Okay then, keep calling anyone that questions anything Maori a racist. Let's be honest, it is the usual go to.
Politics š³ļø NZ Politics
- Thread starter wizard of Tauranga
- Start date
I know Maori critical of Maori but they are not racist. I said Seymour is Maori, I didn't accuse him of racism
I hope not.
They are two languages with their own application. Being proficient in one or both would be a good thing.
Maori can be critical of Maori but Seymour is quite obviously anti-Maori, and not constructively so.
Just because he is Maori does not mean he cannot be criticised for his anti-Maori sentiment.
Worried2Death
Contributor
Remember when he was Canadian? Guy's a bloody chameleon, he's whoever Atlas Network tells him to be.
kos
Contributor
Sounds like a potential employee for the Nrl bunker
- Thread starter
- #9,547
On this specific centre, I have no knowledge if itās good or bad, deserves to be closed or not. But hereās my experience:
There is a group in education that is anti private childcare provision. This is the same group that shut down charter schools and if they had their way would shut down private childcare. They are philosophically opposed to it and no matter what, believe itās inferior. Not all ministry or ERO staff but an obvious portion. Most are professional but some believe private centres will fail their inspections before they even walk in the door.
Look at the Ministry funding. Significantly less for private vs public resulting in lower teacher pay despite identical teacher qualifications. Iāve watched for decades as good experienced private teachers leave due to low pay to public or other industries, hollowing out the private centres then the same ministry that underfunds the sector targets them as lower quality.
Look at the ERO that openly views public centres and private centre as different risks.
Now my main issue is, many regulations are not black and white. A regulation might be something like āteaching must acknowledge childrenās cultural backgroundā. But the interpretation of what this looks like is very open to personal interpretation and any centre could fail if the Ministry person so chooses.
I have been told this directly: āAll centres fail my licensing inspectionsā and upon checking the stats, this person fails basically every centre they visit. This is on the basis that the Ministry only visits centres when they open or if there are complaints and itās this persons view itās their job to make the most of each visit and reform the whole industry. Regardless if you meet standards or notā¦
Iāve seen one Ministry person pass a whole lot of policies and documentation on an initial licensing visit and on the final sign off a seperate Ministry person fails the exact same documents. Personal interpretation. The exact same documents pass or fail depending on who reads itā¦ thatās how great the regulations are!
I have had an ERO pass documentation, curriculum, etc and the Ministry comes in months later and fails the exact same program and documentation. Personal interpretation.
Iāve seen a Ministry person say itās there interpretation despite written guidance from the Ministry contradicting their opinion.
In regards to Te Reo - another grey regulation. One Ministry person accepts some Te Reo sprinkled in conversations. The next says they expect that whole sentences must be in Te Reo. Iāve been told by a Ministry person they frequently fail Kohonga Reoās for not meeting the Cultural regulations
. Iāve watched a 20+ year Maori teacher argue with a white Ministry person that the Maori teacher wasnāt meeting the Maori standards because they couldnāt identify what extras they do for each and every Maori child. The teacher believes ALL children that needed extra help should be identified and given it and Maori that didnāt need extra support shouldnāt be labelled. Personal interpretation.
My issue isnāt with the Maori component of the regulations (but it has risen significantly in prominence over the last 6 years). Many of the regulations are too subjective. I would ask do you know where your own child sits against any educational standards? The regulations are as vague as your childrenās progress!
I could go onā¦.
So in my opinion the regulations are way to open to personal interpretation combined with a lot of activist people that philosophically want to charter school private ECE centres. These people corrupt the processes.
And when some people can corrupt the process so easily, all integrity in the process is gone and I donāt believe anything they say without seeing both sides of the storyā¦
There is a group in education that is anti private childcare provision. This is the same group that shut down charter schools and if they had their way would shut down private childcare. They are philosophically opposed to it and no matter what, believe itās inferior. Not all ministry or ERO staff but an obvious portion. Most are professional but some believe private centres will fail their inspections before they even walk in the door.
Look at the Ministry funding. Significantly less for private vs public resulting in lower teacher pay despite identical teacher qualifications. Iāve watched for decades as good experienced private teachers leave due to low pay to public or other industries, hollowing out the private centres then the same ministry that underfunds the sector targets them as lower quality.
Look at the ERO that openly views public centres and private centre as different risks.
Now my main issue is, many regulations are not black and white. A regulation might be something like āteaching must acknowledge childrenās cultural backgroundā. But the interpretation of what this looks like is very open to personal interpretation and any centre could fail if the Ministry person so chooses.
