On 2016-07-08, Pooh <rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 9/07/2016 10:32 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:

On Sat, 9 Jul 2016 09:42:41 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:

It is well known that many bi-lingual children have an advantage in
learning in that they are quicker to accept and understand different
concepts, have a greater understanding and tolerance of others, and
are more culturally aware. They can all advantage a nation in ways not
related directly to the second (or more) language that has been
learned.

Maori should only ever be optional Rich. Only an ever more dictatorial
party would make it compulsory. It should never be a government decision!

So lets level the playing field. English is optional.

How to dumb down society. May Donald Trump be with you.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On 2016-07-08, Rich80105 <rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Sat, 9 Jul 2016 09:42:41 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:

Little wants to make it compulsory. Is that his most stupid idea so far?

....., but I'm not aware of any stupid ideas.

At face value that is, well simply food for thought. There are stupid ideas
and one needs to consider all ideas but reject the stupid ones. However this
is often a somewhat rare event in the political arena.

The sentence
above does however represent a deliberate and unjustified attempt to
diminish his reputation.

Politics Rich, get over it.

It is well known that many bi-lingual children have an advantage in
learning in that they are quicker to accept and understand different concepts, have a greater understanding and tolerance of others, and
are more culturally aware. They can all advantage a nation in ways not related directly to the second (or more) language that has been
learned.

It came up in conversation last week that many people in Europe are
bi-lingual.

Another important point is that young persons (children) are able to learn a second langauge no problem. After that the third langauge is so much easier.

It is about communication, language that is, so even if you wish to get your political message across; it is a good idea to be be able to speak in
"their" language no matter that you do not speak it like the natives.

New Zealand has Maori words in everyday language, or at least NZer's know of them. Kiwi as an example. Place names out of the major centers. Wiakato
River. Iwi, hui, kai.

The English language has never been slow in grabbing a word from another language should it be of use. Cafe, hotel, to name two.

So, let us remember that this country has three offical languages. English, Maori and (official) sign.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Fri, 08 Jul 2016 22:04:27 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net dot nz> wrote:

The idea of Maori language in schools is not new, but it needs to be >>emphasised from time to time, and like all things worthwhile, requires
a commitment to make it work.

In general I believe there are good reasons to teach Te Reo in primary schools >provided it is in context (in other words including the relationship between >the language and the culture of Maori).
My oldest daughter learned Te Reo at promary level and I am convinced it was >enormously valuable to her and in return there was feedback from the non-Maori >children to the teachers. I would argue tghat anything that reduces racial >tension is a good thing. But you have to turn this into another attack without >justification don't you - in stating that "they don't really care about >education standards in

public schools" you reduce the value of your own post - pity really! I do not >>believe you can prove that!

Tony

"In general I believe there are good reasons to teach Te Reo in primary schools provided it is in context (in other words including the relationship between the language and the culture of Maori)."

Tony you make a good point. At primary school it want do them any harm.
This also applies to teaching religion in school.
Yes I know in the eyes of many on this group it is mythical. so is the history of the Maori. But for people to get on with each other they need to understand what makes up there viewpoint. That is sadly lacking in today's world.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Sat, 09 Jul 2016 10:32:27 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:

On Sat, 9 Jul 2016 09:42:41 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:

Little wants to make it compulsory. Is that his most stupid idea so far?

Little, like all of us, has certainly made a few (but fortunately
rarte) mistakes, but I'm not aware of any stupid ideas. The sentence
above does however represent a deliberate and unjustified attempt to
diminish his reputation.

So why is Labour lacking public support and approval then?

It is well known that many bi-lingual children have an advantage in
learning in that they are quicker to accept and understand different >concepts, have a greater understanding and tolerance of others, and
are more culturally aware. They can all advantage a nation in ways not >related directly to the second (or more) language that has been
learned.

If what you say is true then you make a case for learning multiple
languages, but not for compulsion.

