So, I realize I haven't blogged in quite some time, my family and I have been going through a transition of sorts. It sometimes seems that we are stuck in a rut and going nowhere but time is flying on by, but I digress we are alive and well and together so we are OK, we'll get there...
In saying that, I am obliged to warn you that this is a pretty long post.
Here goes...
Who agrees with me that John Key is the New Zealand version of George Bush? And I don't mean the old one, I mean the idiot who started a war mainly because he could. THAT George Bush. I suppose Mr Key is lucky his first name isn't Don, that certainly would make him an ass. I wouldn't be surprised if someone threw a shoe at him like the one George Bush dodged. I literally laughed out loud and cheered a bit. I thought to myself, "that would have been me, I would have thrown that shoe at him too". Its blatantly obvious that whoever threw the shoe intended to miss because lets face it, a ten year old school girl could make that shot. It was all for impact, to prove a point, to show what the people really thought of him and the shame he should feel. It didn't have that effect however, because closed minded individuals such as George Bush and John Key don't pick up on the intricacies of public opinion. Its awfully hard to hear the little people from so high up the ladder, isn't it?
I wonder what the consequences would be if a child threw something at John Key. Or smacked him upside his ignorant head during on of his many public appearances whilst scraping up photo opportunities. I really wish a baby would just throw up into his mouth. Just to see what he does with the baby. If I was ever close to him with a baby, I'd make sure its well fed and bounce it on my knee for a good while then hand it over to our dear Premier. He would rue the day he tried to take pictures with a baby of mine. Now don't get me wrong I wouldn't do anything to hurt said baby, its a well know fact that babies suffer from some reflux from time to time, and I would be right there, as if I would actually let the baby go! I'm not even saying I would do something like this, it's all hypothetical of course.
If you're thinking "wow dude, that's sick" but would totally watch if it happened, then Welcome to the Dark Side. Ha ha ha ha
It seems like he only has something to say if it makes him look good. But if he's in the firing line or being asked the "tough" questions he freezes up and dishes out the "No comment at this time." comment or if he doesn't like that fact that people oppose him he simply says "I don't care."
Hmmm, seems to be a bit contradictory Mr Key.
When asked by a reporter from the New Zealand Listener, in May 2005 - "Mr Key, why do your children go to private schools?" He responded "Mostly for educational reasons. Their schools have smaller classes and are better resourced than most state schools". Oh, OK, we get it, if you're not able to afford private schooling don't expect a good education. So the majority of New Zealand kids have to go to schools which are severely under funded and have poor resources? So does that mean poor people aren't able to get the same quality of education? Great, that's good to know that your priorities lie with those higher up on the salary scale, John.
He's not very good at fishing for votes is he? And yet he's our Prime Minister.
Not even once, but twice!
I was gobsmacked to find out that so many people didn't vote last election, a whopping 1 MILLION. A survey showed that the reasons for not voting were similar to the 2008 election. Non-voters said they had other commitments, work, could not be bothered, could not decide who to vote for, or felt their vote would not make a difference.
The biggest influence on New Zealanders who did not vote was a distrust of politicians. A third of all non-voters said this was their reason for failing to turn up on election day.
Whatever the reason, I am still disappointed.
Back to the subject of schools and government though, have you heard the latest? Some public schools are under going some pretty brutal budget cuts. It's not bad enough that Mr Key admits that private schools are better equipped and that he prefers to send his children there because of that fact, but his Education Minister Hekia Parata says there will be two teachers dismissed from some schools. Do you realize what this means? It means that under resourced schools are going to be worse off because they may have to move more and more student into one room and have a single teacher but not enough material to go around. This does not ONLY have the possibility of being detrimental to their education but it also puts more pressure on the teacher, thus potentially taking away vital learning processes for some, it is going to have an undesirable effect.
Therefore, under this new proposal isn't it safe to assume that in a classroom of 30 plus children there will be at least one little Timmy or little Suzy sitting in class not learning one bit because the teacher has her hands full? And who will they blame? The parents. Even though it all starts at the top.
