Official QQ Thread

[quote=jhoijhoi][quote]EDB003 Week 3 Lecture Cancelled Unfortunately this week's EDB003 lecture by Peter OBrien (Teaching and Advanced Liberalism) is not possible as Peter has a bad case of influenza. I have placed an audio recording from Peter's previous lecture on Blackboard and Peter has said he will try and make a short video of the main points from the lecture as soon as he is well. I need to stress for those groups presenting on this topic that they will not be disadvantaged - the fact you will only have the audio and video will be taken into account by your tutor. Once again – sorry for the short notice – however this is beyond our control. Best regards Bruce Burnett (EDB03 unit coordinator) Posted by: Bruce Burnett Posted on: Sun, Aug 5, 2012[/quote] Wow. You know what notes so far I have for that shitty topic for my presentation? (the below is my summarisation of a whole chapter in the given textbook) [spoiler]Changes have occurred in recent years regarding the management of government education in most Western countries which resulted in the formation of a strong link between education and economic management. In the last quarter of the 19th century, the Australian education system was managed by a highly centralised system wherein the majority of the decision making was carried out at the head of office. This sort of system had rigid rules and regulations that were heavily bureaucratised. This sort of centralised form of control was adopted and accepted in Australia due to the radical and far-reaching idea that schooling should be free and compulsory as the belief at the time was that education represented a public or common good; society benefited from having more enlightened and skilled citizens. The colonial education department and its centralised organisation allowed for an even and uniform education system for the six colonies, ensured education faculties were evenly distributed, and in particular strictly regulated school expenditure in order to retain a fair and just system of appraisal. The government of this system required several disciplinary practices; a team of district school inspectors assessed every school and teacher annually, compiling a report of whether the rules and regulations were being faithfully observed. These reports were often used as a promotional tool as teacher who did well were offered a transfer to a more populated area. The State Scholarship examination was compulsory in the final year of primary in order to assess the successfulness of the school. Students had to pass this exam to receive free tuition in high school. This form of governance was found in the early 1930s to be incapable of responding effectively to regional and local needs and conditions, as well as neglecting or excluding parents from community decision making. Prominent education administrators, when asked to examine Australia's state education, all commented on the inadequacy of the centralised state education bureaucracies to deliver socially responsive education. It wasn't until 1973 that the Commonwealth government attempted to return decision making to the teachers (and in consultation with parents) in order to give a better schooling experience, wherein "the people entrusted with making decisions are also the people responsible for carrying them out". This approach attracted little official interest; Victoria, in the early 1980s, adopted a democratic model of local school management which was replaced by a managerialist model in the 1990's. This idea of school-based management (or devolution) finally kicked in around the 1980s. Reasons for this approach are numerous and occurred as political discourse: an emphasis on smaller governments, tight expenditure (and effective outcomes from public spending), globalisation of the economy and more specifically, a need for Australia to become more internationally competitive through a focus on vocational education and the acquisition of workplace skills and competencies. A reform occurred wherein schools became rated based on measurements of outcomes and how flexible and responsive schools were towards clients; in short, schools became fiercely competitive. This managerialist transformation of the education sector occurred very rapidly. However, some states resisted this change, and the centralised management system is reflected in many ways; there are departments of government that formulate strategic plans for school expenditure. Schools then work from the single-budgets given to them and are then responsible for their own financial planning. In 1998, state schools were given the choice between three school-based management and accountability options that provided for different levels or degrees of devolutionary practice within the education system: - Enhanced Flexibility Option 1 - Enhanced Flexibility Option 2 - Standard Flexibility Option In spite of attempts to provide a clear link between school-based management and enhanced learning outcomes, the relationship remains unclear, in fact, studies have highlighted the opposite. Whilst some form of devolution has occurred, schools are returning to a centralised form of management in a number of factors, including curriculum frameworks and the use of performance indicators like NAPLAN. These "independent school-based managed schools" are forced to test their students on a national/state level in order to maintain market position and public accountability. Top-down management strategies were reinforced through school-based decisions dominated by the principal, wherein principals effectively silenced any other views. The implementation of devolution policies has created an increasing hierarchy of senior managers and principals from classroom teachers. Under this management system, there have been reports that teachers believe they are receiving no recognition from their teaching as committee membership and other extracurricular activities were regarded by management as being more important. Public education was intended to be the great equaliser in terms of social and education success. While this is clearly not the case, we need to consider how devolution for some schools is creating a widening gap between advantage and disadvantage.[/spoiler] And that's only one reading out of 3. But now we have no lecture while every other group does? I am hoping very very very hard that our tutor gives us better marks just because of this unfairness. It is already a BLOWN OUT OF WATER unfairly hard topic compared to the other weeks, PLUS this catastrophe. I am not happy right now.[/quote]

[quote=Dainou][list] [/list]QQ Xerath is fucking useless, killing Zyra out farming Zyra. Still she does more damage then me in team fights and much more utility. Or she is just that op^^ Still I feel that every mage in the game, out do Xerath and I love the guy....kinda like heimer but not as bad Such a waste of potential on a interesting funny and awesome champion[/quote]

[quote=OTGBionicArm]I think Xerath beats Zyra every time. Or even funnier is send [[Nunu]] mid against her.[/quote]

[quote=Dainou]No no I beat Zyra, pretty easy. Found out smart casting E and Q really helps with the combo. Rather that I could't do anything to my team. One stun, Q and ulti and every one beside me is dead. Oh also to add, I have to root my self, so Trundle, Eve and Nautilus can walk up to me when they go past or dps building ww and lee.... While her? Well burst with Q, root with E plants to do sustained dps and a aoe knock up on almost everyone which also include lot of burst and mine that everyone can move out of the aoe, with also got a even more delayed moment between each bolt Greaaaaat! Just saw on leagueoflegends.wikia that Zyras ulti is true damage with 400 at lv 3 and 0.7 ap scale. No shit that almost one shot everything.. On the most annoying note, just saw Corki and Janna lose in bot lane vs Nautilus and Eve...seriously?......[/quote]

[quote=OTGBionicArm]OP Eve.[/quote]

[quote=Dainou]Yeah, NERF EVE! :D[/quote]

[quote=BluAnimal][quote=Dainou] [list] [/list]QQ Xerath is fucking useless, killing Zyra out farming Zyra. Still she does more damage then me in team fights and much more utility. Or she is just that op^^ Still I feel that every mage in the game, out do Xerath and I love the guy....kinda like heimer but not as bad Such a waste of potential on a interesting funny and awesome champion [/quote] Really? I play [[xerath]] with flat AP glyphs and quints and I usually start out with about 40 AP at level 1, with [[boots of speed]] and my health pots. One [[arcanopulse]] shreds most squishy mids health. It's all a matter of hitting. The only mid that's given me trouble as Xerath was [[cassiopeia]][/quote]

[quote=OTGBionicArm][quote=BluAnimal] [quote=Dainou] [list] [/list]QQ Xerath is fucking useless, killing Zyra out farming Zyra. Still she does more damage then me in team fights and much more utility. Or she is just that op^^ Still I feel that every mage in the game, out do Xerath and I love the guy....kinda like heimer but not as bad Such a waste of potential on a interesting funny and awesome champion [/quote] Really? I play [[xerath]] with flat AP glyphs and quints and I usually start out with about 40 AP at level 1, with [[boots of speed]] and my health pots. One [[arcanopulse]] shreds most squishy mids health. It's all a matter of hitting. The only mid that's given me trouble as Xerath was [[cassiopeia]] [/quote] I think you failed to get the joke... As most people do on this site.[/quote]

[quote=Xeronn][quote=OTGBionicArm] I think you failed to get the joke... As most people do on this site. [/quote] I do not know the meaning of this word [b]joke[/b] OTG, will you please enlighten me? ;P[/quote]

[quote=OTGBionicArm][quote=Xeronn] [quote=OTGBionicArm] I think you failed to get the joke... As most people do on this site. [/quote] I do not know the meaning of this word [b]joke[/b] OTG, will you please enlighten me? ;P [/quote] Alas I cannot, as it is instincual to know of such things. You will learn one day. But I cannot teach you. ;p[/quote]