For New Zealand, we have a distinct cultural heritage that is not
linked to the UK or USA, or the many other countries that our people
came from - we have a sizeable minority of our population that has a
Maori or Pacific Island heritage, whose native languages are linked.

To give some exposure to our shared heritage is desirable; to give our >children the gift of at least a minimum level of understanding of
different cultures and languages is a gift we can give ourselves and
our nation.

In the early years of school. Maori can be fitted in without much
fuss, and without detriment to other subjects, provided we have the
teachers to present it. That is a issue that requires money and a lead
ime to train and in some cases provide teachers themselves with a
knowledge of the Maori language.

So far so good Rich - however you make the case for Maori to be
available to learn by choice, not compulsion.

That is to National a purely budget
issue, and since they don't really care about education standards in
public schools, it is natural they will resist any spending on our
young people.

Pure politicking Rich. Exactly the same criticism can quite
accurately be applied to all past Labour Governments.

New Zealanders are however not generally as bigotted and
restricted in their vision.

I agree. New Zealanders though generally resist compulsory everything
where they don't see value in compulsion.

The idea of Maori language in schools is not new, but it needs to be >emphasised from time to time, and like all things worthwhile, requires
a commitment to make it work.

Correct - but all doable by making Maori Language tuition available to
those who wish to use it, rather than imposing compulsion on both
schools and pupils.


--
Crash McBash

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On 2016-07-08, george152 <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote:

On 7/9/2016 9:42 AM, Fred wrote:

Little wants to make it compulsory. Is that his most stupid idea so far?
Which reminds me - whatever happened to grumpy old hori?
Has he gone on holiday with Patrick?

Then we should start with the names of the murdered children.
Grumpy was a pakeha and Pathick moved back to his South Island grot

No we should start to ask why and how to cure this from happening. Too hard. Yep for many.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On 9/07/2016 6:18 p.m., Liberty wrote:

On Fri, 08 Jul 2016 22:04:27 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net dot nz>

wrote:

The idea of Maori language in schools is not new, but it needs to be
emphasised from time to time, and like all things worthwhile, requires
a commitment to make it work.

In general I believe there are good reasons to teach Te Reo in primary schools
provided it is in context (in other words including the relationship between >> the language and the culture of Maori).
My oldest daughter learned Te Reo at promary level and I am convinced it was >> enormously valuable to her and in return there was feedback from the non-Maori
children to the teachers. I would argue tghat anything that reduces racial >> tension is a good thing. But you have to turn this into another attack without
justification don't you - in stating that "they don't really care about
education standards in

public schools" you reduce the value of your own post - pity really! I do not
believe you can prove that!

Tony

"In general I believe there are good reasons to teach Te Reo in primary

schools

provided it is in context (in other words including the relationship between the language and the culture of Maori)."

Tony you make a good point. At primary school it want do them any harm.
This also applies to teaching religion in school.

It certainly does not.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Sat, 09 Jul 2016 17:58:12 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:

On Sat, 09 Jul 2016 10:32:27 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:

On Sat, 9 Jul 2016 09:42:41 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:

Little wants to make it compulsory. Is that his most stupid idea so far?

Little, like all of us, has certainly made a few (but fortunately
rarte) mistakes, but I'm not aware of any stupid ideas. The sentence
above does however represent a deliberate and unjustified attempt to >>diminish his reputation.

So why is Labour lacking public support and approval then?

It is well known that many bi-lingual children have an advantage in >>learning in that they are quicker to accept and understand different >>concepts, have a greater understanding and tolerance of others, and
are more culturally aware. They can all advantage a nation in ways not >>related directly to the second (or more) language that has been
learned.

If what you say is true then you make a case for learning multiple
languages, but not for compulsion.

The ideal time to learn is when quite young. Including Maori language
at primary schools will have a bigger impact than any other language
as a greater proportion of children will hear it outside the
classroom. If you want more than English and Maori what language are
you suggesting also be included?

For New Zealand, we have a distinct cultural heritage that is not
linked to the UK or USA, or the many other countries that our people
came from - we have a sizeable minority of our population that has a
Maori or Pacific Island heritage, whose native languages are linked.

To give some exposure to our shared heritage is desirable; to give our >>children the gift of at least a minimum level of understanding of
different cultures and languages is a gift we can give ourselves and
our nation.

In the early years of school. Maori can be fitted in without much
fuss, and without detriment to other subjects, provided we have the >>teachers to present it. That is a issue that requires money and a lead
ime to train and in some cases provide teachers themselves with a
knowledge of the Maori language.

So far so good Rich - however you make the case for Maori to be
available to learn by choice, not compulsion.

Are you thinking of 30 minutes a week with an alternative programme
for those htat opt out? (Like religious sessions in many schools).
That sort of system does not work well with integrated teaching -
language can be taught at the same time as teaching arithmetic, music,
reading, etc. How do you think an option would work with 5 to 8 year
old children, Crash?

That is to National a purely budget
issue, and since they don't really care about education standards in
public schools, it is natural they will resist any spending on our
young people.

Pure politicking Rich. Exactly the same criticism can quite
accurately be applied to all past Labour Governments.

O course it doesn't. Are you trying to say National has done nothing differently than would have been done by Labour. If that is the scase
of course there would be little to choosse between them - perhaps that
is one of the reasons why Labour/Green are now nearly at 50% in the
polls . . . With NAtional getting obviously tired of being in
office, and having run out of ideas, its time for "national-lite",
since you see little difference anyway . . .

New Zealanders are however not generally as bigotted and
restricted in their vision.

I agree. New Zealanders though generally resist compulsory everything
where they don't see value in compulsion.

The idea of Maori language in schools is not new, but it needs to be >>emphasised from time to time, and like all things worthwhile, requires
a commitment to make it work.

Correct - but all doable by making Maori Language tuition available to
those who wish to use it, rather than imposing compulsion on both
schools and pupils.

What else in the primary curriculum do you think should be "optional",
Crash? Clearly you are out of line with National's "National
standards" mantra at least . . .

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On 7/9/2016 5:13 PM, Gordon wrote:

On 2016-07-08, Rich80105 <rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Sat, 9 Jul 2016 09:42:41 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:

Little wants to make it compulsory. Is that his most stupid idea so far?

....., but I'm not aware of any stupid ideas.

At face value that is, well simply food for thought. There are stupid ideas and one needs to consider all ideas but reject the stupid ones. However this is often a somewhat rare event in the political arena.

The sentence
above does however represent a deliberate and unjustified attempt to
diminish his reputation.

Politics Rich, get over it.

It is well known that many bi-lingual children have an advantage in
learning in that they are quicker to accept and understand different
concepts, have a greater understanding and tolerance of others, and
are more culturally aware. They can all advantage a nation in ways not
related directly to the second (or more) language that has been
learned.

It came up in conversation last week that many people in Europe are bi-lingual.

Another important point is that young persons (children) are able to learn a second langauge no problem. After that the third langauge is so much easier.

It is about communication, language that is, so even if you wish to get your political message across; it is a good idea to be be able to speak in
"their" language no matter that you do not speak it like the natives.

New Zealand has Maori words in everyday language, or at least NZer's know of them. Kiwi as an example. Place names out of the major centers. Wiakato River. Iwi, hui, kai.

The English language has never been slow in grabbing a word from another language should it be of use. Cafe, hotel, to name two.

So, let us remember that this country has three offical languages. English, Maori and (official) sign.

Dutch friends in Orewa had a requirement that their kids were to learn
Maori..
The kids already spoke English, French, Dutch and could verstanden two
or three other languages.
Whim won the day

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On 9 Jul 2016 05:19:47 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@clear.net.nz> wrote:

On 2016-07-08, george152 <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote:

On 7/9/2016 9:42 AM, Fred wrote:

Little wants to make it compulsory. Is that his most stupid idea so far? >>> Which reminds me - whatever happened to grumpy old hori?
Has he gone on holiday with Patrick?

Then we should start with the names of the murdered children.
Grumpy was a pakeha and Pathick moved back to his South Island grot

No we should start to ask why and how to cure this from happening. Too hard. >Yep for many.

Maori is an orphan language spoken only by a moribund culture until it
was rescued by the British who, in their scholarly fashion, produced a rudimentary written approximation to give it form, substance,
translateability and a preservable history. It's of little if any
value outside New Zealand but that's not all there is to it.

The old saying, "Ignorance leads to fear; knowledge is the basis of confidence," couldn't be be more apt. And it works. Both ways.

Like any other language, Maori borrows from non-Maori vocabulary but
with its own inevitable substitutes/approximations due to Maori's
shortage of consonants. But it works - for Maori, anyway - and
probably does more than anything else to elevate their status and
enfranchise them towards their immersion in a broader-spectrum of
cultures than might otherwise not have been theirs.

As for learning extra languages during the school years, for me, it
was compulsory English (Language and Literature), French and Latin
(German and Spanish optional). I enjoyed languages and so I did the
lot. They were all put to use during my working years, and I also
found the grounding gave me an an ease when attempting the more
"difficult" Arabic and Malay.

Another aspect from the teacher/pupil perspective is the stimulation
of the individual's intellectual curiosity which, with each linguistic
hurdle surmounted, only increases further adding to self-confidence
and a willing need to know more when finding one's self in culturally
alien situations.

But back to maori and this thread: it seems to me that if you're
going to perpetually annoint an indigenous minority culture -
including its already sparsely spoken language - with the label of Exceptionalism and then prop it up and propagandise it by conferring
exclusive preferment on it simply because it's the squeaky wheel that
no palm-greasing lubricant can ever silence - yes, taniwha
mollification and all - don't be surprised if you then run into
resentment from those who are, by law, forced to fund both a culture
and a language they want no part of and never will. Indeed, whatever
a minority culture's "deserving needs," to the majority its demands
will always appear out of all proportion to its value and relevance
**to that majority.**

It's a condundrum; but, if it does little else but keep the peace,
this continuing policy of exclusive preferment has worked. But...

A resentful majority notwithstanding, institutional apathy has its
uses and any indigenous minority - and, come to that, any government -
will exploit it to the full.

"The maori will always have his hand in the pakeha's pocket." - none
other than Sir Ranganui Walker.

Think on...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

Liberty wrote:

On Fri, 08 Jul 2016 22:04:27 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net dot

wrote:

The idea of Maori language in schools is not new, but it needs to be >>>emphasised from time to time, and like all things worthwhile, requires
a commitment to make it work.

In general I believe there are good reasons to teach Te Reo in primary >>schools provided it is in context (in other words including the >>relationship between the language and the culture of Maori).
My oldest daughter learned Te Reo at promary level and I am convinced it >>was enormously valuable to her and in return there was feedback from the >>non-Maori children to the teachers. I would argue tghat anything that >>reduces racial tension is a good thing. But you have to turn this into >>another attack without justification don't you - in stating that "they >>don't really care about education standards in

public schools" you reduce the value of your own post - pity really! I do >>>not believe you can prove that!

Tony

"In general I believe there are good reasons to teach Te Reo in primary schools provided it is in context (in other words including the
relationship between the language and the culture of Maori)."

Tony you make a good point. At primary school it want do them any harm.
This also applies to teaching religion in school.

Teaching religion in the context of it's history and impact on society is a good idea. So long as no religious dogma is taught as fact, and no one
religion dominates the syllabus.

Yes I know in the eyes of many on this group it is mythical. so is the history

Religion isn't mythical, many religious ideas definitely are.

of the Maori. But for people to get on with each other they need to understand
what makes up there viewpoint. That is sadly lacking in today's world.

--
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."
creates the incentive to minimize your abilities and maximize your needs.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Sun, 10 Jul 2016 21:34:40 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

English, maths, science, arts and social studies should be compulsory.

Not social studies.

It is far too tempting for teachers to use social studies as a
political soapbox from which to indoctrinate the kids. It used to
happen when I was at school, and I suspect it is a lot worse now.

Politics of all stripes should be banned from the classrooms. Shcools
should not promote any political agenda.

Bill.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Saturday, 9 July 2016 09:42:52 UTC+12, Fred wrote:

Little wants to make it compulsory. Is that his most stupid idea so far? Which reminds me - whatever happened to grumpy old hori?
Has he gone on holiday with Patrick?

It shouldn't be compulsory as it is not relevant to core education - IOW the minumum required to allow one to be a useful productive member of our society. Accordingly, only English, maths, science, arts and social studies should be compulsory.

Maori would be a worthwhile optional subject, just like French, Chinese and Latin. However Maori is effectively a dead language like Latin, but without its
rich, regular and advanced grammar and syntax. Maori is a grammatically primitive language and
vocabulary poor, and not very useful for conducting day to day communications in modern times. (Other than for made-up taxpayer funded occupations, that is).

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Monday, 11 July 2016 17:07:59 UTC+12, BR wrote:

On Sun, 10 Jul 2016 21:34:40 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

English, maths, science, arts and social studies should be compulsory.

Not social studies.

History is part of social studies through to at least year 8

It is far too tempting for teachers to use social studies as a
political soapbox from which to indoctrinate the kids. It used to
happen when I was at school, and I suspect it is a lot worse now.

Politics of all stripes should be banned from the classrooms. Shcools
should not promote any political agenda.

It makes no difference whether the subject is social studies or maths. John Minto is a maths teacher.

If the curriculum excludes political indoctrination then that's the best you can do regardless of subject.

Bill.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Mon, 11 Jul 2016 17:08:20 +1200, BR <buggeroff@spammer.com> wrote:

On Sun, 10 Jul 2016 21:34:40 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

English, maths, science, arts and social studies should be compulsory.

Not social studies.

It is far too tempting for teachers to use social studies as a
political soapbox from which to indoctrinate the kids. It used to
happen when I was at school, and I suspect it is a lot worse now.

Politics of all stripes should be banned from the classrooms. Shcools
should not promote any political agenda.

Bill.

Its not clear what school levels you are referring to - I envisage
Maori being a component of language at primary level. At that level
teachers deal with social development as well as "hard" learning, and
teaching of reading and numbers is not separated from games and craft activities. A limited curriculum that misses all aspects of history
history, ethics, community organisation (government), law, money,
physical developemnet, keeping yourself safe, road rules, looking
after each other, sharing, consequences of actions, literature,
geography, music, sport, advertising, teamwork, respect, pride . .
.and yes some knowledge of politics approriate to their level, .is not
one most people would want to send their choildren to.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Sat, 09 Jul 2016 21:57:16 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:

On Sat, 09 Jul 2016 17:58:12 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:

On Sat, 09 Jul 2016 10:32:27 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:

On Sat, 9 Jul 2016 09:42:41 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:

Little wants to make it compulsory. Is that his most stupid idea so far? >>>

Little, like all of us, has certainly made a few (but fortunately
rarte) mistakes, but I'm not aware of any stupid ideas. The sentence >>>above does however represent a deliberate and unjustified attempt to >>>diminish his reputation.

So why is Labour lacking public support and approval then?

It is well known that many bi-lingual children have an advantage in >>>learning in that they are quicker to accept and understand different >>>concepts, have a greater understanding and tolerance of others, and
are more culturally aware. They can all advantage a nation in ways not >>>related directly to the second (or more) language that has been
learned.

If what you say is true then you make a case for learning multiple >>languages, but not for compulsion.

The ideal time to learn is when quite young. Including Maori language
at primary schools will have a bigger impact than any other language
as a greater proportion of children will hear it outside the
classroom. If you want more than English and Maori what language are
you suggesting also be included?

I did not suggest any other languages. The issue is not what other
languages should be on offer, but is what other languages should be
compulsory.

For New Zealand, we have a distinct cultural heritage that is not
linked to the UK or USA, or the many other countries that our people
came from - we have a sizeable minority of our population that has a >>>Maori or Pacific Island heritage, whose native languages are linked.

To give some exposure to our shared heritage is desirable; to give our >>>children the gift of at least a minimum level of understanding of >>>different cultures and languages is a gift we can give ourselves and
our nation.

In the early years of school. Maori can be fitted in without much
fuss, and without detriment to other subjects, provided we have the >>>teachers to present it. That is a issue that requires money and a lead >>>ime to train and in some cases provide teachers themselves with a >>>knowledge of the Maori language.

So far so good Rich - however you make the case for Maori to be
available to learn by choice, not compulsion.

Are you thinking of 30 minutes a week with an alternative programme
for those htat opt out? (Like religious sessions in many schools).
That sort of system does not work well with integrated teaching -
language can be taught at the same time as teaching arithmetic, music, >reading, etc. How do you think an option would work with 5 to 8 year
old children, Crash?

Same as any other optional learning Rich.

That is to National a purely budget
issue, and since they don't really care about education standards in >>>public schools, it is natural they will resist any spending on our
young people.

Pure politicking Rich. Exactly the same criticism can quite
accurately be applied to all past Labour Governments.

O course it doesn't. Are you trying to say National has done nothing >differently than would have been done by Labour. If that is the scase
of course there would be little to choosse between them - perhaps that
is one of the reasons why Labour/Green are now nearly at 50% in the
polls . . . With NAtional getting obviously tired of being in
office, and having run out of ideas, its time for "national-lite",
since you see little difference anyway . . .

Again you simply cannot resist the temptation of bagging National at
every turn.

You simply cant escape the fact that Labour and the Greens combined
cannot muster the same level of support that National can on its own.
The Greens command a steady 10-15% support since 1996 and Winston
First continue somewhere under 10%. Labour have just celebrated their centenary and I would ask how long it has been since their support has
dropped so low - as it has since 2002.

The voters spoke in 2008, 2011 and 2014. Labour have yet to work out
how these devastating defeats can be avoided in 2017. So National
will just keep on keeping on in the face of ineffectual opposition.

New Zealanders are however not generally as bigotted and
restricted in their vision.

I agree. New Zealanders though generally resist compulsory everything >>where they don't see value in compulsion.

The idea of Maori language in schools is not new, but it needs to be >>>emphasised from time to time, and like all things worthwhile, requires
a commitment to make it work.

Correct - but all doable by making Maori Language tuition available to >>those who wish to use it, rather than imposing compulsion on both
schools and pupils.

What else in the primary curriculum do you think should be "optional",
Crash? Clearly you are out of line with National's "National
standards" mantra at least . . .

Irrelevant. Learning Maori should be optional.


--
Crash McBash

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On 9/07/2016 5:17 p.m., Gordon wrote:

On 2016-07-08, Pooh <rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 9/07/2016 10:32 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:

On Sat, 9 Jul 2016 09:42:41 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:

It is well known that many bi-lingual children have an advantage in
learning in that they are quicker to accept and understand different
concepts, have a greater understanding and tolerance of others, and
are more culturally aware. They can all advantage a nation in ways not
related directly to the second (or more) language that has been
learned.

Maori should only ever be optional Rich. Only an ever more dictatorial
party would make it compulsory. It should never be a government decision!

So lets level the playing field. English is optional.

Why do we need to level the playing field.

How to dumb down society. May Donald Trump be with you.

Not so. Forcing people to learn a language they see no need to learn is
more along the lines of Trump.

Pooh

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)