by Catherine Delahunty
The additional funding for sports in secondary and primary schools sounds great but the devil is in the detail. Up til now the funding under the Sportfit programme ($5.3 million) was targeted so that lower decile schools got more support. The new money which is $6 million to secondary schools and $6 million to primary schools is per capita. The $5.3 million only went to secondary schools. So what’s the problem with per capita to all schools?
Per capita is based on an assumption that all schools have equal access to resources and similar needs. Anyone who has visited the range of schools knows this is totally untrue. Some schools need a lot more help for a range of reasons to do with the fundamental and growing inequity in our society.
Some children are born with access to many educational resources and some are refugees, second language speakers or living in acute poverty. It is not rocket science to target the greatest need. So what’s driving this not very sporting approach to funding? Could it be ideology masquerading as fairness?
If the increase in sports funding is about our children’s health and fitness the Government might like to re think the school food guidelines and listen to parents and teachers who are calling for healthy food. Healthy food not only helps with fitness but teachers tell me it increases learning and concentration. How serious are we about the well being of children and equity of education?
A Government which cuts healthy food programmes, Enviroschools and ACE classes then gives $35 million to private schools, and then introduces a per capita model for school sports is sending some interesting messages. The reinstatement of physical therapy for children with special needs in 23 schools was a response to public outcry so perhaps we better keep asking the Minister “Are you playing fair, or fast and loose?”
Published in Environment & Resource Management by Catherine Delahunty on Mon, August 17th, 2009
Tags: Catherine Delahunty, Education, funding, sports
More posts by Catherine Delahunty | more about Catherine Delahunty
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Keep asking and asking and asking. This government is committed to pandering to ‘what the public wants’, so long as it’s small change, while they get on with the bigger business that is their core ideology. Throw out some shiney Herceptin funding, or some rugby balls to make it seem like ‘little christmas’! It’s a ploy that works wonders. But if there are sounds of discontent that can be stifled by throwing some chicken-feed to the chooks, Mr Key’s the man to do it!
The squeeky wheel will get oiled by this government, but when it does, don’t be fooled into thinking that things are running your way.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>gives $35 million to private schools,
Tell you what. Parents of children at private schools will hand back that $35 million if you hand back all the tax they are paying towards the state school system that they aren’t using.
>>is sending some interesting messages.
Yes. The country is broke.
Too many handouts, not enough productivity.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Too many handouts, not enough productivity.”
I don’t see much sign of the handouts getting smaller – they just seem to be going to different people.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
# BluePeter Says:
August 17th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
>>is sending some interesting messages.
> Yes. The country is broke.
Slight exaggeration there. Ukraine is broke. Iceland is broke. New Zealand just has too much private overseas debt for my liking, but it isn’t broke.
> Too many handouts, not enough productivity.
I can’t see how giving money to private schools improves productivity. But as a short-term improvement to the government accounts, it will work – the cost of paying this money to private schools is likely to be less than the amount that would have to be paid to state schools to educate these children if their parents could no longer afford to send them to private schools.
Any downside is likely to be longer term, if we end up with a sufficiently large number of students at private schools that the government can get away with neglecvting the quality of teaching at state schools, as happens in the US. That would ultimately be bad for the economy, because it would mean talented kids from poor families would not get educated well, so the country would thus never get the best out of them.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP; Denying the children of refugees and the lower socio economic group a good education will only result in more poverty and crime.
It is an expence that we as a nation can ill afford to dispense with.
Imagine if we went the way of ACT and have ‘the suvival of the fittest ‘ where only the weathiest families are entitled to education. Then we will be heading very quickly into a very dark age.
These right trolls always complain about the rich having to faulk out twice (1) Education for the public schools and (2) Education for their own kids out of their own pocket.
Well if they don’t like it they should send their kids to a public school.
The point they miss is that everybody pays for public education even the not so well off families
But they don’t seem to get it and they are usually the ones who call themselves christians.
They are the same self centred, pathetic bunch who are causing trouble at the civic halls over Obama’s medicare policies.
Frog Do you have a spare bucket?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I’m no ACT member but I know ACT policy has never been to abolish universal education.
It is to allow funding to follow the children so that the unpopular state schools can close and the popular ones can thrive, grow and use the additional funding to develop further (expand and takeover ones elsewhere). It works in Sweden, but leftwing blinkers elsewhere are scared that their precious state schools would suffer because parents might actually choose someone else to deliver education to their kids. Some who object are the vested interests who do well out of the status quo – teachers’ unions – who don’t want their members to face accountability, the better ones to negotiate better individual pay and the bad ones to finally be pushed out of the system so they can get a different job.
For example, in Finland, the qualifications for becoming a teacher are tough and rigorous, far far more university students want to become a teacher there than in other OECD countries. Class sizes are NOT smaller, but teacher salaries are higher. In essence, Finland has rationed access to the profession, increasing average salaries and ensured that mediocrity doesn’t teach. The result is that Finland has some of the best primary and secondary results in the OECD.
Sadly in New Zealand teaching is a profession for those who are passionate about it, or for mediocre graduates who can’t aspire to better (why would you given you don’t get paid much for being very good at it).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
No one is being denied a good education.
Look, private schools are a bit of a scam anyway. The kids fare no better at university than kids from state schools.
The real problem with education is a) irresponsible parents and b) single labour supplier with no performance measurement (teachers and their union) . Bring in vouchers, like they did in Sweden – it works.
“Per Unckel, Governor of Stockholm and former Minister of Education, sums up the advantages of Swedish system: “Education is so important that you can’t just leave it to one producer. Because we know from monopoly systems that they do not fulfill all wishes”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>But they don’t seem to get it and they are usually the ones who call themselves christians.
Huh?
Atheist libertarian here.
