The Herald reports:

A stoush has erupted between North Shore sister schools after a surprise bid by the junior high to cater for older students blindsided its senior counterpart, which says it is “disappointed” by the move.

The proposal could reshape the long-standing two-school model between Albany Senior High School and Albany Junior High School, with the Ministry of Education now considering an application.

Albany Junior High submitted the bid last week to extend its cohort up until Year 13. It currently only serves students in Years 7 to 10. 

Students then typically attend Albany Senior High, whose principal told the Heraldthe school remained “committed” to the current structure and was not told about the junior school’s bid until Friday.

Both Albany Junior High and Senior High are well regarded schools. They have high academic achievement, good ERO reports. So why would Albany Junior High upset the status quo?

To me the answer is about what is best for all kids, not just 80% of even 90% of kids.

As I understand it Albany Junior is a more traditional school, and Albany Senior more liberal. Now again both schools do very well, and most students manage the transition well. But some students probably don’t. Any transition can be challenging, let alone one between two quite different schools.

For the same reason I think any primary school that stops at Year 6 should be able to expand to Year 8, without needing Ministry permission. The Ministry seems to think it is more important to prevent a possible empty classroom at an intermediate school, than have students and parents able to decide whether an extra transition is in their best interest.

The Albany Senior Principal, Claire Amos (who I regard well) has written on this issue:

One of the most unhelpful habits we have in education is our tendency to turn false binaries into structures.

Traditional or progressive. Knowledge or skills. Academic or vocational. Teacher-led or student-centred. Rigour or wellbeing. Structure or agency. Explicit teaching or inquiry. And eventually, one kind of school or another.

I have been thinking a lot about pluralism lately. Not pluralism as simply having lots of different schools to choose from, but pluralism as the idea that our public education system should be capable of holding difference within it. Because our young people are different.

They have different strengths, different interests, different aspirations, different cultures, different identities, different learning needs and different ideas about what success might look like.

The answer to that diversity shouldn’t be to keep designing different schools for different imagined categories of children.

The answer should be to design every school well enough to meet them all.

That doesn’t mean every school should look the same. Quite the opposite. Schools should absolutely reflect their communities, their histories, their learners and their context. But I am increasingly uncomfortable with the idea that within one local community we might need an “academic” school over here, a “progressive” school over there, perhaps a “traditional” school down the road and a “trades” school somewhere else – that isn’t pluralism, that, my friends, is a freakin’ sorting hat.

I think this is an example of perfect being the enemy of good. Yes in an ideal world it would be nice if every single school is NZ was right for every single type of student. But quite simply, that is a detached from reality.

Almost every parent goes through a huge amount of time and effort to work out what school will be best for their kids. It is the biggest or second biggest factor in choosing a house location (which means only wealthier families get this option). It is why some kids get sent to integrated or private schools. It is why you get out of zone applications. It is why parents and kids go to multiple open days.

For example, single sex schools and co-ed schools are both great types of schools. Again 80% or even 90% of kids might prosper in either. But some kids are better suited to one, than another. They should not be denied that choice.

Claire writes:

Every school should be THE school for:

• Rainbow students.
• Neurodiverse students.
• Athletes.
• Artists.
• Scientists.
• Entrepreneurs.
• Introverts.
• Extroverts.
• Young people who want certainty and young people who want possibility.

That is what a public school should be. Not a school for a particular kind of kid. An effective school capable of responding to all kinds of kids.

Again this is a commendable aspiration, but it is not reality. And do you force thousands of kids into a school that isn’t great for them, as a sacrifice to an ideal that will probably never be met?

I can 100% understand Albany Senior High being upset by the Albany Junior application. I think it would have been courteous to have discussed it with them in advance. I think it is important to note that both schools are well regarded high performing schools.

But if Albany Junior High thinks it will be beneficial to some of their students to have the option to remain at their school until Year 13 instead of Year 10, I think they should be able to. Just as I think all primary schools should be able to choose to go to year 8 instead of Year 6. The focus has to be on what will be best for students, not what will be best for schools.

The BSA upheld the complaint against Sean Plunket and The Platform. This is part of what Plunket said that they said can’t be uttered on air:

[Reading]        ‘It will also allow us to better align our engagement with Māori communities and our operational work leading to a greater reach and impact.’ 

Plunket:          Does that mean you’ll put out more fires more efficiently, or not? 

