中学版亲子对话 – 绝非童言趣语 – 关于公校，私校，理想，现实，共产主义

缓缓

原帖由 moody 于 2012-3-1 22:57 发表
工党不得不撤换那个预备推选的十九岁候选人，因为他在十四五岁的时候讲过一些不利gay的言论。

未成年的孩子说的话，也能拿来说事儿。这就是政治

qqyang

D妈应该跟HD讲讲那些亿万富翁政客的故事。其实陆克文也是好例子，前提是人家找个老婆是亿万富翁。

缓缓

中国的政客们，尤其是无产阶级革命家们，LP并不是亿万富翁嘛，除了个例

[ 本帖最后由 D妈妈 于 2012-3-2 10:50 编辑 ]

qqyang

我的意思是，不差钱的时候，再去参政不迟。

zuozuo

在中国，那可是人人削尖脑袋要去当官啊，我理解，当政客不就是当官儿吗？

当然，官场都是肮脏的，理想主义的人是不容易在里面混的。

我喜欢兔HD的思想，有这样的思想，不枉年轻一会。

20101010

小弟很有趣，“无敌兔”啊。

版主就多多享受现在的对话交流吧。

lotus1993

You Cai always talks about Communism and Communist.
I think he was brain-washed with capitalism.

yiyi331

又多了一个小布尔什维克.O(∩_∩)O哈哈哈~

缓缓

他对共产主义什么看法，能交流一下不？

缓缓

原帖由 zuozuo 于 2012-3-2 11:04 发表
在中国，那可是人人削尖脑袋要去当官啊，我理解，当政客不就是当官儿吗？

当然，官场都是肮脏的，理想主义的人是不容易在里面混的。

我喜欢兔HD的思想，有这样的思想，不枉年轻一会。

他说话的时候应该配长袍+白围巾+玳瑁边眼镜

缓缓

原帖由 yiyi331 于 2012-3-2 13:02 发表
又多了一个小布尔什维克.O(∩_∩)O哈哈哈~

这事儿肯定不赖我哈，亲家

edith921

原帖由 D妈妈 于 2012-3-1 21:00 发表
有时候睡前，他都会像领导一样，问我一句：“唉，今天足迹有什么帖子值得我看的吗？”

我兴致好的时候，也会跟他说说。

有本早奏，无本退朝

yiyi331

我们不介意共产主义,在我们家是共和制.O(∩_∩)O哈哈哈~(paopaobing(47)) (paopaobing(47)) 但是我比较独裁

lotus1993

原帖由 lotus1993 于 2012-3-2 12:36 发表
You Cai always talks about Communism and Communist.
I think he was brain-washed with capitalism.

共产党=独裁加专制，在他眼里。
金正日去世，他都要借机议论一番。

wells1688

孩子明年八年级，先学习

缓缓

我们家小朋友，认为共产主义之所以没有实现，是因为某些政党在执行的过程中，没有很好地研究透彻这个主义的精髓。

额~再说下去要转大千了

jn1216

mark,回家仔细看

lotus1993

原帖由 D妈妈 于 2012-3-2 13:29 发表
我们家小朋友，认为共产主义之所以没有实现，是因为某些政党在执行的过程中，没有很好地研究透彻这个主义的精髓。

额~再说下去要转大千了

This is my opinion.

jinluo

现实和理想的差距

粉猪妈妈

原帖由 patrickzhu 于 2012-3-1 22:54 发表

不知道。
无所谓啦，个人有兴趣家长也不反对就行。

不过现在看下来，你们都会反对。

不过朱校长如果除去参选．．足迹的票都是你的

tyxzh

原帖由 D妈妈 于 2012-3-2 13:29 发表
我们家小朋友，认为共产主义之所以没有实现，是因为某些政党在执行的过程中，没有很好地研究透彻这个主义的精髓。

额~再说下去要转大千了

兔小D真的是太犀利了，这个观点是我记得高中时候政治老师的主张

缓缓

也许他的政治敏感度和基因有关

我和他爹，高考3+1都加政治的。LG当年很想考国际政治系，可是，可是。。。。

Luckypeanut

早说呀

看来我白埋怨我家孩儿了。

高考政治61分的飘过...