What you don’t get is that the school system in New Zealand is mediocre at best, and dysfunctional at worst. Time we fixed it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“They are the same self centred, pathetic bunch who are causing trouble at the civic halls over Obama’s medicare policies.”
So if it so happened that Obama’s medicare policies actually are a mess, how should they respond?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
In defence of Mr O – he inherited a huge mess…probably the biggest social welfare concept the US has fronted since the Depression.
Which bright Postie said that all kiwis should do 5 years abroad? – one can’t help but approve…see the swarm of folk living rough, begging in the streets. Yes – all over America.
Compared to that NZ is all cotton and roses.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2009/08/obamas-insurance-plan-comes-right-wing-think-tank
The usual stuff about Health Care in the USA. Anything but single-payer insurance. Anything but making people accept that sooner or later, they are going to die of SOMETHING and anything but limiting the malpractice insurance/legal racket.
So lets not get sidetracked, the issue is schools…
++++++++++++++++
Any effort that does this on a per-capita basis has to cope with the fact that some schools will have 90% families with broadband and a computer, and some will have 90% without those advantages. Has to cope with the fact that some areas have a good public library and some have less access. Has to deal with the fact that some communities value education and some do not.
Yet a child’s opportunity to learn should not be limited by the circumstances of his/her birth. Including the unfortunate choice of one’s parents (to the extent possible – We still have trouble keeping some parents from killing their kids, so that last one may be a bit too much to ask of the education system
).
I still suspect that the best answer is to fire Parliament and send someone with a xerox machine to Sweden. Just do what THEY do.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Fair enough! I was living outside Melbourne when the Internet was introduced and one of the admirable things the Govt. there did was make plentiful free Public access to the Internet – through schools and Libraries.
No Mucking About as they are wont to say – and it was a great thing too.
There is really no substitute for doing things properly and well.
Compromise a measure of failure.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What balderdash this is
“Some children are born with access to many educational resources and some are refugees, second language speakers or living in acute poverty”
Unless, that is, you are talking of somewhere like Sri Lanka, or Eritrea or other 3rd world countries where twice the average wage would be well below NZ’s “poverty line” as measured by basic welfare. In those countries, education of children is THE NUMBER ONE priority for families, as that’s the way out of the poverty trap.
I suggest, Catherine, that you go to a village in ‘up-country’ Sri Lanka, where the average daily wage is about NZ$4.00, and visit a school there. You’ll find the children dressed in immaculate white school uniforms, working hard at their lessons and showing great respect for their teachers. If you follow them home you’ll see they do the homework then get on with jobs around the house – all without having to be told Such a visit really is an eye-opener.
Now let’s look at New Zealand, where refugees and second language speakers, particularly Asians, make up at least half of the top 10% of achievers in the basic education system. Just look at the list of Duxes for schools in our cities and work out for yourself, from their names alone, how many are Asian. The difference between these and other “less fortunate” children is their parents understand the value of education and instill it in their children from birth. Here, our under achievers’ parents understand the value of the welfare handout, and instill it into their children from birth.
I think I know where our long-term future will be led from, and it isn’t the Pakeha or Islanders, and good on those young Asians, the country is going to need their hard work and determination, if the rest of society wants to continue to live off handouts.
Dave (The white-man from Liverpool) Stringer
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Great post, Dave.
A wise man once said: “welfare will destroy Maori”. How right he was….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BluePeter
Surely those you claim are ‘being destroyed by welfare’, want to be destroyed. It’s their choice, so why would you interfere or try to intervene in that process?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Because I don’t wish to live with the results.
People need to be engaged in society. It seems a tragedy that we leave so many to rot. And rort.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Imagine if we went the way of ACT and have ‘the suvival of the fittest ‘ where only the weathiest families are entitled to education. Then we will be heading very quickly into a very dark age.”
You are either a liar or ignorant…probably both.
Read Roger Douglas’s new book “No second class citizens” and you will see that ACT are actually the only ones proposing the poorest kids DO get a quality education…by giving their parents choice…which the state denys them.
Douglas cares more for the poor and how to raise them up than any 20 left wing politicians you can name…..who need the poor kept that way to have a voter base.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Roger Douglas has his head buried so deep in the trough, he’s oblivious of the ‘second class citizens’ all around him. They’re pointing their fingers at him and going, ‘Oink! Oink!’.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“..# BluePeter Says:
August 18th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
Because I don’t wish to live with the results.
People need to be engaged in society. It seems a tragedy that we leave so many to rot. And rort….”
are you talking about all those who get accountants/lawyers/trusts to ‘minimise their income’..
so that they then become eligible for working for families..
and student allowances for offspring..
(to name just two common rorts..by many of those who point fingers..
..and abuse .. at sole-parents and the like..)
is it these you are speaking of..?
not to mention the businesses/companies that do the same thing..
is it them you are speaking of..?
not to mention buying rental properties as loss-making’ assetts..?
is it them you are speaking of..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yeah right fly….Douglas could have indulged far more at the taxpayers expense but hasn’t done so….unlike some.
Anyway Rodneys use of a smart car (for a few years now) instead of the limo he’s entitled to as a minister more than offsets Douglas’s odd trip.
Compare that with Goff using his to give rides to Darren Huges to take him to the airport to visit Aunty Helen in New York….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
That’s the problem with poorly thought out middle class benefits. WFF should be scraped immediately. It’s a churn.
Most of these rorts can be eliminated by making the tax system flat.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Roger Douglas makes a lot more sense than most.
http://www.rogerdouglas.org.nz/?p=315
“For almost 80 years, New Zealanders have experimented with the welfare state. What have the consequences been?
Do all children receive decent education? No.
Do most people retire with enough money to live in comfort? No.
Does everyone receive health treatment when they need it? No.
Have we eradicated poverty? No.