[Reading]        ‘Rather than keeping this work within one branch, this approach encourages the whole organisation to take shared responsibility for delivering on Rautaki Māori.’ 

Plunket:          Whatever that is. 

[Reading]         ‘I’m also proposing the creation of a Pou Ārahi Kaupapa Māori and Cultural Communities role to provide strategic and operational and cultural leadership, ensuring that te ao Māori perspectives, values and tikanga–’ 

Plunket:          Tikanga, which is just mumbo jumbo stuff. 

[Reading]         ‘…are ingrained in how we function.’ 

Plunket:          Will that help you put out more fires more efficiently, I wonder? 

[Reading]        ‘The role would help ensure our services, policies and programmes are culturally appropriate.’ 

Plunket:          I never realised a fire engine had to be culturally appropriate and effective for the many different cultures across Aotearoa New Zealand – well, it’s called New Zealand, not Aotearoa New Zealand. This doesn’t look to help any other culture but the Māori culture, does it, [FENZ Chief Executive]?

So Plunket was arguing that he wants FENZ to focus on how to most effectively put out fires, and this is now not allowed if you are a broadcaster!

Nate Silver has launched his prediction model for the US mid-terms.

In the House have forecasts an 87% probability the Democrats take the House, with an average outcome of 233 seats to 202.

In the Senate it is closer, but the Democrats slightly ahead with a 56% probability the Democrats gain control of the Senate by 51 seats to 49.

He has the Democrats winning Ohio, Texas, Michigan and Maine, with the odds for each being:

• Ohio 58%
• Taxes 60%
• Michigan 69%
• Maine 70%

Will be interesting to see how they change over time.

Ruth Richardson writes:

As inflation rears its ugly head again, New Zealand First proposes stripping the Reserve Bank of its sole mission to fight inflation. In an exercise in virtue signalling, employment is bolted on as a second mission. Labour’s Barbara Edmonds wants the same.

This is sheer monetary policy vandalism, flying in the face of all the evidence that there is no trade-off between price stability and employment. That monetary policy can permanently deliver employment growth is nothing more than a cruel hoax.

This is very well known. If monetary policy could lead to permamently higher employment, then we would have examples of countries where it has. There are none.

New Zealand should not have to re-learn the harsh lessons of the loss of monetary policy credibility. Successful inflation-fighting involves getting two things right.

First, the central bank must have a clear, singular inflation mandate. That’s what anchors inflation expectations. If markets and workers believe the bank might tolerate higher inflation to chase employment goals, inflation expectations build, making inflation itself harder to control. That’s a formula for making everyone worse off, employment included.

Confidence in a central bank preventing higher inflation is critical. We have seen what happens when you lose that.

A single mandate gives a clear yardstick: did inflation stay near target or not? With two goals, a central bank always has an excuse. If inflation is high, it can point to labour market weakness as the reason it didn’t tighten harder and vice versa. That ambiguity weakens accountability and lets the bank dodge the blame for missing either target.

Yes, a dual mandate reduces accountability.

The Herald reports:

Labour leader Chris Hipkins has ruled out a governing deal with New Zealand First. …

Winston has responded:

It is hilarious that it took 12 months for Hipkins to rule NZ First out, and then to announce it as somehow newsworthy. It’s like announcing he has just discovered if you throw a ball into the air, it will drop down.

Went to a talk at The Wellington Club about Sir Keith Park. For those who have not heard of him, we was the New Zealander who commanded the RAF No 11 Group during the Battle of Britain. He is credited with winning the Battle of Britain, and WWII would have turned out very differently if Germany had won the war for the skies, and then invaded.

The guest speaker played the below video,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsHQuhLg1KE

It’s a great watch. Well worth the time to get an idea of how significant he was, and how is was one of the great aviation commanders.

I was disappointed to hear that Auckland Airport has been asked numerous times to put up some sort of tribute to Keith Park at the airport (Park moved to Auckland after WWII and served on Auckland City Council for several terms). But they keep dragging their feet.

I reckon a suitable tribute would be to name the entire airport after him. A private bill by an MP would do the job. It would be great to have every person flying into Auckland to be told they are flying into the Sir Keith Park Auckland International Airport, and many many more people would learn about of of New Zealand’s best sons.

My analysis of the electorate races this week, on my Patreon are:

• Invercargill
• Southland
• Taieri
• Dunedin
• Waitaki

Five down, 66 to go!

The summary to date is:

• Safe National: 2
• Likely National: 1
• Safe Labour: 2

This is almost beyond belief. We have a Green MP saying:

“Shoplifting is the most common charge for women. It’s not violence, it’s crimes of dishonesty and poverty. I can tell you that not one woman shoplifts because it’s fun, because they get a thrill of it. It is because they are desperate”

How stupid do you have to be to say that, after a Green MP on a $200,000 remuneration package gets charged and convicted of shoplifting massively expensive designer items?

(NB I do not endorse the term of abuse used, this is just the tweet that had the video)

Myself, and others, e.g. Duncan Garner, Derek Cheng, etc – have recently highlighted that 15% of students leave of education system – after at least 13,200 funded hours – with no formal qualification.

For 2025 LEAVERS that would be 10,496 young people.

Despite what people to the esteemed level of the current Minister of Education stating – NCEA is easy to understand and clearly defined.

To get NCEA Level 1:
– you pass the Literacy and Numeracy co-requisites (and earn 20 credits).
– you earn 60 credits in courses at Level 1, 2, or 3.

To get NCEA Level 2:
– you pass the Literacy and Numeracy co-requisites (and earn 20 credits) at Level 1.
– you earn 60 credits in courses at Level 2, or 3.

To get NCEA Level 3:
– you pass the Literacy and Numeracy co-requisites (and earn 20 credits) at Level 1.
– you earn 60 credits in courses at Level 3.

To get University Entrance:
you pass the Literacy and Numeracy co-requisites (and earn 20 credits) at Level 1.
– you earn 14 credits in 3 “accredited courses” and meet other basic literacy and numeracy requirements.

In turns out that the Ministry of Education has been fidging the numbers … SIGNIFICANTLY.

John Gerritson for RNZ has discovered this:

“The figure has been under-reported because since 2004 the Education Ministry has counted students half-way to a level two or three NCEA certificate as if they had a qualification, even if they didn’t.”

What it means is this … we were reporting that just over 10,000 young people (15%) were leaving our system with no formal qualifications and a very limited future. The true number is 19% (13,165) last year.

This is a significant scandal in two ways.

1. The statistics are deeply appalling.
2. The Ministry and Ministers have been complicit in hiding the true situation.

[email protected]

There have been numerous stories about forest fires in Europe, painting the current number as unprecedented. I never know how much faith to put in reporting, so I went looking for data. Here is the offical EU data.

The blue line is the average for 2012 – 2025, and the red line is 2026.

The Herald reports:

Labour will scrap National’s Investment Boost if elected – under a new plan focused on small businesses.

Investment Boost was the centrepiece of Budget 2025 and was widely promoted by the Government as an important means of attracting new investment to New Zealand. It applies to domestic and foreign investors.

National has described the move as a “$5 billion tax grab”, a reference to the rough amount Labour would have left over by ditching Investment Boost. Nicola Willis, National’s finance spokeswoman, accused Labour of ripping the money away from small businesses to fund other policies. 

“Scrapping National’s $6.6b Investment Boost to fund a $1.56b fig leaf means business owners lose the incentive to invest in genuinely transformative, productivity-enhancing equipment,” Willis said.

Investment Boost allowed businesses to deduct 20% of the cost of a new asset immediately. Labour is cancelling this, which means companies that invest in new assets will face higher tax bills and worse cashflow.

Chris Penk has been removed as a Minister, and is retiring from politics after the confidence vote in Christopher Luxon.

I have mixed feelings on this, which Ani O’Brien covers well. I think it was politically necessary and even essential that the Prime Minister send a clear signal to caucus that there must be no further ill discipline. It is ridiculous to have had to go through two confidence votes in election year. My long standing policy (which I have advocated to the party) is that in fact you should change the rules so leadership votes can not occur in election years.

But I am sad as Chris Penk is a very nice guy, who was an extremely able Minister.

The Herald reports:

A professor has resigned from the UK’s University of Cambridge after the Daily Telegraph revealed he falsely claimed to have published a book.

In a letter online, Jason Arday said he was resigning “with immediate effect” from his position at the university and also Jesus College, citing “unrelenting level of public scrutiny”.

The statement came hours after the university announced it was investigating him following new information regarding his “academic qualifications and honorary appointments”.

Arday, who was a professor of sociology of education, has also been the subject of plagiarism claims after the Telegraph reported that he had been accused of copying parts of his PhD thesis from another student.

There is far more to this story, than the Herald covers.

Arday has rejected each and every claim against him as motivated by racism. When a journalist e-mailed him with questions, he called the Police and accused the journalist of harrassment. And the universities defended him for as long as they could, until the mountain of evidence was too much for them to ignore. The tweet below has a full list of all his fantastical claims and plagiarism.

Stuff reports:

The ACT Party is proposing to make university student services feesvoluntary if re-elected in November.

These are compulsory fees charged by universities to fund services and facilities that support learners, but aren’t directly related to academic learning.

They include things like student media (e.g. Salient at Victoria, or Critic at Otago), counselling services, sports and recreation facilities, on-campus subsidised healthcare and clubs and societies.

This year, the fees average just over $1200 for a typical undergraduate student.

That is a huge amount of money, and for facilities and services that get rarely used.

The backdrop to these extortionate fees is VSM, or voluntary membership of student associations. In 2011 they were made voluntary which was a great decision. Many student associations were basically campus branches of the Labour and Green parties, and every student had to pay $100 or so to fund their political activities and campaigns.

The idea behind VSM was that student associations were voluntary, they would focus more on activities of most value to students, and lower fees. There are many faculty student associations that prosper like this (I was president of one that actually attracted more members than there were commerce students!).

But every single student association did a cowardly deal with their university. Rather than actually face the onerous task of having to persuade students that what they do has value, they cut deals where the university would fund them instead through the student services fee. Such fees already existed but used to be around $300.

This turned the student associations into tame house unions. No longer could they rigorously hold the university to account. You can’t get offside with your paymaster. So they abandoned independence, for money.

And just as importantly, universities now had no opposition to increasing their student services fees. They have gone around 300% in the last 15 years. Tuition fees have caps, but student services fees do not. So universities have been using student services fees to pillage students. And no student association opposes this, because they themselves get funded from them. So student associations sold out students in the interests of their own funding.

Today a four year degree can result in a student paying almost $5,000 in these student service fees. Yet no student association even campaigns for these fees to be lowered do they?

So ACT’s policy is welcome and needed. The status quo has seen students face 300% fee increases. And if you did a scientific survey of students as to whether they think they get value for money for what they pay, I think we know what the results would be.

Chris Luxon has won a second confidence vote. This MUST be the end of speculation and disunity. The election is in around 90 days and too much is at stake.

There is a clear choice – the current Government or a four party hydra of Labour, Greens TOP and Te Pati Maori.

The caucus will meet at 9.30 am tomorrow. Like all National supporters, my wish is that the caucus meeting resolve the speculation, and the focus then goes onto improving the life of New Zealanders.

The Post reports:

A law change that would do away with the traditional five-year census in favour of cheaper annual surveys is unlikely to progress this side of the election, following opposition from the Labour Party.

The hiatus raises questions over how Stats NZ will be able to comply with the law, given it has indicated it would then be too late to conduct the census the normal way in 2028. …

However, because the census can help determine electoral boundaries, it is protected by an “entrenchment” clause that would require three-quarters of MPs approve a change, rather than the usual simple parliamentary majority.

Labour and the Greens made clear in a select committee report last week that they would not back the amendment bill.

I am far from convinced that the answer to Stats NZ struggling to do a comprehensive census is to scrap the census, rather than improve Stats NZ.

Chris Lynch reports:

The Sensible Sentencing Trust has launched a blistering attack on The Opportunity Party’s policy to raise the age of Youth Court jurisdiction, describing it as one of the craziest ideas it has seen in years.

Opportunity’s “Smart on Crime” policy promised until recently to “raise the age of the youth court jurisdiction to 25, in line with developmental science”.

The words “to 25” were quietly removed from the party’s website between March and late July, while the commitment to lift the age remained.

Party leader Qiulae Wong was unable to say last week where the new limit should be set.

Sensible Sentencing Trust spokeswoman Louise Parsons said the original proposal was extreme and dismissed the suffering of victims on the basis of an offender’s age.

“Around 25 percent of all sexual violence and 30 percent of all crime is committed by offenders aged 18 to 25,” she said. “Sending them to the Youth Court will only reduce consequences, hide offending from the media and the public, and will incentivise more crime, because there are far fewer consequences.”

TOP’s policy is for 24 year old rapists and bashers to get sent to a family group conference, instead of face criminal responsibility for their actions. They are more extreme than the Greens.