Shorter Lhaws

71 comments on “Shorter Lhaws ”

• Comments are now closed

1. big bruv 1

   7 February 2010 at 5:18 pm

   As usual Laws is dead right.

   You chaps should listen to Laws, he speaks for middle NZ, the same middle that Labour lost at the last election.
   • IrishBill 1.1

     7 February 2010 at 5:25 pm

     You’ve misspelled his name.
   • rainman 1.2

     7 February 2010 at 5:27 pm

     If that is true, we’re in bigger trouble than I thought.
   • millsy 1.3

     7 February 2010 at 5:36 pm

     The same ‘middle new zealand’ that would have solo mothers sterilized, the poor out on the streets, homosexuality recriminalized, voting restricted to middle aged white men who owned property, and who would have taggers strung up on the nearest street light.

     That middle new zealand make me sick, like you Big Bruv, you intolerant evil bastard.
     • big bruv 1.3.1

       7 February 2010 at 6:21 pm

       Millsy

       1.”that would have solo mothers sterilised”

       No, only those dead beat mothers such as Macsyna King should be sterilised. having said that, all solo mothers on the DPB should be forced to use contraception.

       2. “homosexuality recriminalized”

       Don’t be so bloody stupid.

       3. “voting restricted to middle aged white men who owned property”

       Nope, but voting rights should never be given to those who are not paying tax, anybody on the dole or DPB should lose the right to vote.

       4. “and who would have taggers strung up on the nearest street light”

       That is about the sanest thing you have said so far.

       You claim that I am the intolerant one, yet in the same post you spew hatred and bile, you really are a strange chap.
       • millsy 1.3.1.1

         7 February 2010 at 6:36 pm

         I suppose you belive in that sky fairy too, the one that ‘made’ the earth.

         Ive seem people like you. They dress up in white hoods and burn crosses.
         • big bruv 1.3.1.1.1

           7 February 2010 at 6:44 pm

           No Millsy

           I am not a follower of middle eastern superstition.

           You really are going to have to calm down, in life some people will not always agree with you.

           I do not believe in handing over money to bludgers every week, apparently you do, I do not believe in letting dead beat mums continue to breed as a alternative to working for a living, apparently you do.

           At least I can take satisfaction that I am in the majority and you are in the very small minority.
           • millsy 1.3.1.1.1.1

             7 February 2010 at 6:59 pm

             So you want solo mothers living on the street, or getting forced into being hookers or abusive relationships?

             At least I stand for a decent society where EVERYONE has a decent standard of living, and that makes me better than you, and ALL OF MIDDLE NEW ZEALAND.
             • mickysavage …

               7 February 2010 at 9:41 pm

               On ya Millsy

               Capcha minority

               I hope it is not true …
   • quenchino 1.4

     7 February 2010 at 5:37 pm

     You chaps should listen to Laws, he speaks for middle NZ

     Same with rainman. I’ve closely read this latest Lhaws rave several times. It’s a despicable; closely carefully crafted string of simplistic slogans and lying distortions. It reeks of his usual sneering, mean-spirited arrogance.

     If this really is middle NZ then we are truly fucked.
     • big bruv 1.4.1

       7 February 2010 at 6:22 pm

       “If this really is middle NZ then we are truly fucked.”

       Yes it is, and guess what?

       YOU people made them that way.
       • IrishBill 1.4.1.1

         7 February 2010 at 6:27 pm

         Are you claiming to be the product of liberal governance? One of “Helen’s Children” so to speak?
   • toad 1.5

     8 February 2010 at 8:11 am

     Surprised he’s not wanting to bring back the cane as well.
2. grumpy 2

   7 February 2010 at 5:26 pm

   Can’t see the reference to “feminist pinkos” but thanks for the link.

   Laws is absolutely on the money and telling it as it is. This is a reassertion by parents of their right to demand a better education for their children.

   the antics of the Unions and Labour only serve to underline how right the parents are!
   • mickysavage 2.1

     7 February 2010 at 9:45 pm

     They can demand as much as they want.