On the very goals that the welfare state has sought to achieve, no one could genuinely argue that it has succeeded. Even the modern day proponents of the welfare state, be they in National, the Greens, or Labour, all know it has failed.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
James said:
Douglas could have indulged far more..
Oh well James, that is reassuring. Douglas only snouted up a small fortune from us rather than the gobs of taxpayer cash to which he is entitled
No wonder you idolize him.
I don’t.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Another Roger Douglas acolyte Blue?
I’ve tumbled to the floor with surprise!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Roger Douglas – showing restraint!
(increasingly loud guffawing, as if from asses).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Douglas is right. The welfare system is a failure.
54 percent of your and every one else’s personal tax goes towards healthcare. The growth is scary, when just two years ago the figure was 41 percent of your personal tax.
Saying 54 percent can hide what this means. If you earn minimum wage, you will pay about $2500 every year for healthcare. If you earn the average wage, you will pay over $6000 for healthcare.
Despite the huge increases of resources at their disposal, the productivity of doctors actually reduced by 15 percent. Nurse productivity dropped 11 percent. Overall, the drop was only eight percent.
Why eight percent? Because the productivity of cleaning and orderly staff surged. And those services were outsourced to the private market. This just gives a hint of the kind of benefits that could be achieved if we dropped the pretence and lived up the reality: socialised healthcare has failed.
If we simply gave the person on the average wage the $6,000 back they currently pay, this would enable them to buy catastrophic insurance, put money aside for their healthcare in retirement, and pay for their day to day healthcare needs such as doctor visits.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Bit of an inflated sense of self-importance there though, eh, with ol’ Rog! What does that tell you about the depth of his ideology.
His sense of entitlement is a stain that signals that there is something leaking below the surface. (A bit like Rodney Hide’s keeness to take away choice for wearers of certain clothing items – dig down a little and find hidden Hide).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Perhaps. So you’ll be applying the same scrutiny to the Green Partys curious housing investment scheme, then?
When you’re finished with the red-herrings, Greenfly, please tell us what a success welfare, health and education are in this country after 80 years of socialism.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Perhaps indeed.
My herrings are not red, Blue. Douglas’ name came up, like a snout breaking the surface of a deep trough of slops and I expressed my opinion of his behaviour. You’ve shared your admiration for him. You and he deserve each other, I’m bound to say.
As for the successess of welfare, health and education in New Zealand…let’s see.. yes, we are in a very good state.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
As usual, I beg to differ
I guess Enviroschools might be more widespread if it was under parents, rather than government, control.
See, that’s the problem when you hand control over to government. Fine when your gal is in there, but the minute she isn’t, you’ve realise you’ve handed your control, and that of your community, away.
On one hand, part of your charter appears to support libertarianism “decisions will be made directly at the appropriate level by those affected.”, but most of the Greens Party actions are about increased state control and intervention.
Why?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BluePeter
Earlier you argued that the reason you would want to intervene and remove welfare from the dependent was
Because I don’t wish to live with the results.
You’ve argued hard and long against the Greens wish to remove poor foods from school canteens. Well, it’s
Because WE don’t wish to live with the results.
Sauce for the goose, eh!
I think you are a true blue Interventionist at heart, pretending to be a Libertarian. Intervene indeed! Pissshhhhhh.
#
Greenfly said:
It’s their choice, so why would you interfere or try to intervene in that process?
# BluePeter Says:
August 18th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
Because I don’t wish to live with the results.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
An interesting fact-let about NZ and America; In NZ Maori consistantly follow well below caucasians in wealth and health statistics, pacific islanders do better than maori but not by much. In america the worst are the native indians and alittle better are the african americans. It is often stated that this is due to the way the state is constructed to suit the caucasian rather than the other ethnicities. Looking further though, in NZ asians coming over here from backgrounds far more impoverished than maori or PI have far far better health statistics than even caucasians after living here awhile and the rate of economic advance likewise exceeds that of caucasians. In america the same applies to those from south of the states. This same pattern applies in almost every country with a similar constituency. The answer is not that the pakeha state causes disadvantage in minorities but that the culture of victimisation does, and this is why the Maori party does far more harm to Maori than it does good and why TT disadvantages her own people so she can use them to further her own political carrier.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient – I don’t think so. There is a significant difference between recent immigrants to a new country and an indigenous people who have once held pole position and since lost it.
Far better health statistics? Were they getting too little to eat, or too much bad food? There is a difference. A spare diet can be recovered from quickly, a fatted-out diet produces a very-difficult-to-reverse situation, especially when the source of the problem, bad food, is still available and cheap. TT may indeed be doing as you say, I’d not argue with that. Her team have dissapointed me enormously. I met them all (in a 99% Tangata Whenua venue), listened closely to their words (they were defending their support of Bradford’s bill) and talked one to one with Hone Harawira (liked him alot – he must be suffering now!) They showed very little tolerance for Green ideals then, as now.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly, you seem to delight in taking my arguments out of context.
We’re aiming at the same end, we have different ways of getting there. I think state intervention has largely failed in terms of service delivery. It is wasteful and inefficient.
That’s why I would scrap most welfare and replace it with income insurance and charity. You still need to ensure everyone is looked after, as that is only moral.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Out of context, Peter? Same thread, same day, same concept. Now you say,
“I would scrap most welfare”. Holy cow. Are you a dictator or what! Talk about taking decision-making off the people, for their own good, no doubt!
What else would you ‘take off the people’.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yawnies, Greenfly.
I’d leave people with their own money, so decisions could be made by those affected, at the appropriate level. Communites and individuals making decisions, not governments.
I’d give more power to the people.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Getting to that point seems to involve a lot of ‘force’ from you Peter.
How do you plan to take the minds and hearts of the people, or do you plan to impose your plans on them (for their own good of course)?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Oh, there is little chance of it actually happening – the people are far too stupid.
