by frog
I’m busy for a lot of today, and posting may be light, but it must be time for a thread about the Minister who imo is the most incompetent in living memory. So, I’ll just borrow stuff:
Here’s Sprout from the comments thread:
It must be so hard for Anne Tolley to function as a Minister having to spend so much time with her ears and eyes covered, muttering to herself “don’t listen, don’t look, don’t listen, don’t look…” and “Those nasty, nasty little teachers…”
I think her staff cut out all the nasty letters from the newspapers before she reads them and her advisory group are now all sitting in a corner with their mouths washed out.
It was probably also a mistake to sack all the Ministry people who were furiously trying to polish the big shiny National Standards letters because without constant polishing the corrosion keeps bubbling through.
And here’s Idiot/Savant at No Right Turn:
That’s how Education Minister Anne Tolley described school trustees attitude to her national standards last month:
“The trustees, who govern schools on behalf of communities and parents, were extremely supportive,” says Mrs Tolley. “They have a positive approach to the Standards, and are clear that parents should be given plain language information about how their child is progressing in reading, writing and maths.
Meanwhile, Ministerial correspondence uncovered with the OIA shows a different picture, with 96% of school boards who wrote to Tolley opposing the standards, and only one supporting them. So if 2% is “extremely” supportive, what’s 96%? Universally opposed? And if the government’s standard for action is 75% (as expressed by Steven Joyce) does this mean they’ll dump this stupid policy?
One thing is clear: Tolley’s support exists primarily in her own mind. She’s delusional. And that is not a good trait in a Minister.
What’s your view on the competence of OUR CHILDREN’S Minister of Education?
Published in Society & Culture by frog on Fri, August 27th, 2010
Tags: anne tolley, Education, national standards, no right turn
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Anne Tolley ignoring teacher concerns; Minister of Labour (who is also of course the Minister of CONservation) takes ACT’s advice on 90 day bill and makes up her own policy on sick leave requirements… when is someone really going to take these Ministers (who answer to the public) to task on their actions!?!?!? seems like the media are too busy to (chasing up Paris Hilton stories); the other political parties are often a bit stuck-in-the-headlights; and the great unwashed are largely apathetic. frightening stuff.
Like or Dislike:
6 
1 (+5)
Principals in show of support – Southland Times today.
Armed with cake and flowers for Otatara principal Sharon Livingstone, some principals were quick to voice their opinions before a closed-door meeting in the school’s staff room.
Waverley Park Primary School principal Kerry Hawkins had two words to sum up the reaction to the reaction to the letter.
“Horse s**t.”
http://www.stuff.co.nz/southland-times/news/4066094/Principals-in-show-of-support
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)
I’m stunned.
STUNNED!
S
T
U
N
N
E
D
Was there ever a truer statement made by Anne Tolley?
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
Like or Dislike:
5 
2 (+3)
That was no ovation Anne, you duffer!
They were drumming you out.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)
A list of Principls who support Otatara School would be a good list of people who should have no place in the education of children.
We have a politically driven forged letter (which is clearly illegal).
It misleads children, who were never told it was not true.
It was SENT TO PARENTS to deliberately mislead them.
Then we have the pathetic excuse that it was “ceative writing” which you’d have to be naive in the extreme to beleive.
If it’s such a good idea, lets get teachers to start making
- forged letters on Green Party letterhead,
- with forged signatures from Russell and Metiria,
- to mislead people to believing in false and extreme positions of the Green Party,
- and don’t tell children that it’s all false
- and don’t tell parents that it’s all false.
Any Principal backing the making of deliberately misleading (and illegal) forgeries, obviously does not have the principles to be a principal and should be sacked.
Like or Dislike:
4 
11 (-7)
I don’t think that’s fair. I’m pretty sure Pansy Wong is more incompetent than Tolley
Like or Dislike:
4 
1 (+3)
@photonz1
The offence of forgery requires that the document be forged with the intention of using it to obtain any property, privilege, service, pecuniary advantage, benefit, or valuable consideration; or with the intent that it in any way be used or acted upon as genuine.