     Until they understand what is already there and available at the slightest request they are agreeing to the expenditure of huge amounts of money on, how can I put this, bureaucracy.

     If they spent a bit more time teaching their kids and paying attention to what their kids teachers were saying then we could have a better education system than, well, Finland and instead of being the fifth best in the world we could be the best.

     We should rejoice about what we have rather than demand that what we do not have is not good enough.
3. big bruv 3

   7 February 2010 at 5:27 pm

   Yep, that is why you lost the election.
4. infused 4

   7 February 2010 at 5:46 pm

   “mothers sterilized”

   Well, in some towns anyway.
5. Daveski 5

   7 February 2010 at 5:47 pm

   As with all issues such as this, when the debate becomes irrational and emotional, the truth generally lies somewhere in the middle.

   Let’s agree that standards in themselves don’t solve the problem (whatever that may be). Let’s agree that poverty and other factors are important to success and failure at school.

   On the other hand, let’s also agree with Laws that most school reports are indeed inintelligible to all but the teaching fraternity as the the NCEA. Let’s also agree that unions ideological stance allows non-performing teachers to continue to teach and to get their guaranteed salary adjustments along with those teachers who go the extra yard. And let’s also agree that the current system does not seem prepared to recognise that kids are failing well before NCEA before it’s too late.

   Just as it’s easy to laugh away Laws extremism, the same can be said for many of the opponents of standards who simply aren’t prepared to acknowledge reality.

   And yes, on this basis, it shows how far out of touch Labour is with ordinary New Zealanders who they profess to have an interest in.
   • quenchino 5.1

     7 February 2010 at 6:08 pm

     Let’s also agree that unions ideological stance allows non-performing teachers to continue to teach and to get their guaranteed salary adjustments along with those teachers who go the extra yard.

     This is an age-old question. A few percent of teachers will be duds… as can be found in any workplace, but the challenge is how to deal with them.

     At present the onus lies mainly with the principals and BOT’s, which in my opinion is probably the best locus for this process to be located. I completely fail to see how remote Ministry bureaucrats, or agitating parents could likely improve teacher accountability one jot.
     • Rex Widerstrom 5.1.1

       7 February 2010 at 6:53 pm

       the onus lies mainly with the principals and BOT’s

       It should lie there, but having been on a BoT for many years and even had the exceptionally rare opportunity to evaluate every teacher’s performance when two schools were merging and around 2/5 had to be let go, I can tell you that ridding a school of an underperforming teacher is a nightmare.

       We even had a case where a teacher had slapped a student in response to what had been, till then, a purely verbal confrontation (she was a girl, he was a man). I was able to get rid of him, but only after protracted and delicate negotiations which included our Principal not being able to report the incident to anyone seeking the teacher’s references. In any other workplace he’d have been sacked on the spot with very little possibility of any comeback.

       The difference is the union, and the power they still exert – particularly over the Labour Party, for whom teachers – as individuals – tend to work very hard come election time.

       If we had the kind of Board-run schools that were described to us when Labour introduced Tomorrow’s Schools (anyone still remember the Picot Report?) we wouldn’t be having this debate now.

       And now I’m off to lay down in a dark room, realising that I have (partly) just supported something said by Lhaws.
       • IrishBill 5.1.1.1

         7 February 2010 at 7:14 pm

         the Labour Party, for whom teachers as individuals tend to work very hard come election time.

         I’m picking it’s been a fair while since you were involved in the education sector in NZ Rex. I saw polling just prior to the 2008 election that showed nearly half of PPTA members planned to vote national.
         • Rex Widerstrom 5.1.1.1.1

           7 February 2010 at 11:48 pm

           I’m not talking voting intentions, IB, I’m talking doing the crappy work – going round putting up signs, handing out leadlets etc – that so few in any political party (bar, perhaps, the Greens) seem willing to do nowadays.

           It seems many of those teachers committed to Labour aren’t passive about it, which makes them a valuable asset come election time. That could be as much a function of available time as level of commitment, or perhaps a bit of both.