I’m flying kites.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly,
There are some in the Maori party whom obviously do think that they are doing what is best for their contituency, there are some very smart people. But there are also those whom are not so smart or seem to be personally orientated; unfotunatly they seem to be in the majority.
The health statistic which are in detriment do include those which are influenced by diet, they are the most significant, but there are many more which are not related to food or not fully explained through this mechanism. Many of the detrimental stats may be attributed primarily to lifestyle choices e.g obeasity, lung cancer, and liver cancer. This is primarily blameable on culture, though notibly the consumption rates of these are likly strongly exacibated by the culture of victimisation. The success rates economically and educationally, and the crime rates, are not explained by poverty when the cultural characteristics are taken into account: these factors can be attributed almost entirly to culture, the majority of the cultural cause lying in the victimisation culture perpetuated by the Maori party.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The blue casts worn by the 40% crew is a great idea, reflecting as it does, the broken arm Key suffered recently. What a blessing he wasn’t operated on for piles.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient – the ‘culture of victimisation’ you cite – is that lable aimed at the victimized or the victimizers?
You are correct (I believe) to say that these things (obesity, smoking etc) are not adequetly explained as the result of poverty.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly,
Rightfully the blame lays at the feet of both groups, but the culture of victimisation refers to the victim mindset, as in “oh, I am the victim”, “its all their fault” and ultimatly “im the victim I deserve recompense, its their fault that I am the way i am” for lack of a better way to express it. Often leads to suspiciously selective ‘learned helplessness’.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
#
Because I don’t wish to live with the results.
# Sapient Says:
August 18th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
>In NZ Maori consistantly follow well below caucasians in wealth and health statistics, pacific islanders do better than maori but not by much. In america the worst are the native indians and alittle better are the african americans. It is often stated that this is due to the way the state is constructed to suit the caucasian rather than the other ethnicities. Looking further though, in NZ asians coming over here from backgrounds far more impoverished than maori or PI have far far better health statistics than even caucasians after living here awhile and the rate of economic advance likewise exceeds that of caucasians. In america the same applies to those from south of the states. This same pattern applies in almost every country with a similar constituency.
What pattern applies everywhere? For example, do Bangladeshi immigrants in Britain do worse like Samoans in New Zealand, or better like Mexicans in the US?
I think it’s also worth bearing in mind that immigrants are generally a self-selected group – Peruvians in the US are mostly people who made a specific decision that they wanted to go and make a life for themselves in the US, which means the less enthusiastic Peruvians don’t end up there. Liekwise with Indians in New Zealand. Refugees from somewhere like Somalia will also tend to be the people who were visionary enough to feel a need to stand up to the government, or they wouldn’t end up being persecuted enough to qualify for refugee status. By contrast, Black Americans, Native Americans and Maori New Zealanders are people who just happened to be born in the country they are in, so they’re a full cross-section of the ethnic group rather than the self-selected ambitious or enthusiastic ones. New Zealand’s Pacific Island population are an in-between group – they did choose to come here, but they are not a small, select minority of the population they came from, and did not have to be particularly keen on living in New Zealand to end up following the exodus here.
It would be interesting to know how Maori people living in Australia fit into this pattern.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>The blue casts worn by the 40% crew is a great idea,
19 year old actors now?
How credible.
What actors don’t know about economics, politics and science can be written down and held in a very, very large library.
Smart party indeed….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Referrendumbbutfunny
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2C84LpXZ_4&feature=related
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Should they stick to acting BluePeter?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
# BluePeter Says:
August 18th, 2009 at 9:45 pm
> Smart party indeed….
Greenpeace isn’t actually a party. But also, I don’t think they chose every one of their representatives based on how much they knew about the issue in hand (though I’m sure they chose Jim Salinger on those grounds).
I suspect they decided that all the people who could be won over by Jim Salinger standing in front of them and talking about the science were already on side, so they needed to find a less intellectual way to engage with less intellectual people. Of course you can’t measure the quality of their case by how many people they convince in this way, but that’s not really what they need to concentrate on as all the scientific experts are already convinced.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
sapient – I understand what you are saying but amongst the Maori that I know and work with (it’s a big group, mainly Kai Tahu, Ngati Kahungunu, Kati Mamoe, Ngati Porou and some Moriori), I just don’t see it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
James:Please tell me how the state denys quality education to our kids?
For your information I have read a book by Douglas’ coleague Richard Prebble, titled “I Have Been Thinking”
Most of his assumptions on government departments were based on his experience as minister of railways in complete isolation to the whole of government. eg. the armed services that worked very efficiently at the time.
It was a very poor example of “thinking” if that is all he could muster.
For those who think that state education has always failed (in their imaginations) Nepolian was one of the first to put it into operation and that was a huge success. Every child in France worked on the same page, the same day.
I don’t think that whether a school is public or private has much to do with the quality of that institution.
It is the idiots running the institution irrespective of whether they are private or public.
GreenFly: Keep up the good battle!!!!!! We’ll come out victorious!!!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Kahikatea,
Unfortunatly I dont have the actual stats as most of this was covered in contact courses over the last few years. But from memory the difference disappears when they move to Australia.
The patern being that colonised peoples (including african americans), as a collective, everywhere in the world fail to accheive both economically and in terms of health while immegrants, and to a lesser extent refugees, will tend to accheive far more than caucasians. Interestingly Pacific Islanders are an outlier, though this may in part be explained by their islands also being colonised and many having been under the domain of NZ, the results of the victimisation culture then passing through the culture without the victimisation itself neccacarily also being proliferated. Im not sure if there is a high acceptance of benefit culture in P.I. but this would also be a contributing factor.
