Posts by Ian MacKay
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
AS That was a great response. I am doing something else at the moment but at a quick read we agree on a couple of things:
There are too many kids who could do better. This problem must be addressed. Diagnostic testing would be a start but this is always being done in Primary Schools now. Guarantee that! The shortage of time, skilled personal, over crowded classrooms, etc etc means that known problems are not necessarily dealt with and seldom is it for the want of trying.
So you could help by persuading the system to properly fund and resource the needs. At the moment you would hate it if your bright kids have their resources denied in order to supplement the Needy.Spread too thinly? Disaster for both top kids and bottom kids. Wasting money on another layer of testing which is already being done in a focussed way, is criminal. Cheers. Must go for now. -
AS: I think that Rich was making a point that you have attacked the ideas on this site with wild illinformed angles. eg I think you said that half the adult population was unable to handle literacy/numeracy. You have been very critical of the "standards" in schools and say that you believe that there should be lots of testing/accountability and that would eliminate/reduce the above problems. You have written in very "loud" condemming terms. And probably ignored some really well thought out ideas. You are most welcome to your own ideas but don't be surprised if there are some who resent ignorance loudly stated. You sound angry but offer nothing that I can recall which might help the 20% tail. OK?
-
What a Tolley shambles. Surely there would have been consultation with someone somewhere before the decision was made?
And this Tolley decision has nothing to do with consultation with Standards testing in Primary schools. And it should/must happen! Some one must have to produce a proposition which is credible and well researched in order to justify money/effect for the betterment of Primary School kids especially for the "tail end" kids. -
A Probationary Officer I knew was very successful in engaging his "clients." What was his secret? He said that most lacked anyone to listen to them. He said that he listened intensely to these people in trouble and responded appropriately. They clients blossomed in most cases and even after their supervision ended many would pop back in to update the PO even just to say I've got a new job, or girlfriend, or flat. Some came from "good" homes but felt anonymous at home. So this confirms the belief that kids really need to be repected. Their opinions need to be listened to. We parents tend to give the "correct" opinion whiich undermines the confidence of the child in developing their own judgement. So the 3 Rules might be; Listen, Listen, Listen.
-
Going back to the content of the original post Tapu Misa has a great little "apology" to the Nat/Act Govt for being too "negative". Beautifully written. Worth aread.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10548017 -
Boys are often slow to get started and it takes a while to establish wheter there is a problem or not. Reading Recovery is not assessed until the child's 6th birthday at which time if there is enough room, and if the problems are bad enough, then an intensive daily Reading Recovery is started.
Wouldn't it be great if the funding needed for such programmes as above was increased markedly by diverting from funds which are probably going to be needed for National Standards Testing?
For some kids by the way the readiness for reading can be delayed simply not ready, but the rush for those kids to "keep up" can make them feel failure and the failure inhibits their learning. Pace. Pace. Pace. Watch what happens when the pace is too fast (or too slow) when teaching computer skills to adults. Often stroppy and balking! -
Tony Parker: You know what you are talking about. Spot on. Now would you and Tim mind taking Min Ed Tolley into a dark corner and enlighten her, but do be gentle. She is really in the 20% tail end of understanding and needs gentle help!
-
AS: The point that I was making was that you would have to know what level is normal or average and that has changed steadily over the last 100 years. The IQ Tests from even 30 years ago have to be adjusted because each generation of children are more intelligent than the one before. Some will never reach the average.
In NZ there is a higher standard of literacy and Numeracy than most other countries. But there is concern quite rightly for the bottom 20%. Many of these have health/social problems. Many have English as a second language etc. If you or they were really concerned, you/they would pour resources into helping this group. The millions it will cost to set up and run a standards testing system would go a long way to helping this tail including mentally impaired, featal alcohol syndome, autistic, deaf, blind, English second language, bullied, peer impaired and so on. But instead you think that testing and comparing will change things. It would depress and kill the necessary flame of excitement in learning. Think Tim, Jolissa and others. -
AS: What a load of nonsensense.
You could as easily say that it is dismal that there are not at least 80% of the adult population with Uni Degrees or higher. Or it is terrible that there are less than 30% who can high jump over 2 metres.
Wasn't terrible that 50% could not pass SCert! Even if only the top brains in say Maths sat SCert, 50% would fail! Shame!
Even people who write here might show a lack of intellect which might cause others to consider them to be ignorant and ill informed! -
And there will always be about 15-20% of a population who will be mentally unable to attain an average level. They simply can't but they are entitled to feel confident and proud of what they can do, rather than tested into believing that they are failures.
80% plus are well and truly able and many are achieving far higher than we did but luckily we have forgotten the realities of our own failures.