           National supporters – even those who are teachers – are invariably less motivated it seems.
           • IrishBill 5.1.1.1.1.1

             8 February 2010 at 7:29 am

             I just don’t see it, Rex, and I know a lot of teachers.
             • rainman …

               8 February 2010 at 8:52 am

               Based on my experience, I’m with you, Irish – but perhaps it’s a regional phenomenon?

               Anyway – on the issue of national standards: as they are set up now they will not result in the weeding out of under-performing teachers, the improvement in educational outcomes (in a statistically significant way), or the intelligibility and objectivity of school reporting. Just another National party simple solution.

               Has anyone read the sample reports on the tki site? Are these really significantly different to what schools provide today? And, why not just mandate PAT testing? The schools know how to do it and it’s proven – just not ubiquitous.
       • quenchino 5.1.1.2

         7 February 2010 at 7:35 pm

         So Rex, you are implying that the PPTA will protect bad teachers regardless of what they do?

         Or just that they insist on due process when required?
         • Daveski 5.1.1.2.1

           7 February 2010 at 7:46 pm

           The PPTA is a union and they will protect their members regardless. As they should as a union.

           In any other organisation, bad performers will be performance managed out of the role. This doesn’t happen in teaching for a number of reasons.

           First, the managers themselves are teachers and not necessarily skilled in the dark arts of management. Indeed, teachers are promoted to management positions largely on the basis of their teacher, not their management expertise or potential.

           Second, and I have some sympathy, there is not a wide pool of people to replace the under performers so schools put up with crap rather than having no one to front a classroom. In other areas, priorities and projects can be better managed according to resources.

           Third, the education sector somehow believes they are immune to the issues that occur in every other area and don’t put in place the systems to measure performance. The irony of course is that those whose job it is to assess performance are completely unable to assess their own performance objectively.

           My experience is at the chalk face but similar to Rex’s in terms of BOT’s. Standards won’t solve these but nor does the status quo deal with the issues that exist but are ignored.
           • Rex Widerstrom 5.1.1.2.1.1

             7 February 2010 at 11:44 pm

             Very well put, Daveski. That’s pretty much my answer to your question, quenchino. Yes, the PPTA will protect its members regardless, as it should. That doesn’t make its attitude to poor performers right… indeed it ensures that for part of the time they will be quite wrong. But that’s as it should be – we just need to stop treating them as the Oracle when it comes to matters education.
6. Brett Dale 6

   7 February 2010 at 8:46 pm

   The left will be against anything that shows the kids that work hard are doing good, and those that f**k around, are doing bad.
   • Morgan 6.1

     7 February 2010 at 9:26 pm

     Millsy, don’t even bother to engage scum like Brett Dale. He will only bring you down to his level and beat you with experience. You see thats the position the right always takes. They simplify the debate by offering slogans, spin lines and stereotypes all the while ignoring fact and reason.
     • BLiP 6.1.1

       7 February 2010 at 9:33 pm

       DFTT
7. millsy 7

   7 February 2010 at 8:54 pm

   People like Brett Dale are evil and intolerant, and will stop at nothing to ensure our education is flogged off to the highest bidder.
8. Brett Dale 8

   7 February 2010 at 9:25 pm

   I just want kids to have high standards, unlike the left, who want to keep them in the gutter so you get more votes and union fees.

   I know for a fact there is a school in New Zealand who are against this National standards. They have set their own standards for kids.

   The standards they set for year two is they want the kids to recognize letters.

   Yep this school thinks it’s great that little seven year old Jimmy knows what the letter B looks like.

   It’s a disgrace.
   • Captain Rehab 8.1

     7 February 2010 at 9:31 pm

     Yep this school thinks it’s great that little seven year old Jimmy knows what the letter B looks like.

     That puts him about three reading comprehension years ahead of you you fcuking retard.
9. Brett Dale 9

   7 February 2010 at 9:34 pm

   So Im scum and a retard, because I want schools to set higher standards for kids??