The point you get at about self-selection is, in part, the point. Those with higher motivation will tend to try for the greener pastures. The differences in Maori (full-spread) compared to Pakeha (full spread) suggest a far lower mean, this mean being defined by culture. It is highly probable that it is the culture of victimisation, with some effect from benefit culture, which lowers that mean; the differences in health globally are exactly what one would expect to see should this proove true, that is very strong support for this assertion. This same difference suggests that it is not the structure of the state not conforming to maori culture which is causing the problems but the aforementioned cultural factors.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Kahikatea,
So basically it comes out at will and effort being the defining factor.
Greenfly,
There are certainly other factors but they, in their entirity, come out as cultural. My point here being that the state, and its structure, are not the ones ensuring continued poverty and poor health statistics but rather the culture itself and more specifically certain inputs into that culture.
Different iwi are different in terms of the factors, the iwi, esspecially those from the north compared to the south, are very different. Two of my fathers friends with which I was in frequent contact while I grew up were from northern families, they both worked their ar*es off. Whenever they ahd money the extended family would come looking for a meal, looking for a hand-out, etc, etc, they were klept in poveryy despite their efforts. It was only once they moved far away from their ‘family’ (read: bludgers) that they were able to excel.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient – your thoughts then, on potlatch?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly,
Perfectly valid where it is essentially koha (not dissimilar to tax returned to teh supportive community in this respect), when it is extorted from the individual however by others with no intention to make koha, whom wish only for a share of the others wealth and effort, not so much.
In the instances cited there was no koha and it was very much extorted.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Extorted yes, Sapient, but could that ‘behaviour’ be a distorted version of a valid cultural practice? Looks bad from the point of view of another culture, but survives because it is not to dissimilar from a function of an earlier, robust culture. Potlatch looks appalling, and perhaps became so toward the end/once the new culture had shaken things up, but was once vital to the health of a people.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly,
Yes, absolutly, though I do not see where you are going with this. It is most certainly a perversion of a valid cultural practice going back since before the first anthropologists ventured to these antipodian islands. The practice that was perverted may even still be valid in society today, though arguably far far less so in a non-communal environment. Infact potlatch where it takes the form of koha is found in EVERY society and is strongly promoted by the cathloc church even though they do not recognise as much through both the means by which church members are supported and the expected dependant wife.
This perverted, and very out of context, form of the practice serves to redistribute effort from the enterprising to the lazy, not at all along its origional lines. This ties in, interestingly enough, with how the efforts of those with trees on their lands are not having any koha paid to them despite the contributions the make to teh functioning of the collective and the individuals of which the collective is composed (something also lacking in a carbon tax system) and where some are benefiting greatly whilst making no contributions to the system which allows it. lol.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>Should they stick to acting BluePeter?
She can do what she likes.
But it characterises the debate. A question of multi-disciplinary science being conveyed via “celebrities” – and I use that term lightly – ends up just so…..stupid.
I see she says it will be “hard” and we’ve all got to “make sacrifices” to achieve the economy-destroying 40% figure. I’m guessing this doesn’t include choosing not to go to Hollywood by plane ever again….
Yawn.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient Says:
August 18th, 2009 at 10:15 pm
> Kahikatea,
> So basically it comes out at will and effort being the defining factor.
That’s part of it, but things like intelligence and health status will also come into it, with people who are less intelligent or less healthy having to stay in the home country.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BluePeter – you sound tired, yawning constantly the way you do. The battle to demean your opponents is wearying. Take a break, go outside and enjoy the weather, while you can.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP
The very good Actors may surprise you with their breadth of knowledge, in that really GOOD acting appears to require no small amount of intelligence. Pretending to be something/someone you are not, and doing it well enough to fool an audience into believing the role? Not an easy thing at all.
As to what any individual actor “knows”, that is individual. I doubt that as a population they are much different from cab drivers, but I would suggest that you reserve your contempt for your mirror. You are the one who repeatedly utters nonsense here. We’ve shown a path to get to 40 without destroying the economy, and 30 without significantly damaging it. Where there is one, there are more.
You have taken as your most fervent belief, that we ought not try to do anything at all. This is the ONLY course of action that is guaranteed to fail to achieve anything at all.
I will never achieve anything of value if I attempt nothing at all. Such a mark is easy to hit, but such a life is not worth living. Responsibility is something you take.
You wish us to take none. It makes me think much less of you.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Think less of me if you like, but I think people advocating for expensive options that achieve nothing are akin to natives dancing to make it rain.
Well, they’re doing something, but really what they needed to do was think a bit harder about options and risk management.
Like I’m doing…..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP – it is you who are advocating for the most expensive option, and you know it. You just don’t care because you won’t have to pay too much of the cost. You can bludge it off your neighbours and children.
You are the one callously avoiding the risk management exercise and ignoring the very extensive risk analysis that has been done. You are lazy and foolish. It makes me think much less of you.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP
I have repeatedly said to support the target, to work towards it with others, and if the others cheat, all bets are off. I don’t think humans as a species, have what it takes to work together at this level, and I am not alone.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/16/magazine/16Bruce-t.html?pagewanted=6&_r=2
However, I reject utterly the idea that I should be the one who fails to try, that I should be the one who puts the future of civilization on the line to make the present situation in my family more convenient.
You don’t set up a target a meter in diameter a meter distant. It is unnecessary to cheat. Hitting it is meaningless. You learn nothing from it. You gain nothing. You ACHIEVE nothing. If other people see it, they take your willingness to succeed as the null value it appears to be.
The difficulty here is NOT that NZ is small and has no appreciable effect on climate. That is a trivial thing.
The far more difficult problem is that within the OECD each democracy must find in itself a way to overcome natural human behaviors and agree to a larger goal at some cost to its existing business models and plans.
Getting that agreement, getting past that human behavior is VASTLY more difficult than any amount of effort required to reach a specific emissions target. This is where your attitude becomes most destructive.