That is clearly not the case here, so the letter is not illegal as you claim. As usual, you are seeking to misdirect.
Like or Dislike:
5 
3 (+2)
Saying that those principals should have no place in education – I’ve rarely read such reactionary nonsense from any one here on Frogblog.
I know many of them personally, I have worked with them in their various schools and so I know first-hand, well and truly, that you are wrong – completely wrong.
It heartens me though, that you have confirmed in this frothy way of yours, that you hold wrong-headed views. I’d always thought that was the case.
Now I know for sure
Like or Dislike:
11 
5 (+6)
With regard your last suggestions (mislead people to believing in false and extreme positions of the Green Party etc)
I am leaning toward the very strong opinion that you are a representative of the Brethren Church, or that you are David Farrar’s shadow.
Like or Dislike:
4 
4 (0)
Anybody who supports teaching children to make illegal forgeries to try to trick parents with the aim of falsely dicrediting someone has no place in education.
You’d have no problem if teachers start forging Green Party letters with the aim of tricking children and parents into thinking the Green Party has extreme positions with the aim of discrediting them?
It just shows the depths the some in education will stoop to by using children and parents to try to score political points.
And you get a really good indicator of ethical standards of those who think this is a good idea.
Like or Dislike:
3 
12 (-9)
robert – you think (and say) a lot of things that are totally off the mark.
Like or Dislike:
2 
9 (-7)
toad – so if it’s not forgery, we CAN get school children to send out Green Party letters with forged signatures of Russell and Metiria to mislead parents into thinking the Green Party has extreme policies?????
.
.
.
.
And call it “creative writing”
Like or Dislike:
3 
8 (-5)
You’ve simply repeated the same froth photonz1!
Soon you’ll be nothing but!
Like or Dislike:
2 
5 (-3)
Stunned!
We all are Anne!
Like or Dislike:
2 
4 (-2)
Photonz1 is!
Like or Dislike:
3 
5 (-2)
Frothed!
Like or Dislike:
3 
5 (-2)
It is amazing that Anne Tolley functions at all as a Minister when she spends much of her time with her hands over her ears or eyes muttering to herself “Don’t look, don’t listen”…and “Those nasty, nasty little teachers!”
Her staff are kept ultra busy cutting out all the anti-Standards letters in newspapers before she reads them and the few remaining people in her Ministry are kept busy plastering over the large National Standards letters because of the cracks that keep appearing.
How can she continue saying with such conviction that the implementation is going well if she actually hears and sights all the criticism?
Like or Dislike:
2 
3 (-1)
Photonz1-I really wish you would actually base you thoughts on the facts before you comment. Although my personal view is that Otatara School may have acted unwisely your description of the issue is largely incorrect:
-Otatara school was not politically driven, the school has not made a public stand against the standards as many Southland schools have done and the letter made no reference to them.
-The letter referred to a lengthened day and the children were asked to respond with their views.
-The letter was never intended to go home to parents or to mislead them.
Your assumptions have run wild and you have jumped to a number of conclusions that have no basis in fact.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2 (+1)
sprout says “Otatara school was not politically driven, the school has not made a public stand against the standards as many Southland schools have done and the letter made no reference to them.”
Which is false – according to tv news which said Otatara has been outspoken against national standards.
sprout says “-The letter referred to a lengthened day and the children were asked to respond with their views.”
Which contradicts what the school itself said which is the pupils were not told it was all false..
sprout says “The letter was never intended to go home to parents or to mislead them.”
OK – so were supposed to beleive the letters were sent home to parents, with no intention to send the letter home to parents – yeah right.
That’s about as believable as saying the whole thing was a creative writing excercise.
sprout – your arguements are laughable.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)
Photonz1-I’m not sure where you get your information from but as I know the some of the people directly involved my information is first hand. If the school wished the exercise to dicredit National Standards or the Minister they would have been more direct. What do you think was written in it? It was an ill considered activity but hardly malicious. Why do you always think the worst?
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
sprout – you have a false letter, with a false message, with a forged signature, with children not told it’s true, with it being sent out to parents, who were not told it was false…..