I worry about the future of NZ students who aren't even given the chance to succeed because what they need is going to be taken away from them. My niece Sala attends high school at Southern Cross Campus in Mangere, here in Auckland where we live. She's in year 12 and is doing really well. I've met almost all of her teachers and it would be a sad day indeed if any of them were to lose their job because of an over ambitious Prime Minister and his greedy, money hungry minions. I think two teachers lost is two too many.
Wouldn't the goal be to make it better, not worse? To endeavor to have more students succeed in finishing secondary school and see them move on to university or another tertiary learning facility? Honestly it doesn't make any sense!
I see that there is also a great debate on whether to implement free lunches at school or not, which personally I think would be great. As I've said in a previous post, I'm all for giving students some nourishment to help get them through the day, but it doesn't make up for lost time in the classroom. Paula Bennett, who is the Minister of Social Development (pfft) sees it as a waste of taxpayers dollars. That providing government funded school lunches to children would put undue pressure on the National budget and will not go ahead in the near future. The claim is that if they were to go forward with the scheme it would invite food producers and nutritional watchdogs to monitor the meals and constantly ask for more. I said it before and I'll say again, incorporate the free lunch scheme into school fees. Paula Bennett is so worried about students that may abuse the fact that there is free food to be had and will eat it even though the don't need it, but what is not being realized is that there are ways to stop this. What I would like to know is how do you measure one child's hunger to another? So Paula, what you're implying is that if a child is able to bring a sandwich to school they are not entitled to anymore food? A bit extreme isn't it?
Maybe schools could create a meal plan, where parents had the option of paying a small one off fee that ensures their children will get a good meal at school. Then maybe the student could be issued with a card of sorts with which they "purchase" their lunch. That certainly is a viable solution, don't you think? It would give many parents who are struggling, a way to provide for their children without extra burden and feel good about it, and not have their child chastise for being from a lower socio economic family, because it could be seen as a commendable thing that a parent has done for their child, and I think over time every parent would prefer to pay the fee and children everywhere would be better off.
If only the National party would stop trying to line their pockets and take a good look around, maybe past their fancy cars and private school educations.
That could be wishful thinking though.
Watch this space for my next post!
In saying that, I am obliged to warn you that this is a pretty long post.
Here goes...
Who agrees with me that John Key is the New Zealand version of George Bush? And I don't mean the old one, I mean the idiot who started a war mainly because he could. THAT George Bush. I suppose Mr Key is lucky his first name isn't Don, that certainly would make him an ass. I wouldn't be surprised if someone threw a shoe at him like the one George Bush dodged. I literally laughed out loud and cheered a bit. I thought to myself, "that would have been me, I would have thrown that shoe at him too". Its blatantly obvious that whoever threw the shoe intended to miss because lets face it, a ten year old school girl could make that shot. It was all for impact, to prove a point, to show what the people really thought of him and the shame he should feel. It didn't have that effect however, because closed minded individuals such as George Bush and John Key don't pick up on the intricacies of public opinion. Its awfully hard to hear the little people from so high up the ladder, isn't it?
I wonder what the consequences would be if a child threw something at John Key. Or smacked him upside his ignorant head during on of his many public appearances whilst scraping up photo opportunities. I really wish a baby would just throw up into his mouth. Just to see what he does with the baby. If I was ever close to him with a baby, I'd make sure its well fed and bounce it on my knee for a good while then hand it over to our dear Premier. He would rue the day he tried to take pictures with a baby of mine. Now don't get me wrong I wouldn't do anything to hurt said baby, its a well know fact that babies suffer from some reflux from time to time, and I would be right there, as if I would actually let the baby go! I'm not even saying I would do something like this, it's all hypothetical of course.
If you're thinking "wow dude, that's sick" but would totally watch if it happened, then Welcome to the Dark Side. Ha ha ha ha
It seems like he only has something to say if it makes him look good. But if he's in the firing line or being asked the "tough" questions he freezes up and dishes out the "No comment at this time." comment or if he doesn't like that fact that people oppose him he simply says "I don't care."
Hmmm, seems to be a bit contradictory Mr Key.