   Classy!
   • Captain Rehab 9.1

     7 February 2010 at 9:41 pm

     No. You’re retarded because you have an IQ significantly below average. As is made abundantly clear in your failure to grasp or articulate even the most simple of arguments. This is probably why you can’t get a decent job. And yet ironically you shill for an ideology that ensures your special needs are not accommodated. You’re like a walking, talking vicious cycle.
   • BLiP 9.2

     7 February 2010 at 9:42 pm

     Have you got your cock between two buttered wafers because you’re fucking crackers.

     There will be no “higher standards” – there will only be a reporting of what we already know. I’m actually quite surprised that you are demanding the state spoon feed parents information they can get for themselves. What next, dress them in the morning as well?
     • kiwiteen123 9.2.1

       7 February 2010 at 9:50 pm

       What a ridiculous thing to say!
       • BLiP 9.2.1.1

         8 February 2010 at 11:14 am

         Like you would know.
         • kiwiteen123 9.2.1.1.1

           8 February 2010 at 7:12 pm

           I know a stupid comment when I see one (I’ve made a few of my own)
           Swearing makes you look like an angry troll.
           Bad puns look bad.
           Stupid jokes are stupid.
     • chris 9.2.2

       8 February 2010 at 9:10 am

       “Have you got your cock between two buttered wafers because you’re fucking crackers.”

       f’n lol
10. Brett Dale 10

    7 February 2010 at 9:35 pm

    Milsy, please post one intolerant statement from myself.
    • BLiP 10.1

      7 February 2010 at 9:39 pm

      What do you think about all those fine Southern baptist folks from the Yewwwknighted Schtates of Amerika going to jail for kidnapping Haiti’s children?
11. Brett Dale 11

    7 February 2010 at 9:44 pm

    Blip:

    I think they are sick and I hope they all go to jail, just like I think those homopobic protestors, The Phelps family are sick.

    There are sick people from all sides of like.

    But heres a question, and I doubt if people here will answer it.

    Do you think the school who thinks year two students should be able to recognize letter,s are setting thier standards for students too low????
12. BLiP 12

    7 February 2010 at 9:46 pm

    I think it would be reasonable to expect a 7 year old to know the alphabet, and a 10 year old to know to put a comma at the end of words.
13. Brett Dale 13

    7 February 2010 at 9:50 pm

    Blip:

    A seven year old to recognize letters?

    You think that is a good standard for a school to set?

    Your kidding me right?

    I didn’t think someone from this site would be honest.

    Your kidding me right?

    How about expecting a seven year old to read?

    That is your standard for kids?

    How
    • BLiP 13.1

      8 February 2010 at 11:16 am

      I would expect them to be able to read well enough to know that this is a post about Lhaws and not education standard measures.
14. Brett Dale 14

    7 February 2010 at 9:52 pm

    Captain rehab:

    What a genuis!

    You must be a blast at town hall meetings.

    I want schools to set a higher standard.

    I think seven year olds recognizing letters isn’t a higher enough standard.
15. mickysavage 15

    7 February 2010 at 9:58 pm

    Finland (best educational system in the world) and Steiner (the preference of many middle class parents) advocate that boys do not formally learn until the age of 7. Until then they should play and experience the world. Apparently after that they catch up really quickly and through a combination of their experience of the world and their enthusiasm they then accelerate.

    Some think we should test the hell out of them from the age of 5.

    Perhaps we should have a system based on experience and not ideology.
16. Brett Dale 16

    7 February 2010 at 10:03 pm

    So people here wouldn’t have a problem sending their kids to a school who by the end of year two want the students to recognize letters?
    • felix 16.1

      7 February 2010 at 10:04 pm

      At what age were you able to recognize letters?
17. Brett Dale 17

    7 February 2010 at 10:07 pm

    I was able to write my own name at 5, and look how far I’ve come.

    So Felix this question goes out to you.

    Would you have a problem sending your kids to a school who by the end of year two would want your child to recognize letters?
    • felix 17.1

      7 February 2010 at 10:13 pm

      If you want to hold your own experience up as a shining example of the right way to educate children it would serve your case well to learn the fucking english language.