….and you expect people to beleive it was all an accident.
That’s hilarious..
You must think NZ is filled with people (nearly) as stupid as the ones who did this.
In any private company if you sent out false statements to clients about your employer you would be sacked instantly.
And if not for that, for total stupidity.
That you try to defend an indefensable farce is funny in itself.
Like or Dislike:
1 
4 (-3)
Oh dear photonz1, you really have got your knickers in a twist. Could you please tell us all what you think was in the contents of the “forged” letter that you find so offensive, I don’t think you have any idea.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
Leave Tolley alone. Being thick is genetic. Her schooling obviously failed so maybe she has something to complain about.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)
Photonz,
You’re giving as “facts” regards this writing exercise some things that I have not seen in the papers, and that seem not to match what is being reported.
Please provide references to support your claims.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
Don’t be mean, icehawk! You must know from experience here that photonz1 is incapable of doing that.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
Toad – have you read Trevor Mallard’s bizarre comments about the bizarre minister he shadows?
http://robertguyton.blogspot.com/2010/08/brute-squad-in-otatara.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
icehawk – if you are going to dispute facts, it might be helpful to know WHAT you dispute, otherwise your post is meaningless.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Photonz1-Like me asking what you believe is contained in the letter that you found so offensive and how it was deliberately planned to mislead parents?
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
sprout – what do you mean “what I beleive is contained in the letter”?
The letter was published – it’s no secret.
It was done on ministry letterhead.
The contents were completely false.
It was made out to be from Tolly.
Her signature was forged.
Students were not told it was false.
Parents were not told it was false.
Students were asked to complain to the government.
And we’re expected to beleive an elaborate plan to lie to and deceive a group of 10 year-olds into being angry at the government was all for creative writing.
So why not teach our children that lieing, forgery, and deception to falsely make people angry at someone are all ok, if it may (or may not) make your writing just a little better.
What sort of ethics does this teach children?
Sprout – if you expect people to beleive it wasn’t intentional – the alternative is the teachers are utterly stupid beyond belief.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Photonz1- the crux this is all about intent and this can be easily established when looking at the content of the letter. You refuse to answer my basic question but continue to rave on about things you have assumed. The letter had no reference to National Standards but had a statement regarding the possible extension of school hours because of a stated lack of time to cover the curriculum fully. The childen were asked to respond to the merits or otherwise of having their school day extended.
Many parents have been writing to the Southland Times in defense of the school’s writing programme despite the fact that the school were misguided in this case.
After your fanatical support of the police having their own bars operating outside the current laws because of your belief in police being beyond the personal failings of society at large, it seems strange that you hold such strong mistrust and disregard of the teaching profession.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
sprout says “The letter had no reference to National Standards ”
I never ever said it had.
sprout says “because of your belief in police being beyond the personal failings of society at large”
Yet more things I’ve nver said.
sprout says “such strong mistrust and disregard of the teaching profession”
And yet another wrong statement that I’ve never made.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Photonz1-Quite right, you never said any of those things directly, but your implications have been very clear and when I have attempted to get clarity around your sweeping statements you refuse to respond. Very clever, but a little dishonest I think.
So what was stated in the letter that indicated to you that they intended to “deliberately mislead parents”? Can you quote the truely offensive part?
Where is your proof that the letter was intended for parents as you claim?
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
sprout – you just jump to extreme conclusions.
The whole letter was misleading.
Do you think they made up the false message by mistake?
Do you think they forged the signature by mistake?
Do you think they used ministry letterhead by mistake?
The have already admitted deliberately misleading children.
The have also admitted that they should have told parents it was false but didn’t bother to do that. Why not?
Who in their right mind shows a class of children a letter lieing about huge changes to their school day, and thinks the letters will not go straight out to parents.
It’s difficult to believe any teacher could be that stupid – the alternative is that it was deliberate.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Photonz1-Just answer my questions if you want credibility here! The intent of the school is crucial to your argument and if you always refuse to answer my questions you are continuing to shoot yourself in the foot!
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)