I have been told this directly: āAll centres fail my licensing inspectionsā and upon checking the stats, this person fails basically every centre they visit. This is on the basis that the Ministry only visits centres when they open or if there are complaints and itās this persons view itās their job to make the most of each visit and reform the whole industry. Regardless if you meet standards or notā¦
Iāve seen one Ministry person pass a whole lot of policies and documentation on an initial licensing visit and on the final sign off a seperate Ministry person fails the exact same documents. Personal interpretation. The exact same documents pass or fail depending on who reads itā¦ thatās how great the regulations are!
I have had an ERO pass documentation, curriculum, etc and the Ministry comes in months later and fails the exact same program and documentation. Personal interpretation.
Iāve seen a Ministry person say itās there interpretation despite written guidance from the Ministry contradicting their opinion.
In regards to Te Reo - another grey regulation. One Ministry person accepts some Te Reo sprinkled in conversations. The next says they expect that whole sentences must be in Te Reo. Iāve been told by a Ministry person they frequently fail Kohonga Reoās for not meeting the Cultural regulations
. Iāve watched a 20+ year Maori teacher argue with a white Ministry person that the Maori teacher wasnāt meeting the Maori standards because they couldnāt identify what extras they do for each and every Maori child. The teacher believes ALL children that needed extra help should be identified and given it and Maori that didnāt need extra support shouldnāt be labelled. Personal interpretation.My issue isnāt with the Maori component of the regulations (but it has risen significantly in prominence over the last 6 years). Many of the regulations are too subjective. I would ask do you know where your own child sits against any educational standards? The regulations are as vague as your childrenās progress!
I could go onā¦.
So in my opinion the regulations are way to open to personal interpretation combined with a lot of activist people that philosophically want to charter school private ECE centres. These people corrupt the processes.
And when some people can corrupt the process so easily, all integrity in the process is gone and I donāt believe anything they say without seeing both sides of the storyā¦
Bay39er
Contributor
Seymour will sort it out!On this specific centre, I have no knowledge if itās good or bad, deserves to be closed or not. But hereās my experience:
There is a group in education that is anti private childcare provision. This is the same group that shut down charter schools and if they had their way would shut down private childcare. They are philosophically opposed to it and no matter what, believe itās inferior. Not all ministry or ERO staff but an obvious portion. Most are professional but some believe private centres will fail their inspections before they even walk in the door.
Look at the Ministry funding. Significantly less for private vs public resulting in lower teacher pay despite identical teacher qualifications. Iāve watched for decades as good experienced private teachers leave due to low pay to public or other industries, hollowing out the private centres then the same ministry that underfunds the sector targets them as lower quality.
Look at the ERO that openly views public centres and private centre as different risks.
Now my main issue is, many regulations are not black and white. A regulation might be something like āteaching must acknowledge childrenās cultural backgroundā. But the interpretation of what this looks like is very open to personal interpretation and any centre could fail if the Ministry person so chooses.
I have been told this directly: āAll centres fail my licensing inspectionsā and upon checking the stats, this person fails basically every centre they visit. This is on the basis that the Ministry only visits centres when they open or if there are complaints and itās this persons view itās their job to make the most of each visit and reform the whole industry. Regardless if you meet standards or notā¦
Iāve seen one Ministry person pass a whole lot of policies and documentation on an initial licensing visit and on the final sign off a seperate Ministry person fails the exact same documents. Personal interpretation. The exact same documents pass or fail depending on who reads itā¦ thatās how great the regulations are!
I have had an ERO pass documentation, curriculum, etc and the Ministry comes in months later and fails the exact same program and documentation. Personal interpretation.
Iāve seen a Ministry person say itās there interpretation despite written guidance from the Ministry contradicting their opinion.
In regards to Te Reo - another grey regulation. One Ministry person accepts some Te Reo sprinkled in conversations. The next says they expect that whole sentences must be in Te Reo. Iāve been told by a Ministry person they frequently fail Kohonga Reoās for not meeting the Cultural regulations
My issue isnāt with the Maori component of the regulations (but it has risen significantly in prominence over the last 6 years). Many of the regulations are too subjective. I would ask do you know where your own child sits against any educational standards? The regulations are as vague as your childrenās progress!
I could go onā¦.
So in my opinion the regulations are way to open to personal interpretation combined with a lot of activist people that philosophically want to charter school private ECE centres. These people corrupt the processes.
And when some people can corrupt the process so easily, all integrity in the process is gone and I donāt believe anything they say without seeing both sides of the storyā¦
More wrong information. If they were meeting double the current target, that means every seat would filled and people standing on every service. Why? Because the current funding target is set at 51%.
