Agamedes wonders if "negotiation" is just another word for "threat".
Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems?
email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now. |
Education suffers while leaders strut their egos
Teachers may be forced to run tests, says the headline, on page 4 of
The West (20 Apr 2010). The article made me snarl, at the sheer stupidity of people who don't listen, who don't negotiate -- people who go straight for the big stick. In this case, the big stick is the
WA Industrial Relations Commission
Mind you, my snarl was nothing compared to that of Sharyn O'Neill, the education department director-general. O'Neill's photo shows her squinty-eyed, teeth bared, snarling/sneering across the page. Possibly just a bad stare day...
It was the article itself which started this rant: Teachers are threatening to boycott national testing of students; education department responds with a bigger threat. Neither side want a solution. Both sides are just practising their threat behaviour. Like baboons, defending their territory.
Teachers see that a national test -- and the resulting comparison of school versus school -- will damage education. Fair enough: if poorly performing schools are punished then they will not be able to improve; if they are given money to improve then other schools will be encouraged to perform poorly. Compare this to AFL football:
In the AFL, there is a player "draft" between seasons. The draft is weighted so that poorer-performing teams can select better, new players and improve. When a team is near the bottom of the AFL ladder, they may be accused of deliberately losing games -- by putting weaker, less experienced players on the field -- in order to get a better draft pick for the next season. Lose now, in order to win later...
Any sensible school would adopt that same policy! Teach your students anything except the testable material. Encourage the more capable students to be sick on test day. And watch the money roll in...
But that's not what I want to point out today
There are arguments on both sides of the national testing debate. Arguments for and against. So what's the real problem?
Why are the key players not discussing the problems?!
You know: sitting down together, listing issues. Raising concerns. Adapting the test system to overcome agreed problems. Offering and accepting compromises. Negotiating!
No. The teachers' union threatens a boycott. (Perhaps they did try, first, to negotiate?) The education department threatens back, by seeking an industrial relations commission ruling. (Perhaps they did try, first, to offer a compromise?) From what we read in the paper, neither side -- nor the federal government -- is seeking a compromise.
What that really means: No-one wants what is best for education. Everyone wants their own opinions to be taken as law.
What a bunch of self-serving drongos.
And yes, there's more!
On the same double-page in
The West, there are two more stories of unthinking, uncompromising struggles for power.
The WA Local Government Association (WALGA) has paid for an advertisement to attack "the Thornlie tree man". Richard Pennicuik did his best to save a tree which he believed needed saving. Now he's being taken to court and threatened with multi-thousand dollar fines, for daring to challenge local government officials.
One man, versus local government. One man, versus a council which can afford lawyers, contractors, PR spin doctors. One man, versus the apparently deep pockets of WALGA, who are prepared to pay for advertisements attacking that one man. One man who dared to disagree with a council decision.
Will you ever dare to stand up to these people with a penchant for power? Are you rich enough to take a stand for something in which you believe? Are you stupid enough to believe that one person can even survive after upsetting the happy little power-plays of people who really, really want to make the rules?
And yes, the question really is, can you survive?
Do you have the tens of thousands of dollars to pay fines for disagreeing with a council decision? Do you have the spare tens of thousands of dollars to even pay for a lawyer to help you defend yourself in court? The council does. And it's supported by WALGA, which is so rich that it is willing to attack you with paid advertisements in the state's biggest newspaper.
Why did Pennicuik not just climb out of his tree, before the fines were threatened? Why not just roll over and accept that an individual must just roll over and accept the kicks and curses of those in power.
Why does he now go to court with unsupported claims that an unsympathetic judge just throws out of court? What else can he do? The law says, he can be fined. The law says, don't waste the court's time with claims of individual rights. The law says, you must do as the council says. Pennicuik has no support from the law. He can't afford a lawyer. He may as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb.
And, finally...
"The PM knows that without becoming the dominant funder of hospitals the Commonwealth does not have the whip hand on future reforms." (
Premiers hold line against Rudd's droning tactics)
"The whip hand"?!
Prime ministers and premiers join the ranks of those who are mad for power. The PM must have "the whip hand"?! Is there no room for discussion? for compromise? for reaching an agreement like civilised adults?!
Negotiation? Forget it. Negotiation is for those with no power.
If you have the power -- go straight for the throat.
For these small-minded people, that's the only way to feel big.
Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by
Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought:
email nick leth at gmail dot com |