When asked by a reporter from the New Zealand Listener, in May 2005 - "Mr Key, why do your children go to private schools?" He responded "Mostly for educational reasons. Their schools have smaller classes and are better resourced than most state schools". Oh, OK, we get it, if you're not able to afford private schooling don't expect a good education. So the majority of New Zealand kids have to go to schools which are severely under funded and have poor resources? So does that mean poor people aren't able to get the same quality of education? Great, that's good to know that your priorities lie with those higher up on the salary scale, John.
He's not very good at fishing for votes is he? And yet he's our Prime Minister.
Not even once, but twice!
I was gobsmacked to find out that so many people didn't vote last election, a whopping 1 MILLION. A survey showed that the reasons for not voting were similar to the 2008 election. Non-voters said they had other commitments, work, could not be bothered, could not decide who to vote for, or felt their vote would not make a difference.
The biggest influence on New Zealanders who did not vote was a distrust of politicians. A third of all non-voters said this was their reason for failing to turn up on election day.
Whatever the reason, I am still disappointed.
Back to the subject of schools and government though, have you heard the latest? Some public schools are under going some pretty brutal budget cuts. It's not bad enough that Mr Key admits that private schools are better equipped and that he prefers to send his children there because of that fact, but his Education Minister Hekia Parata says there will be two teachers dismissed from some schools. Do you realize what this means? It means that under resourced schools are going to be worse off because they may have to move more and more student into one room and have a single teacher but not enough material to go around. This does not ONLY have the possibility of being detrimental to their education but it also puts more pressure on the teacher, thus potentially taking away vital learning processes for some, it is going to have an undesirable effect.
Therefore, under this new proposal isn't it safe to assume that in a classroom of 30 plus children there will be at least one little Timmy or little Suzy sitting in class not learning one bit because the teacher has her hands full? And who will they blame? The parents. Even though it all starts at the top.
I worry about the future of NZ students who aren't even given the chance to succeed because what they need is going to be taken away from them. My niece Sala attends high school at Southern Cross Campus in Mangere, here in Auckland where we live. She's in year 12 and is doing really well. I've met almost all of her teachers and it would be a sad day indeed if any of them were to lose their job because of an over ambitious Prime Minister and his greedy, money hungry minions. I think two teachers lost is two too many.
Wouldn't the goal be to make it better, not worse? To endeavor to have more students succeed in finishing secondary school and see them move on to university or another tertiary learning facility? Honestly it doesn't make any sense!
I see that there is also a great debate on whether to implement free lunches at school or not, which personally I think would be great. As I've said in a previous post, I'm all for giving students some nourishment to help get them through the day, but it doesn't make up for lost time in the classroom. Paula Bennett, who is the Minister of Social Development (pfft) sees it as a waste of taxpayers dollars. That providing government funded school lunches to children would put undue pressure on the National budget and will not go ahead in the near future. The claim is that if they were to go forward with the scheme it would invite food producers and nutritional watchdogs to monitor the meals and constantly ask for more. I said it before and I'll say again, incorporate the free lunch scheme into school fees. Paula Bennett is so worried about students that may abuse the fact that there is free food to be had and will eat it even though the don't need it, but what is not being realized is that there are ways to stop this. What I would like to know is how do you measure one child's hunger to another? So Paula, what you're implying is that if a child is able to bring a sandwich to school they are not entitled to anymore food? A bit extreme isn't it?
Maybe schools could create a meal plan, where parents had the option of paying a small one off fee that ensures their children will get a good meal at school. Then maybe the student could be issued with a card of sorts with which they "purchase" their lunch. That certainly is a viable solution, don't you think? It would give many parents who are struggling, a way to provide for their children without extra burden and feel good about it, and not have their child chastise for being from a lower socio economic family, because it could be seen as a commendable thing that a parent has done for their child, and I think over time every parent would prefer to pay the fee and children everywhere would be better off.
If only the National party would stop trying to line their pockets and take a good look around, maybe past their fancy cars and private school educations.
That could be wishful thinking though.
Watch this space for my next post!