原帖由 D妈妈 于 2012-3-2 16:50 发表
也许他的政治敏感度和基因有关

我和他爹，高考3+1都加政治的。LG当年很想考国际政治系，可是，可是。。。。

limit-2010

原帖由 D妈妈 于 2012-3-2 13:29 发表
我们家小朋友，认为共产主义之所以没有实现，是因为某些政党在执行的过程中，没有很好地研究透彻这个主义的精髓。

额~再说下去要转大千了

转移话题吧

Four Corners-Revolution in the Classroom
视频不会贴， 大概45分钟长，有兴趣的自己看吧： http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/02/06/3421391.htm

For some time now there's been a bruising debate about the balance of funding handed out to public and private schools. No one doubts it's an important debate, but many educators believe it has helped obscure an even more fundamental question about where the money is spent. Over the past decade, the Federal Government has spent billions of dollars trying to lower class sizes, increase the use of computers and boost investment in school buildings. At the same time, Australia's educational performance relative to key neighbouring countries has been falling. The question is why?

For some the answer is simple. Money is being spent in the wrong places. Experts point to a growing body of research that says good teachers are the major determining factor in how a child performs at school. They claim that too little money is being spent on improving teacher performance. To make matters worse, state school principals are not empowered to make decisions about how their schools are staffed and run. As a result, some good teachers go unrewarded and bad teachers cannot be sacked.

As one educational researcher puts it:

"Outside of the home environment and the family situation, the biggest impact on a kid's education is teacher effectiveness. The quality of the instruction the teacher provides that student... If you have a teacher, one of the top performing teachers in Australia compared to one of the least effective teachers in Australia, that can be as much as a year's difference."

Four Corners looks at the impediments to better teaching. Imagine running a business where you can't choose your own staff. Where you don't have control of your own budget to invest in innovative programs to improve the product you create. That's the situation many state school principals must deal with.

"If you want the school to have the best staff, you have to choose them and they have to be able to match the needs of the school." - School Principal

This week Four Corners visits three very different schools and talks to the people who are trying to change the system from within. As they tell the us, it's hard work but it is possible to dramatically turn a school around and change children's lives.

[ 本帖最后由 limit-2010 于 2012-3-2 20:54 编辑 ]

limit-2010

Private vs. Public Schools!
What are your opinions on public vs. private schools?
What do you hate and what do you like about either of the systems??

Comment!  ------> http://community.boredofstudies.org/showthread.php?t=259507

limit-2010

MATTHEW CARNEY: John Weeks spent 13 years of his career in the state system, and says it was virtually impossible to remove an incompetent teacher

JOHN WEEKS: That is, I think, an indictment on the system, and you have to remember that we're putting people in front of our children to try and develop our children to the best possible, you know, people they can be, and we should only have the best people there.

MATTHEW CARNEY: Mark McConville from Toronto High says the process of removing a teacher is time consuming and bureaucratic.

MARK MCCONVILLE: I'm fine with the process and going through a ten week process and giving somebody ten weeks to either improve or not improve, but once we get to the end of the ten weeks that needs to be it, that's when they need to be dismissed. Where I think you'll find there are there are many war stories out there whereby principals have gone through the process, and after the ten weeks the staff member may be removed from the school but then reappear in another school

[ 本帖最后由 limit-2010 于 2012-3-2 21:51 编辑 ]

limit-2010

MATTHEW CARNEY: John Weeks has the funds to realise his vision, but state schools like Toronto High don't. Knox Grammer gets about $20,000 per student, mostly from private fees. Toronto High gets about $11,500 per student, mainly from the New South Wales government. Included in this is federal government funding. It gives more to Knox - $1700 per student, compared to $1300 for Toronto.

MARK MCCONVILLE: I think it's as simply as, ask yourself the question, is it fair? Is it fair? And it's not. It's not fair. Why do we advantage some population groups and we don't provide that advantage to others? Is it fair that this group over here can access these resources but this group over here can't? We're talking about education. We're talking about our children.

[ 本帖最后由 limit-2010 于 2012-3-2 21:51 编辑 ]

limit-2010

Gonski 在他的report里说：Every child should have access to the best possible education, regardless of where they live, the income of their family or the school they attend’