To make matters worse, to try and meet their funding requirements, NZTA reduced the target from over 75% to 51%.
But never let the facts get in the way of an idealogy.
NZTA board to determine Te Huia's fate
A petition to save the service has gained more than 4000 signatures in less than four days.
www.rnz.co.nz
- Thread starter
- #9,552
So about 300 passengers a day.
Serious question - would 6 buses per day have been more economical than $50m subsidy per year to provide all the seperate and specialised train infrastructure?
Lower cost, faster, more direct, easily adapted to demand, lower climate emissions.
The right on here certainly don't let facts get in the way of an ideology.More wrong information. If they were meeting double the current target, that means every seat would filled and people standing on every service. Why? Because the current funding target is set at 51%.
To make matters worse, to try and meet their funding requirements, NZTA reduced the target from over 75% to 51%.
But never let the facts get in the way of an idealogy.
NZTA board to determine Te Huia's fate
A petition to save the service has gained more than 4000 signatures in less than four days.
Which Ideology are you referring to Mike? I'm referring the love in echo chamber on here that is neoliberalism
More wrong information. If they were meeting double the current target, that means every seat would filled and people standing on every service. Why? Because the current funding target is set at 51%.
To make matters worse, to try and meet their funding requirements, NZTA reduced the target from over 75% to 51%.
But never let the facts get in the way of an idealogy.
NZTA board to determine Te Huia's fate
A petition to save the service has gained more than 4000 signatures in less than four days.
Te Huia ā by the numbers
With Te Huia back in the news we researched up-to-date data from the Minister of Transport during Parliamentary question time on July 3
www.waikatochamber.co.nz
Tim Welch says that the train patronage is āalmost double the targetā.
Four train trips per day with 147 passengers is just over 17,600 trips per month (@ 30 days per month). The NZTA has reduced their target from 75% patronage to 51% meaning they are targeting just under 9,000 trips per monthā¦. something theyāve achieved twice in over 28 months of operation.
Yet, to achieve nearly double the target, as suggested by Welch, the patronage in the highest month would needed to have been at least over 15,000ā¦. not the 9,400 Welch showed in his chart.
The fact is, for that highest figure to be almost double the target, the target would need to be down at around 20%ā¦. not the 51%.
Welch was happy to manufacture a conclusion about the Te Huia service āsmashing itā based on an ideology for a mass transport over the facts. Where there is the population to support a service, public transport is greatā¦. unfortunately, a service which moves only 1 person per 85 people on the Waikato Expressway isnāt.
Think off it this way, when each passenger is being subsidized by an average of over $80 per trip, thatās not āsmashing itā.
Rick OāShay
Contributor
Bottom line is, does the train pay it's own way?
If not, it's surplus to requirements. End of story. (in a sort of neo liberal, market driven way)
If not, it's surplus to requirements. End of story. (in a sort of neo liberal, market driven way)
āSmashing itā, where āitā is the taxpayer
- Thread starter
- #9,558
Those people would fit on 4 buses!
Lumped with a $50 million loss when buses would probably cover their cost with fares.
Communism aye
- Thread starter
- #9,559
Capitalism isnāt about money, itās actually about the efficient use of labour and resources via monetising it to distribute it where best used. Capitalism ensure we get the best use of precious and scarce human labour.
Itās easy to decry capitalism and say just borrow for investmentā¦ operate social services at a lossā¦ etc.
But the reality is those loss making, inefficient enterprises draw in valuable labour meaning those people canāt work doing other more productive jobs.
Weāve seen this with massive borrow and spend ($100m in borrowing); dumb investment decisions (excessively expensive ferries); rapid growth in public service workers; etc. The real issue is these soak up human labour meaning they canāt do the other jobs we need.
It leads to inflation as the economy fights for labour and labour shortages everywhere (sound familiar) as people are soaked up doing inefficient stuff.
To be successful (get lots of value from our scarce labour) we need to focus on productivity and ensure we get benefits from investments (eg the rail) so the utilisation of every person is maximising their contribution to the economy to make us all have a higher standard of living.
Another issue: You canāt borrow and spend up on infrastructure to fill an infrastructure deficit. You can only allocate as much labour as you have available.
Inefficient spending (growing the public service, expensive ferries, dud trains, etc) is nothing to do with neoliberalism - itās about the best use of our precious and scarce human labour.
The first sentence manages to be pure satire and pure fiction all at once. It doesn't bode well for the rest of the comment.