You may notice that it has nothing at all to do with the “science”.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“..It makes me think much less of you..”
now..bluepeter..you should realise that ‘cos passive-aggression is the green way of showing disapproval..
(usually said with a fixed-smile/grimace..)
that the above line is the equivalent of an in yer face smackdown/(“b*tch!”)..
eh..?
..read it as such..
..it dosen’t get much ‘heavier’ than ‘It makes me think much less of you’..
..in green circles..
..and speaking of ‘circles’..?
..i’d circle yer wagons..if i were you..
..eh..?
..whereas i am from the hard-green school..
..and will just come out and cheerily note that you have once again confirmed..
.. what an utter troll-twat you are..
..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Kahikatea,
Health yes, intelligence not so much.
Intelligence is also defined largely by ones own will and effort, esspecially in present society. Infact between cognitive style and digit-span intelligence is almost entirly captured and in both instances they can be improoved with will and effort quite easily at first and then with deminishing returns once one is above, approximatly, one standard deiviation above the norm.
I suppose one could also argue that health is highly influenced by effort and will aswel; if one really wanted to move to another country i am, sure they could find a way. If one really wanted to be well, even in an impoverished country, they could probally find some way to obtain what they need to become well. Though of course the more poor the country the more unlikely it is that they would be able to accheive such.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Incorrect Frog. I see nothing noble about the misallocation of our resources by single-minded activists.
We produce food. We do so with a lower carbon footprint than anywhere else. We don’t have an industrial base. We don’t have 63 million people. We generate mostly from hydro. I look at the positives.
If you want to jump in head first and cut your emissions by 40%, go right ahead. I will stick to asking questions of economics and science until the picture is clearer.
Fine by me.
But the views I hold aren’t exactly unique, are they. I think you’ll find that 93% of New Zealanders hold very similar views, as evidenced by Nationals mandate to govern.
You are the one callously avoiding the risk management exercise and ignoring the very extensive risk analysis that has been done. You are lazy and foolish. It makes me think much less of you.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
It’s charming how people treat dissenters and questioners.
But hey, time I moved on. It’s been educational and fun.
My thoughts about Greens have been confirmed.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Phil,
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/videos/2765872
Made me think of you
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
yeah well – Green Peter isn’t that wholesome an appelation anyway…
Makes me think…..hang on…
Nothing ‘Makes Me Think’ except me – and I choose that largely.
‘Makes Me Think’ is blackmail…maybe it’s a compliment Pete.
If you must rush off, please leave the boiled lollies.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
toys-out-of-cot-alert..!
(you couldn’t take the shunda-troll with you cd u..?
..and maybe a rest from the psuedo-science of climate-change-denier mcshane wouldn’t hurt either..)
having you all here..just being contrary for the sake of being contrary..
..is as valid/relevant as debating the merits or not of beating women..
the ‘science’ is in..eh..?
your contrarian-stances..
..are just that..
(anyway..take a coat..it might rain..eh..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Intelligence is also defined largely by ones own will and effort, esspecially in present society.
I don’t agree Sapient, most research indicates that the inherited component of intelligence is more important than the environmental. Any exact number would be a lie, but it isn’t up to the individual. You may be taller if your are fed well, but there are limits to the effect. If you are not genetically enabled to play Basketball for the Lakers all the food in the world can not make you tall enough to play. Lack of it could stop you.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
B*gger! Missed all the fun! Can we have a re-run, or has Blue-hoo-Peter really thrown in the towel?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BJ,
.
I was hoping someone would bring that up
We know that intelligence has a strong genetic component, this through twin studies. The higher estimates for genetic influence (plus pre-natal environment) being 70%, the truth probally being closser to 50%. It is, however, important to realise that this 70% does not mean that 70% of the persons intellect is explained by genetics but rather that 70% of the variation in intellect among the population may be explained by genetics. This highest rating still leaving 30% to environment.
30% may seem small but applying that 30% to any given individual yeilds a possible spread of about 4 standard deiviations, that deviation varying significantly between individuals. even a difference of a single standard deiviation can split the average individual from those whom accheive wonders. This variation, even at 30% is still very much up to will.
Children removed from a lower class home and placed in a middle or upper class addoptive home will tend to advance 10-12 iq points just through the change of circumstance, that is almost an entire standard deviation just from removing the economic and mental depravity they experiance, likely moving toward their base rate rather than further above it.
So long as your not a retard, IQ is very much up to will and effort.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient – what’s a ‘retard’?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BJ,
You provided a analogy (height is about 90% heriditary by the way) so I shall share one I just rememmbered from my first year studies.
Corn plants may be genetically predispossed to being shorter or taller but where they ultimatly acheive in that diathesis depends ultimatly on the fertility of the land and the supply of water and other needed materials. A corn with a diathesis to being short may ultimatly exceed its average height if in fertile soil, possibly even exceeding the height of the corn with a diathesis to height if that corn is in infertile soil.
Or are you prehaps suggesting that Maori are genetically inferior to europeans in terms of intellect, despite massive cross breeding, given their poorer standards comparitive to europeans? Prehaps only the stupid europeans breed with Maori? (there could actually be a point there given the status of most whom ventured out here and to aussie then here.)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly,
A retard may be considered someone with a predispossition to a very low ability, in this case IQ, such that any reasonably expected variation through environemtn would still leave them with far sub-par ability.
Mild is 70-51, Moderate is 50-36, severe is 35-20, and profound is sub 20. That is two to three SD bellow norm, three to four SD bellow norm, five to six SD bellow norm, and greater than six SD bellow norm; comparitivly of course.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP will be back greenfly. He’s promised to leave before and only this week said he’d be here as long as we were. Just part of his game.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
so, for a better demonstration: Mild = Phil, Moderate = the posters at the standard, Severe = D4J, and Profound = half of kiwiblog.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I knew someone would bring up Corn…
I seem to recall the Human Mind is was vulnerable up to age three when the ‘primal mind’ is being hard-wired…by about age 8 we have 90% of our potential installed.