      And that’s all I got to say bout that.
    • Mac1 17.2

      7 February 2010 at 10:15 pm

      How do we factor into this debate what is a reasonable achievement for a 5 year old when the legal age for compulsory schooling starts at 6 years of age?
    • Kevin Welsh 17.3

      7 February 2010 at 10:21 pm

      Name the school then.
18. Brett Dale 18

    7 February 2010 at 10:14 pm

    fleix:

    Didn’t think you would give a straight answer?

    Anyone else?

    Anyone here who has no problem sending their kids to a school like that?
    • felix 18.1

      7 February 2010 at 10:32 pm

      Why would anyone answer your meaningless hypothetical about some school you either made up or misunderstood an anecdote about?
19. Brett Dale 19

    7 February 2010 at 10:21 pm

    Mac1:

    I would expect after two years schooling that kids can do more than recognize letters.
    • kiwiteen123 19.1

      7 February 2010 at 10:27 pm

      Again your logic prevails over the silly comments some people like to make here on the standard.
    • Mac1 19.2

      7 February 2010 at 10:38 pm

      If a child starts schooling legally at six,( and I understand legally at seven if they have to walk more than three kms without a bus option), they have been at school for one year at age seven. I would expect that the expectations would take into account that legal requirement even if most start at five. I don’t know, that’s why the question.

      What should a seven year old know?

      At the end of primer two, I was the last kid in the class to work out how to tell the time. Then one day, I looked at the clock…. and it made sense.

      In standard three, again I was the last in the class to work out long division of money…i.e. how many times does 8 go into three pounds two shillings and sixpence? Yet, I understood the concept of minus quantities in that year to the amazement of the school inspector and I guess the delight of my teacher who didn’t teach me that.

      I was the brightest kid in that class, dux of the school at the end of standard five, skipped standard six.

      I could read at age seven, but had difficulty elsewhere. Who could have put the blame on those good nuns who taught me that I wasn’t up to standard?
20. Brett Dale 20

    7 February 2010 at 10:41 pm

    I just think after two years of school kids should be able to do more than recognize letters.
    • felix 20.1

      7 February 2010 at 10:45 pm

      You don’t actually read the replies, do you?
      • Mac1 20.1.1

        7 February 2010 at 10:47 pm

        I have problems with the “I just think”, Felix. My experience is that people who say that, don’t.
        • felix 20.1.1.1

          7 February 2010 at 11:12 pm

          Indeed.
    • Kevin Welsh 20.2

      7 February 2010 at 10:51 pm

      Just name the school Brett.

      Even a seven year old could understand that question.
21. Brett Dale 21

    7 February 2010 at 10:48 pm

    Felix:

    Yes I have read the replies.

    It seems to me people here don’t have a problem with this school.
22. Brett Dale 22

    7 February 2010 at 11:00 pm

    The name of the school has nothing to do with my question.

    I
    • Kevin Welsh 22.1

      7 February 2010 at 11:03 pm

      Yeah it does.

      Unless you name the school, we can assume you are talking a load of shiit.
23. Brett Dale 23

    7 February 2010 at 11:08 pm

    The school’s name is not important.

    Oh it’s in a good area by the way.

    I just think after two years at school kids should be able to do more than recognize letters.
24. Mac1 24

    7 February 2010 at 11:08 pm

    “Do you think the school who thinks year two students should be able to recognize letter,s are setting thier standards for students too low????”

    That’s your question, Brett Dale, and the name of the school which you allege has as its highest requirement the ability to recognise the letter B, in your words, is important for us to know so that we can figure out whether you are being truthful.

    BTW, the word is “which” and not “who” when referring to a thing, commas are not apostrophes, “their” is spelt like that and anyway should not refer to a singular noun and one question mark is usual.
25. Brett Dale 25

    7 February 2010 at 11:19 pm

    I can see I’m not going to get an answer here, so gudnight.
26. Mac1 26

    7 February 2010 at 11:25 pm

    Sic transit gloria mundi, on a Sunday night.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS