tax cuts), strongly enough that they were prepared to vote for that even when there were other policies they weren't so keen on, or didn't know enough to have an opinion on.
For example, when I read the party manifestos, there were a lot of New Zealand First policies that I quite liked, but I would never vote for them even on a cold day in hell because of their anti-(non-white) immigrant platform.
So it's not always a case of throwing tantrums; it can be an attempt to get the lower-voting-priority policies to match up to your preferred outcomes.
-
Lucy Telfar Barnard, can I invite you to email me?
Done.
Ah, it warms my heart to read other posts on this. Just when I was feeling so alone...
I do know some Nact voters. I think I like them at least enough to not kick them (apart from the whole example-setting). But of course all the children of the ones I know are in decile 10 schools, so even if I engaged them in discussion on the matter I doubt they'd care particularly much. Though I guess you never know, and it doesn't always help to make assumptions.
-
Speaking of democracy, I see Anne Tolley is deploying the famous "bring 'em on" manoeuvre that worked so well for George W.
Seriously... Mummy is very cross; not only that Mrs Tolley, who clearly knows firetruck-all about education, won't listen to those who do; but also that I don't know what the firetruck I'm meant to do about it.
I considered the possibility of telling the school that I refused to allow my children to be assessed, but other sources (not the school) tell me they don't have any choice. I desperately want to kick things, but it wouldn't set a good example.
Any suggestions for action gratefully received. I can't believe I'm the only parent who's unhappy about this, but noone seems to be talking about it?