Anyway – I’m told this Site is a tiny bit boring without the Twolls….can’t imagine why – ah darn – my Pager….later folks.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Ahhhh!
1/2 x Kiwiblog = retarded!
I thought that was just down to the quality of the crayons they write with!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Mark – yes! The dreaded lull!
Nothing like conflict to boost adrenaline levels and bring out the best in some of us!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Mark,
For the most part, that is down to cognitive style. But cognition is terribly plastic and cognitive style is able to be changed, with sufficent effort, at any part during ones life, just gets harder with age. That is after all the purpose of critical thinking papers at university, to create such a cognitive shift. Likewise the thinking style that engineering installs apon you that Bj ahs mentioned previously is a demonstration of a partial shift in cognitive style. i would even go so far as to suggest that a merging of cognitive styles is why, past the first year, socioeconomic status seems to have little effect on success at university.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The child has no power to change its parents Sapient. The child’s will and effort are irrelevant. The environment it is born into however, has a strong influence.
Nor do I see support for the idea of 4 standard deviations is valid. Removing the child from the deprived environment and enriching it gives you one at best (as you noted 10 – 12 points). IIRC a standard deviation is 15 points on the IQ scale.
This just doesn’t make much sense to me, as it appears to imply that as much as 60 points is available for improvement on a 30 % difference with most of the human population of all sorts, falling into the range of 50-150. Since I have a lively regard for your abilities, I reckon that I am misunderstanding something you said. Perhaps you will explain more closely.
Since by ANY measure I can see, the delta between Maori and Pakeha is less than a standard deviation the likelihood that this difference is entirely environmental/cultural rather than genetic is pretty good. I have seen no evidence to the contrary and the outcome of the conflict that the treaty of Waitangi addressed would seem to indicate that they have a LOT more to offer the society if opportunities and environment are made a bit more amenable to the pursuit of knowledge in comparison to the pursuit of Rugby.
So you would be entirely wrong about what I am “suggesting”. I should also point out that culture influences genetics over time as well, or at least there is theory supporting the possibility.
Consider the influence of the well educated and intellectually rigorous Catholic Priest with the influence of the well educated and intellectually rigorous Jewish Rabbi. Both are central to the community, but the Rabbi is encouraged to have a large family and marrying into it is desirable. The priest has become a dead-loss in terms of his genes. How, over the years, will this influence those two cultures? Does THIS sort of thing explain some of the differences between some “racial” group IQ scores.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
bj says’
The child has no power to change its parents Sapient. The child’s will and effort are irrelevant.
which dove-tails nicely with the discussion we had a while back, Sapient, about a child’s ability to ‘choose’ not to be in a smacking relationship. You say it always can (choose to escape) , I say it often can’t.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BJ,
Yes, I think you are misunderstanding me, though that is no doubt my fault. My thoughts are often very hard to put down in a coherent manner and i often omit steps to avoid an immensly long post which takes up far mor etime than it is worth (that and if I put it all down I doubt I would ever get any replies and would thus lack the debate I so enjoy).
Yes, a child has little to no power to change its parents. I brought up the adoption point mearly to demonstrate that a seemingly small difference in environment can create a massive (and 10 to 12 is massive) change in IQ even when it is the same individual already instilled with most of their cognitive abilities; the small alteration in cognitive style they pick up just from being exposed to the adoptive parents on a regular basis induces that massive jump.
An actual effort to change ones cognitive style can reasonably produce a much larger jump, and it works both ways. I have never taken an IQ test that can go above four standard deviations above the norm (even that high is rather inaccurate and one that go higher simply don’t have an adequate population from which to draw a norming sample), most don’t go above 150 to 155, In my youth and now I am easily within my ability to max out these tests yet in my mid-teens I decided I would try actually having a decent range of emotions, I altered my cognitive style to more closely approximate those around me, I did two tests in that five year period and I had dropped down to 132-135, more than a standard deviation, simply by doing that much; did achieve an emotional range though, even had my first bout of hypomania and developed a sense of justice.
I guess what I am saying is that an adult or adolescent not too diffused from the norm whom wishes to improve their IQ, or their ability to understand the world around them, will be able to do so, even when their IQ is bellow the norm, to such an extent that their IQ surpasses at least one standard deviation above the norm (115 or 116 depending on test) given that they put in sufficient effort to affect change in their cognitive style and potentially their digit span (interestingly my digit span is very average, being 7, potentially a lot of room for improvement there). The size of the change able to be affected being sufficient to raise someone from a life of poverty to a life of at least an entrepreneur or tertiary graduate. The less naturally endowed a person is the harder it will be, but the potential will be there for a spread of at least a couple of standard deviations given the effort is exerted. I doubt one would see a full four SD difference unless the child was kept in a soundproof white box until their teenage years and then given the best tutors we have to offer.
I agree entirely that the difference in IQ is most likely attributable to culture rather than genetics, and that is to a certain extent what I am getting at, though to expect a standard deviation is really asking for far too much, even if it was 100% genetic, in my opinion. As to the breeding pressures; yup. And sadly it is those with low IQ in our society whom seem to breed the most and those with high whom seem to breed the least. Not a good set of affairs.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
A discussion about the benefit where (eg a couple have 10 children while on the dole) attracts responses such as “are you proposing to send the children out to work” So there is a stalemate and in effect the children are hostage, but the children represent the genes of the parents….? Hmmm.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
JH,
Infertility bonuses for those on benefits
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I guess what I am saying is that an adult or adolescent not too diffused from the norm whom wishes to improve their IQ, or their ability to understand the world around them, will be able to do so, even when their IQ is bellow the norm, to such an extent that their IQ surpasses at least one standard deviation above the norm (115 or 116 depending on test) given that they put in sufficient effort to affect change in their cognitive style and potentially their digit span
OK… that’s more like what I expect/understand. Not that I expect that it will be easy to persuade people to CHANGE a cognitive style that handicaps them in our current society, but that is again, a cultural/environmental issue.
Infertility bonuses for the beneficiaries? (Trying to imagine how that would work and failing)
The kids have to be cared for… and this is a huge problem. Special “homes” for single moms on the benefit? Restricted dorms. If Daddy can care for them.. OK. Have to take care of their kids, have to keep the kids lives enriched, have to make HAVING the child result in a change in situation for the mom.
ciao
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BJ,
Yes, it is hard to work out how to discourage havng more children without actually risking disadvantaging the child.
Infertility bonuses for beneficiaries are the best ive come up with in the relativly little time ive spent contemplating the matter. Basically, we have the base benefit level (dole, sickness, DPB, etc) which is sufficent to support the individual but then we also have a higher level of entitlement which only those which are infertile are able to aquire. For women it is easy; have them get the injection or epidural if they want the bonus and allow them the bonus so long as the method is in affect, alternativly perminant solutions would also qualify. It would be harder to extend it to men since there is, as of yet, no temporary method of inducing infertility that doesint ultimatly induce perminat infertility in a large proportion of users. But we could grant it to men whom get the snip, an opperation that can be done both so it is reversable or not and can grow back naturally (though I understand that is accompanied by alot of swelling and pain when it grows back due to the immune system attacking the sperm or some such).
Weather men are entitled or not it is still effective and since it is voulentary it is not somethint for which the state can be charged with at a latter point in time, even if lots of infertility injections ends up causing perminant infertility. Also helps slow the decent into ideocracy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I had trouble thinking where to begin Sapient,
Do tell: are you better than someone one a benefit?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Bioneer,
That really depends how you define better.
This, however, relates to the massive levels of procreation amonst the lower class and beneficiaries relative to the middle and higher classes whn not only can the lower classes and beneficiaries not support these children from their own pocket but they bring them up in a depraved environment.
Additionally, those in this targeted group are far more likely to commit crime, make little to no contribution to society, and display consistant bad choices and generally a far lower IQ.
If one considers intent to, or actual, contribution to society good, yes.
If one considers self, and social, beneficial choices good, then yes.
If one considers choosing not to have children you cannot support and choosing not to inflict a depraved environment on your children as good, then yes.
If one considers contribution to society good, then yes.
If one considers a higher IQ good, then yes.
The fact of the matter is that the lower class and beneficiaries in general are breeding far more readily than the middle and upper classes but the traits they transmit are those that are terrible for society and individuals rather than those that are desirable and actually benefit the individual and society.
Reminsds me of the statement “its got electrolytes!”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Opps, wasint really paying much attention there, said “contribution to society twice”, should read “if one considers not stealing from others or inflicting undue harm on others as good, then yes”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Bioneer
This is going to be a long session I think.
I don’t cost everyone ELSE money. I don’t purposely create a bigger problem than I already have.
The society as a whole supports the notion and I agree with this, that there should be support for those who cannot help themselves.
That’s pretty important to you, and it is pretty important to me as well. We have no lack of compassion. Anyone can be hurt, or worse and “unable to work” applies to people for any number of reasons, including a lack of jobs.
However, having a child obliges SOMEONE to support that child. That support has to be rather more complete than the basic needs provisions that make up the public benefit. The current situation is that the person getting pregnant has the child and gets a larger check. This is not the best way to deal with it. Having a child while on the dole is not the act of a responsible person.
Yet we must ensure that the CHILD gets the benefit of the best possible education and social examples we can provide to ensure that the child does not wind up on a benefit.
Having a child is, in this day and age, largely a voluntary act. Some conservatives regard it as a punishment for pleasure, but contraception methods exist. Cheap and readily available. One has to regard the pregnancy of the woman on the benefit as a matter of choice.
Since we are in this zone of social policy, the answer seems to me to include a bonus provision for benificiaries who elect to become non-fertile, AND some sort of segregation for those who go on and have kids (think of a nunnery but with kids).
Something which allows them to be supported but removes them from temptation. The woman gets to keep the child and nurture the child, but the schooling opportunities and the control of the child’s environment is no longer entirely her responsibility. The child is the person we are trying to influence.
I don’t think this is going to be a real popular idea. Punishing a beneficiary mother for having children would seem an unusual thing for a Green to advocate, but the entire point of this is to ensure that the children themselves are cared for, and that there is no incentive to create more. Right now the children are not cared for so well and there IS an incentive to create more.
So maybe we ought to think about how else we might accomplish those goals. I’m sure there are other methods, not perhaps as draconian as what I just suggested. No rubbishing withing alternatives please.
Thanks
Respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I think I know what Sapient is getting at;– a child with a high self esteem is measured with a higher IQ than those with a low self eteem.
That happened to me personally when I first went to a lousey boarding school my IQ wasn’ so hot, but when I went to a liberal coaching colege I measured above normal.
Good teachers are those who can empower children with more confidence.
The best person for that is a childs first teacher the mother and that is why it is so important to educate WOMEN !!!!!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Drakula,
Self-esteem can have varying effects, in some individuals low self-esteem can actually result in a higher IQ as a attempt at compensation. Though ultimatly there is a trend that would seem to suggest the two go together, presumibly due to a feedback loop.
As to mothers, yes! There is a very very big difference between how women of different classes talk and read to their children, very big. It is that which imbues us with our first cognitive style and ultimatly the one that will tend to dominate. Cognitive style is the single biggest path of class perpetuation, esspecially because of its effects on IQ and success.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)