1,2,3 listen to me.
There is a bit of disagreement coming out today around the concept of charter schools.
Interestingly the PPTA is strongly against this idea and the thought of "unqualified" teachers getting hold of our kids.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U
In general I would agree with Sir Ken Robinson that modern schooling is outrageously outdated.
Instead of recognizing this and embracing a new concept why can't the PPTA embrace a new idea.
They admit on TV that many school kids are not receiving the education they require. It's easy to blame the kids.
I would be very happy sending a child to a charter school that had good links to entrepreneurs or business leaders where they are taught by a mix of qualified teachers as well as the unqualified with more world experience - as a side note the best teacher I had at school was in his late 30's and had stopped working in the city to teach.
The PPTA reaction seems only to support the evidence that they are the ones out of touch here.
Share owners...or should we just share more.
Share owner is a bit of a of a misnomer.
Share implies making joint use of a resource where as really our intention from share ownership is to increase our personal wealth, not the community or collective wealth.
I work for a publicly listed company.
My company has been sued in the US on a patent infringement.
The share price goes down.
To counter the share price fall, sales need to go up to get investor confidence back, projects and resources are cut back and I lose commissions because my sales targets are now too high. Over all sales go up slightly and the share owners are happyish again.
Similarly a global competitor to my company guarantees 10% growth for their shareholders EVERY YEAR.
In a mature market where you have a large share of the market how do you acheive that. Sales targets up, resources and innovation down, redundancies.
If the effort to keep a handful of shareholders happy was instead focused on the company and the wider community it interacts with would we not have better work places and maybe a more profitable society?
Who really wins though. The tax accountants and lawyers.
Share implies making joint use of a resource where as really our intention from share ownership is to increase our personal wealth, not the community or collective wealth.
I work for a publicly listed company.
My company has been sued in the US on a patent infringement.
The share price goes down.
To counter the share price fall, sales need to go up to get investor confidence back, projects and resources are cut back and I lose commissions because my sales targets are now too high. Over all sales go up slightly and the share owners are happyish again.
Similarly a global competitor to my company guarantees 10% growth for their shareholders EVERY YEAR.
In a mature market where you have a large share of the market how do you acheive that. Sales targets up, resources and innovation down, redundancies.
If the effort to keep a handful of shareholders happy was instead focused on the company and the wider community it interacts with would we not have better work places and maybe a more profitable society?
Who really wins though. The tax accountants and lawyers.
Politicians. Discuss.
I briefly watched one of those droning political programs on Sunday morning where the two new Labour leadership contenders were waxing lyrical about how they were the right candidate.
Me, me, me is all I heard.
I can do this, I'll be the best, I'll do that.
"I am the first servant of the state"
This quote is attributed to Frederick the Great.
How different would it be in this day and age to have a humble leader that took this view.
Me, me, me is all I heard.
I can do this, I'll be the best, I'll do that.
"I am the first servant of the state"
This quote is attributed to Frederick the Great.
How different would it be in this day and age to have a humble leader that took this view.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)