Centrofold 147 Report post Posted April 3, 2011 Well, I have to confess that I don't know that they are ... but it makes sense to think that they might be. Parents have different expectations of a child they are funding through the three institutions I exampled... If you used that 'all teachers have to achieve in another industry before they teach. Giving them a background on how the 'real world' operates' rule in Politics, there'd be precious few Labour folk get into Parliament, heh heh... I might be wrong (and Philocon will quickly pull me up if I am, heh heh) but did Helen Clark, Michael Cullen, even Phil Goff ever do anything besides the University-to-Parliament route? In answer to your question, I don't know the answer. When you think of it, what percentage of the population relies on the tax payers? Public Servants? etc. When I worked in local politics I found a good percentage of the local politicians and council workers spoke a 'foreign language'. I put it down to them being theorists. Thinking outside the box. Another thought is that maybe school should become voluntary. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philocon 1 Report post Posted April 4, 2011 In answer to your question, I don't know the answer. When you think of it, what percentage of the population relies on the tax payers? Public Servants? etc. When I worked in local politics I found a good percentage of the local politicians and council workers spoke a 'foreign language'. I put it down to them being theorists. Thinking outside the box. Another thought is that maybe school should become voluntary. One's background coming into Parliament is not a major issue except for those wanting to score political points. One of the reasons for having 120 MPs is to ensure a diversity of views and backgrounds among legislators and that generally happens in most parties. Criticisng Labour as having too many teachers, academics or trade unionists in its ranks is as pointless as criticising national for having too many accountants, farmers and large employer reps. The fact is that labour over the years has many form other occupations including accountants, farmers employers etc. The class nature of society and the parties that form as a result will naturally reflect the makeup of those classes. A Prime Minister with an actual accounting background left the country's economy in the worst mess we have seen for decades - RD Muldoon - giving rise to all sorts of draconian experiments and medicines that compounded the problem. Because of the nature of our society career structures most people entering parliament have a very limited experience of life overall depending on their chosen professions and private interests. Thus having a reasonable number of parliamentary seats ensures that the diversity we need in parliament can achieve this. All of us in varying degrees rely on the tax payers, public servants etc. You cannot switch a light on, turn the stove on, walk along the footpath or drive on the road without being dependant on public servants or taxpayers. There was a time when schooling was voluntary so it is not thinking outside the box at all but seeking to return to a past which has been generally long rejected. A past where inequality thrived and access to education was limited and which few people want to return to. If you were to think outside the box then looking at innovative changes to how we educate children and developing teaching theories that work better than current ones is what is really required. By that I do not mean revisiting the old chestnut of vouchers etc which is simple rejigging the access and then not in the best interests of the most vulnerable. I am referring to teaching practice, child learning etc. Also there are many myths around about teacher competency and performance. There are processes that are invoked to deal with poorer performing teachers and it is part of the principal's and the board's job to monitor this. Making it the only criteria in pay and conditions is unlikely to achieve the stated targets as teacher competence is a subjective area and what some regard as a great teachers others might disagree. Where a case is made for poor performance there is a process a principle and board use called running competency and I have seen it used several times. There are also many processes and tools available to monitor teacher performance but the school and its staff are only as good as the principal, his/her management team and the board provides for. Also part of the process is identifying teacher shortcomings and ensuring suitable training professional development etc to either rectify failings or improve existing skills. Teaching is no different from many other occupations in that there are many processes and tools available to principals and boards to reward good performing teachers including promotions etc just like any other workplace. Like all other workplaces teachers are also entitled to the same protection against unfair treatment and dismissal and that includes assessment. Changing the system to only rewarding certain well performed teachers with pay increases opens a bigger can of worms. As assessment has a large subjective component it opens the way to favouritism, internal biases and does not necessarily guarantee that the best teachers will be rewarded. In the hands of the wrong board and principal it can be a step backward. Teachers like other workers whether they are top performers or not still require a reasonable take home pay that keeps pace with the cost of living. If you feel it should work for teachers why not also shop assistants, labourers etc and the entire workforce. As it is staff annual performance assessments take up considerable management time in most public service organisations and many private ones. Having been a manager in both I can attest to that. There are many ways to encourage and reward staff performance without negatively denying some workers annual increments and COL adjustments. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philocon 1 Report post Posted April 4, 2011 ...If you used that 'all teachers have to achieve in another industry before they teach. Giving them a background on how the 'real world' operates' rule in Politics, there'd be precious few Labour folk get into Parliament, heh heh... Another myth that doesn't really stand up under scrutiny. Certainly it could be argued that a substantial number of teachers may support Labour just as a substantial number of lower paid workers also do. Some might even possibly argue that a majority do. I would say that there is strong support for Labour in the teaching unions and amongst many teachers because overall going back to the first Labour govt in 1935, it's record in educational reform and access to education has been better than it's alternative. So much so that most of Labour's educational reforms over the years have remained in place while many of National's have been reversed or severely modified because they had no long lasting support or popularity. Requiring all teachers to achieve in another industry before they teach is a nonsense. At pre-school and primary level their training requires them to be "jack of all trades" taking every subject available in the curriculum. Their training is geared to that. For those coming straight from school they experience the outside world in one way or another. you can't live in a world without experiencing it. When I attended primary teachers coll I had worked in the motor assembly industry, as a factory process worker and the public service for a few years after leaving school, others had different experiences in other occupations, some came straight from school. I doubt if you would find the teaching abilities of any of that group related directly to their backgrounds. In the end it was other qualities that made people good or bad teachers. At secondary and tertiary level specialisation is required and many teachers or lecturers in this sector are recruited from other backgrounds especially in technology and trade subjects. One of my lecturers when I did my computer tech training had worked in the industry for some years, run his own computer business for some time and then did the same course he was now lecturing and tutoring in. One gets a background on how the "'real world' operates" by living in it, not choosing to work in any particular industry. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Properispomenon 1 Report post Posted April 4, 2011 Phil, you'll note I qualified that quote you copied down with an 'if'... I wouldn't dream of trying to say anyone should be barred from Parliament in such a fashion, lol... It's a House of Representatives and - bloody List Members excluded, heh heh - it seems to work quite well even if lawyers, accountants, farmers and academic seem to appear disproportionately... PS Can I ask you a question that I dunno the answer to ... or even if it applies to all parties or whether each party can make its own rules up: Judith Tizard was next up on the Labour List following Darren Hughes' resignation, right. Even she was clever enough to know that she was the last person Phil Goff wanted in Darren's stead and hence has declined to take up the position. How often are the Lists revised? Presumably Judith was on the 2008 List and would have been removed (or demoted) when Labour's 2011 List was formalised ... but does a party really have to wait that long? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaceCafe News