Stuff reports:

It seems Labour leader David Cunliffe’s “sledge pledge”, in which he promised a “positive” election campaign, hasn’t got through to Dunedin South MP Clare Curran.

Curran has branded rival MPs nasty, homophobic and foul-mouthedin an interview with a student newspaper.

The article was published online on Sunday – as Cunliffe was delivering a keynote speech.

“This election campaign is not about dirty tricks or dodgy deals; smear campaigns and a personality cult,” Cunliffe told delegates, including Curran.

Later, he told reporters the public was fed up with political debate centred on personal attacks rather than policy.

“We want to run a clean, positive campaign.”

Asked how he would deal with MPs who indulged in insults he said: “That is for me to think about in the cold of dark of night.”

In an interview with the University of Otago’s Critic newspaper, Curran said Prime Minster John Key was her least favourite MP and that Attorney-General Chris Finlayson was nasty.

She also called North Shore MP Maggie Barry foul-mouthed and alleged Third Whip Jami-Lee Ross had made homophobic comments about NZ First MP Denis O’Rourke during a parliamentary debate.

Yeah, no personal attacks from Labour. Lasted less than a day.

UPDATE: Critic tells me that the interview was done before the pledge. However it still shows how hilarious is that after years of unrelenting attacks and negativity, Labour has suddenly worked out the public don’t like it, and are now saying how they want to run a positive campaign.

The Herald reports:

Police charging fewer criminals to meet the Government’s crime reduction targets are to blame for the sharp drop in police prosecutions for family violence offences, the Labour Party says.

But the Government and police have strongly rejected this, with Police Minister Anne Tolley calling the claim “unfounded” and a desperate attempt to get a headline in an election year.

More that that it shows Labour doesn’t even understand the official crime statistics.

The crime reduction targets have nothing to do with whether people are charged or not. It is basically impossible to reduce the crime rate by not charging people who have been reported as having committed an offence.

To quote Stats NZ:

All reports of incidents, whether from victims, witnesses, third parties, or discovered by police, and whether crime-related or not, will result in the registration of an incident report by police. The incident will be recorded as one or more offences if:

• the circumstances as reported amount to a crime defined by law, and

• there is no credible evidence to the contrary

Whether or not someone is charged has no impact on whether the report is recorded as a crime.

The violent crime stats tend to be the most reliable, because they are based on complaints being laid. Other categories of crimes can rise or fall depending on how much energy the Police put into them, especially drug crimes. Drug crimes do not normally involve a complainant, so the level of recorded drug crime will depend on how much effort the Police put into the area. But violent crime is almost entirely based on complaints from victims or witnesses, and a decision to not charge an offender will not impact the crime stats. It will impact the stats on charges and convictions, but they are different stats to the crime stats.

So the short version of this is that Labour are talking through a hole in their head. They just don’t understand that even if their allegation is true (which I would not assume to be the case), it doesn’t impact the crime stats.

The Herald reports:

Prime Minister John Key spoke to more than 500 members of South Auckland’s Pasifika community today in an attempt to sway votes from the Labour stronghold.

That’s a massive turnout, in an area which normally is the strongest in NZ for Labour.

Mr Lotu-Iiga said he grew up in the Mangere community and was once too a Labour voter, but he had been seeing a shift in support towards National. “Things are changing around here.”

Also at the meeting was Manukau city church group member Del Kumandan, who said he too had seen National’s support grow in the area.

“The tide’s definitely turning?the people are identifying with what National is doing for them.”

National is never going to win South Auckland or even come close. But an extra party vote in South Auckland is just as good as an extra vote in Clutha-Southland.

The Herald reports:

The Labour Party’s plan to reform the criminal justice system would mean that the accused in a rape case would have to prove consent to be found innocent — a change it acknowledges as a monumental shift.

Every New Zealander needs to know about this insane policy of Labour;s.

The policy would mean that in a rape case, if the Crown proved a sexual encounter and the identity of the defendant, it would be rape unless the defendant could prove it was consensual.

This could lead to a huge increase in people videotaping their encounters, as it is the only way to prove consent.

Think about all the times you have had sex with someone, and how often could you *prove* consent. Bear in mind that even if you are married to them, that is not proof. If you split with your ex, then all they have to do is head to the cops and say the sex you had six weeks ago was not consensual. Now you then have to *prove* there was consent. Proof is not just casting doubt on the allegation – it is proof that you had consent. Now think about how could you prove you had consent. Doubt is not enough. If it is what you say vs what they say, you will lose.

I’m not sure there is a (western) country in the world that requires you to prove consent when it comes to allegations of sexual assault. There’s a reason for that.

“The Crown has to prove more than just sex; the issue of consent has to be raised by the Crown, they have to prove the identity of the offender. They would have to bear that burden of proof before a switch to the defence to prove consent,” Mr Little said.

Which is a barrier in stranger rape allegations. But no barrier to the large number of cases when the issue is consent, not identity.

He said the issue of proof would only apply where allegations of rape had been raised.

“It is pretty radical thing to say that ‘all sex is rape’ unless you prove consent. The reality is that in 99.9 per cent of cases, no one is being asked to prove consent.”

So reassuring. So long as there is no accusation.

Mr Little said the inquisitorial system still preserved those principles because the Crown would still have to prove a number of aspects of a case before consent was explored.

“I don’t accept that that is creating an offence under which the defendant is guilty until proven innocent.”

They are, once the fact of sex is established – they must then prove their innocence.

If you ever needed a reason to convince your friends and neighbours not to vote Labour, this is it. I predict Labour will be forced to abandon this policy, as more and more people become aware of it – but can you trust them not to implement it after the election regardless?

Once again Labour gets struck with the inconvenient statistic getting in the way of its crisis.

The Herald reports:

Child poverty has dropped back almost to pre-recession levels, as New Zealanders’ jobs and incomes finally climb out of a five-year downturn.

The Ministry of Social Development’s latest annual report on household incomes says the number of children in households earning below 60 per cent of the median wage fell by 25,000 to 260,000 last year …

Isn’t that good.

However, beneficiaries slipped further behind average incomes because benefits are adjusted in line with prices, not incomes, so inequality worsened at the bottom of the income scale.

The answer to that is have fewer people on welfare, and for temporary, not long-term support.

My Labour sources have been telling me for some time that those who expect David Cunliffe to go, if Labour loses the election, are wrong. They say he has made it very clear that he doesn’t care about the support of caucus, so long as he has the unions and activists on side.

This poses a huge dilemma to Grant Robertson if Labour loses. He massively has the numbers to roll Cunliffe. In fact under Labour’s rules, Cunliffe needs a 60% confidence vote, otherwise the leadership is vacated. If they have a caucus of 34, then just 14 MPs voting against will cause a vacancy in December.

However if they roll Cunliffe, and Robertson stands against him, and loses again, then Robertson may never become leader. He won’t get a third chance. So the Robertson Camp are genuinely unsure whether to risk rolling Cunliffe come December. Up until a few weeks ago they were assuming he would do a Clark and Goff and resign if he loses. But as reported in the Herald, he won’t:

Labour leader David Cunliffe says he expects to get the 60 per cent endorsement of caucus that he will need in a confidence vote soon after the election even if Labour loses the election.

Mr Cunliffe has also indicated he would seek to stay on as leader if Labour was still in Opposition. The party’s rules require a caucus confidence vote within 3 months after an election at which the leader must get at least 60 per cent support.

Asked if would expect to get that endorsement even if Labour was still in Opposition, he said “I think that’s quite likely.”

This helps explain why Cunliffe no longer has a target of getting 40% of the vote, but is now saying he just wants to get Labour into the 30s:

Mr Cunliffe had originally said he hoped to lift Labour into the 40s in the polls, but it is currently polling at just below 30 per cent in most.

He denied he had since lowered that target, but refused to give a new target. “What I am clear about is that we wouldn’t have to get to 40 per cent to change the Government.”

He said he was certain Labour would get above 30 per cent – higher than its 2011 result of 27 per cent

So why such a modest target? Well, survival. If he does even worse than Goff, then the caucus will have no choice but to roll him. But if he can do even say 2% better than Goff and get say 29%, this allows him to declare he will stay on as leader, and tell his caucus if they roll him – he will not resign – and win the union and activists vote.

Maybe his tweet wasn’t a typo, and he is saying he will stay on as leader until 2041, if that is what it takes to finally win!

On Q+A, David Cunliffe said:

By the way, a capital gains tax which at full running is going to bring in 5 billion dollars a year, close to, 4 to 5 billion is the single biggest change to New Zealand tax policy in decades and it’s one that I’ve personally championed for years.

That’s appalling. That’s an extra $5 billion a year ripped out of NZ families and businesses, to be spent by Government.

There is a case for a capital gains tax. I support a broad base tax system. However I’m sick of new taxes being added on, with no compensating reduction in income and company taxes.

If Labour’s capital gains tax was really about changing investment incentives, then they’d commit to reducing income and company tax by the same amount of revenue their CGT would bring in.

But in reality, their CGT is just about increase the tax burden on New Zealanders by $5 billion a year.

Don’t they look happy! Captions below – as always funny, not nasty, please.

@lailaharre might be making a difference if you did you own tweeting rather than delegating+stopped the nonsense about influencing @nzlabour

— Trevor Mallard (@TrevorMallard) July 5, 2014

Wouldn’t a Government of them all having to work together be such great fun. You could sell tickets – from your new homes in Australia!

The Herald reports:

Compare his and Key’s training and Cunliffe says there is a significant difference in their ideals despite similar boyhood backgrounds.

“There is a clear difference in the way that we think based on our professional training. He’s spent most of his life as a trader, which is by definition taking a series of bets on short-term positions, whereas my training at BCG [Boston Consulting Group] was in strategy … working back from your desired future to what you do tomorrow to try to get you on the best path.

One may nor may not agree with how Cunliffe positions himself and Key – one short-term and the other strategic. But let’s assume they’re correct.

Key is a chief executive type Prime Minister. He certainly does have a direction he pushes the country in, but his focus is in dealing with the multitude of problems that arise every week and month, and finding solutions to them. And to a degree, a lot of government is about trying to fix problems.

Cunliffe says he would be more focused on a strategy for NZ as a whole. That could well be true. But I’m sceptical of how well a country reacts to a top down strategy.

The reality is we are a small player in the world, and much of what happens in NZ is the result of forces well beyond our control. Also a country is not a company. The PM can’t decide for every single business what they should be doing. Hundreds of thousands of business owners and managers will be making those decisions for their own companies.

Now a Government can come in and say we have a strategy for NZ. It can be the Greens saying we’ll invest billions into a global renewable energy industry. It can be Labour saying they want forestry and dairy to sell more high value products than raw products.

But are Governments the best people to decide? We sell what people are willing to buy off us. I have a fair degree of faith that if there was money to be made in selling windfarm technology to the world, or finished wood products, rather than logs, then there would be dozens of Kiwi companies doing just that.

So as someone sceptical of the power of Government, I don’t see it as a bad thing to have a Prime Minister who isn’t trying to force his strategic vision on NZ businesses – but instead focus on removing roadblocks as they emerge.

If people really convinced they have the right strategy for NZ businesses, then I’d rather they go and set one up themselves, rather than try to impose a strategy on other businesses.

Also Rodney Hide points out a key ingredient of being a trader:

The Herald reports:

Labour leader David Cunliffe is “premature” to rule out ministerial spots for Internet Party leader Laila Harre and Mana leader Hone Harawira, Ms Harre said yesterday.

Her comments come after Internet Party founder Kim Dotcom took to Twitter to mock Mr Cunliffe over his statements at Labour’s election year Congress at the weekend.

The thought that Kim won’t want any Ministers for his pet party, in return for helping make Cunliffe Prime Minister is laughable. This is a guy who decided to destroy John Banks because Banks wouldn’t help him get a pillow in jail.

Dotcom mocked Cunliffe’s statement, because he knows there will be a price to pay for his support.

Is it any coincidence that Dotcom’s lawyers have managed to have his extradition hearing delayed again – until February 2015. So any decision, if a court finds he is eligible for extradition, would be made by a Government propped up by his pet party.

The Herald reports:

Cutting back funding for park maintenance, reducing library hours and scrapping inorganic rubbish collections are among options being considered by a cash-strapped Auckland Council.

Its finances have reached crisis point where severe cuts are necessary in a black budget to put rates and debt back on an “affordable” and “sustainable” path. But families fear the proposals will leave the city’s youngsters worse off.

To rescue finances, slashing up to $2.8 billion of new spending is required, as well as stripping up to $486 million a year for each of the next 10 years.

The first overview of the new 10-year budget discussed by Mayor Len Brown, councillors and decision makers yesterday included the $2.86 billion City Rail Link, which has an enormous flow-on effect.

The more you spend on one item, the less you have elsewhere. It is elementary.

“We’ve been looking at a situation where on one hand we’ve got this ambitious programme but on the other hand we’ve got this constrained funding envelope.”

Welcome to fiscal reality.

The council has also identified parks and community services for cuts of up to $60 million a year with talk of closing “under utilised” halls, recreation centres and swimming pools. Fewer arts and culture festivals and events are under consideration.

The proposed cuts are on a scale never witnessed in Auckland before, and are certainly bigger than those of Auckland City Mayor John Banks’ razor gang of 2001, headed by former Finance Minister Sir William Birch.

Ratepayers should not be used as a never-ending source of increased revenue. Rates increases should be no more than inflation.

Under his first four budgets – based on the budgets and assumptions of the former councils – debt soared from $3.9 billion to $7.3 billion and households were hit with cumulative rates increases of up to 38 per cent.

The more debt you have, the greater the interest payments are.

Mr Brown has not ruled out breaking a key election promise to hold rates to no more than 2.5 per cent this term.

It will be his final term if he does. He may of course realise he won’t be re-elected regardless, so decide he has nothing to lose by breaking his promise.

However Councillors who vote for higher rates increases may face a challenge with re-election if they do.

Stuff reports:

A Hastings man who sexually assaulted an 87-year-old woman in her home was on parole at the time.

Name suppression on Hugh Hemi Tuatua Tareha, 30, was lifted yesterday after he admitted the attack on November 7 last year.

It can now be revealed that he attacked another woman on the same day – and that he was on parole at the time for the robbery of an elderly woman.

Tareha had been before the Parole Board just the day before and had led the board to believe he was motivated to make changes.

“We are pleased with his performance,” the board wrote in its report on November 6.

Well they got that one wrong.

Yesterday, Justice Simon France entered the convictions and noted that Tareha would receive a second strike under the three strikes legislation at sentencing in September. He ordered a cultural report and two health reports, as the Crown was seeking preventive detention. Tareha was remanded in custody.

This is excellent. No parole for him next time, and if he offends again, then he will receive the maximum sentence for his crimes.

Make sure you vote to retain the three strikes law at the election.

Stuff reports:

Convincing parents their children learn better in open-plan classrooms with dozens of pupils and multiple teachers can be a tough sell for schools, a Christchurch principal says.

At Pegasus Bay Primary School all 420 pupils were part of shared teaching and learning spaces and principal Roger Hornblow said about 80 per cent of parents understood it.

The school’s new approach to teaching has been heralded as the way of the future by the Government – in direct contrast to the Labour Party’s education policy announcement at the weekend of smaller class sizes.

“The same skills are still being taught but the way they’re being taught is different,” Hornblow said.

“Bringing ratios down to one teacher to 23 kids would be great but it’s not the world we’re working in.”

He said it was more than just three teachers working with 75 kids.

“It’s three sets of eyes picking up on any negative or off-task behaviour. It’s more help to answer questions, and the collaboration between staff is going on 24/7.”

This is very true. The future will not be one teacher with one class. It is about shared teaching and learning spaces. Teaching will be very different in the future to how we traditionally knew it. That is why the focus should be on training teachers better.

Vernon Small at Stuff reports:

Treasury is working on a radical plan to set up a new “jam jar” fund to hold extra tax revenue to smooth income variations.

It says the “stabilisation fund” could operate as a stand-alone agency and be put in place if further debt repayment became politically unpalatable.

The fund was one of three options outlined in a pre-Budget Treasury document late last year and released yesterday.

It said there were three broad, but not mutually exclusive, options for so-called “revenue surprises”.

They were to pay down debt, commit it to “one or more existing funds (or ‘jam jars’), and create a new form of fund or jam jar (eg a stabilisation fund)”.

I’m very disappointed that Treasury did not look at a fourth option for revenue surprises. That is tax cuts.

If the Government has more revenue than it expected, then why not allow hard working taxpayers to keep more of their income?

One could have a policy that any surplus funds, greater than forecast in the last Budget, be refunded to taxpayers at year end.

So if the surplus projection was say $2.1 billion and the actual surplus turned out to be $2.9 billion, then the $800 million extra gets refunded proportionally to taxpayers.

There is a very interesting longitudinal study of families done by Otago University on the issue of domestic violence.

I should preface these extracts by saying that when it comes to the most severe forms of domestic violence – being killed or maimed by your partner or ex-partner, its is clear that this happens to women, by men, far more often. But what does the Otago study find for overall domestic violence:

In addition, victimization and perpetration reports were highly correlated (r = .81). This reflects the fact that, in most instances, respondents reported mutual IPV, with 90% of those reporting IPV victimization reporting IPV perpetration, and 94% of those reporting IPV perpetration reporting IPV victimization.

There were no significant differences between males and females in terms of reported IPV victimization. The mean victimization score for females was 2.12 (SD = 2.91) compared to the mean of 2.28 (SD = 2.71) for males (p > .40). However, there was a significant difference between males and females in terms of reported IPV perpetration, such that females reported higher levels of IPV perpetration. The mean perpetration score for females was 2.15 (SD = 2.26), compared to a mean of 1.66 (SD = 2.04) for males (p < .01).

That’s what you call an inconvenient fact.

In terms of the CTS victimization subscale measures, 11.3% of males and 7.3% of females reported being exposed to minor physical assault; 7.7% of males and 3.4% of females reported severe physical assault; 65.7% of males and 66.1% of females reported minor psychological aggression; and 15.4% of males and 9.2% of females reported severe psychological aggression. For the CTS perpetration subscale measures, 6.7% of males and 5.5% of females reported committing minor physical assault; 2.8% of males and 3.2% of females reported severe physical assault; 56.7% of males and 68.7% of females reported minor psychological
aggression; and 6.9% of males and 9.2% of females reported severe psychological aggression.

So males are more likely to suffer a severe physical assault.

Now the reality is that most men and stronger than most women, and the impact of a serious physical assault can be both physically and psychologically more damaging, even terrifying for a woman. So this paper doesn’t minimise the horrendous impact on women, of serious assaults. It just establishes that domestic violence is far from exclusively something men do to women – in fact 90% of those who get victimised by domestic violence, also perpetrate it, according to this study. Now that is not 100%, and many people suffer domestic violence, who never ever engage in it itself. But the study shows they are the exception,  not the rule.

The report authors conclude:

All research into IPV is conducted against the backdrop of what Dutton (Dutton, 1994; Dutton & Nicholls, 2005) has described as “the feminist paradigm” (p. 682). This model, which dominates public discourse about domestic violence, views violence through a gendered lens that centers around the assumptions that: (a) most domestic violence involves male perpetrators and female victims; (b) female violence is defensive and reactive; and (c) the causes of domestic violence reflect the values of patriarchal social structures in which violence is used to control women and limit their opportunities (e.g. Bograd, 1988; Dobash & Dobash, 1979; Dobash, Dobash, Wilson, & Daly, 1992; Johnson, 1995).

While this model has been highly influential in setting the directions of domestic violence policy, it is almost completely discrepant with the findings of this and a growing number of studies.

They point out:

While population survey data have tended to suggest an absence of gender differences, official data tend to suggest a predominance of male perpetrators and female victims. Reconciling these differences is central to a balanced understanding of the issues of IPV. The most straightforward resolution of the evidence is to suggest that, while males and females appear to be equally predisposed to domestic violence, because of greater male strength and capacity for aggression, males predominate in the more extreme cases of IPV represented in officially recorded statistics

None of the above should take away from the reality that too many men do commit domestic violence, and as a society we should make domestic violence as socially unacceptable as drink driving now is. That is what David Cunliffe very clumsily was trying to say a couple of days ago.

But apologising for being a man, was both stupid (you apologise for what you do, not for what you are), but also missing the wider picture of domestic violence.

Stuff reports:

Dr Ropata might have never returned from Guatemala, and the West family might have never been born into outrageous fortune, had it not been for a law change 25 years ago.

The Broadcasting Act, passed in May 1989, led to the establishment of funding agency New Zealand on Air, which turned 25 on July 1.

It meant that suddenly – and it did happen virtually overnight – anyone with an idea for producing New Zealand content for broadcast could apply for funding. Before 1989, it was limited to the Broadcasting Corporation of New Zealand, which operated the two television channels and had a virtual monopoly on the radio waves.

This was a key change, which increased competition. The state’s funding used to go on the state channels only. This change opened up the funding for NZ productions to all producers and all channels.

Labour’s new policy is that if you have sex with someone, you need to prove there was consent, otherwise you are guilty of rape.

In anticipation no doubt of such insanity becoming law if Labour wins, there is a site which offers contracts that you can get your partner to sign prior to sex. There’s one for women and men.

It’s very detailed, so you have an absolute defence in court, as to what has and has not been consented to. The kissing section is:

Consent yes/no to:

• closed mouth kissing
• open-mouthed kissing with lips 
• open-mouthed kissing with tongue
• light biting/nibbling
• heavy biting/nibbling
• kissed on the face and neck

It usefully also includes a check box saying that you will not hold the kisser responsible for hickeys 🙂

The other sections are somewhat more explicit, so I won’t repeat them here. Highly amused though by being able to specify a maximum number of fingers 🙂

If Labour’s don’t ditch their insane policy, I’m thinking the Young Nationals could print out these sex contracts, with a Labour Party logo, and distribute them around bars and nightclubs so people understand that if Labour get elected, you need to prove you are not a rapist if you have sex with someone.

Janesa Jeram at the NZ Initiative writes:

There is a common saying that human rights are what make us human. But with the modern expansion of human rights beyond its classical origins, are we becoming more human, or less?
 
This week, The New Zealand Initiative hosted Australia’s Human Rights Commissioner, Tim Wilson, who spoke on freedom, “the fundamental human right.” Tim Wilson argued that human rights are supposed to be sacrosanct principles, and criticised the expansion of human rights from their classical liberal origins.
 
The traditional liberal human rights were narrow, confined to freedoms such as freedom of speech, association, movement, worship and property rights. The government’s role was simply to protect those rights.
 
Modern society has deviated from these fundamentals, and human rights can now include everything from the right to education, right to shelter, right to non-discrimination, right to a decent wage, and the latest: the right to be forgotten.
 
The point Tim Wilson makes is that these social aspirations are not the same as human rights. Society may aspire to have equal access to education and shelter, or anonymity and privacy for internet users, but these should not be conflated with human rights.

I think this is a critical point. True human rights are rights that protect us, not rights that the Government gives us.

This is because, often, if not always, these social aspirations come at the cost of freedom. While they may be worthy goals, they should not automatically be given equal status to the classical human rights.
 
Human rights were originally enacted to protect the individual from state tyranny, and necessarily limited the power of the state. Social aspirations masquerading as rights expand the power of the state.

This is not to say that we shouldn’t aspire as a society to make sure everyone has education and shelter. But we should not talk about this as a human right.

Steven Joyce points out:

“David Cunliffe, David Parker and Chris Hipkins had a ‘hey Clint’ moment on TV last night, when all three of them failed to answer a simple question about the total cost of their grab-bag of education announcements,” Mr Joyce says.

“Labour has rejected having a Treasury analyst in its office, and it really is showing.”

Talking to media yesterday after announcing it would spend $403 million over four years to employ more teachers, neither David Cunliffe, nor David Parker nor Chris Hipkins could do the simple maths on how much their other promises would cost.

“That’s because their numbers don’t add up and their claims are misleading,” Mr Joyce says.

“For a start, the Government currently funds secondary schools for an average 20 students per classroom, well below Labour’s ‘new’ target of 23 students per classroom.

I understand the funding rations are 1:23.5 in Year 9, 1:23.5 in Year 10, 1:23 in Year 11, 1:18 in Year 12 and 1:17 in Year 13.

“When it comes to their costings, Labour’s figures include only the cost of the extra teachers’ salaries. They need to come clean on what the total costs would be including ACC, training, support  superannuation, and all the other overheads involved in supporting more teachers.”

And as they will make KiwiSaver compuslory and at a higher contribution rate – all ads up.

But the general rule of thumb is that you double the direct salary costs to calculate the overall impact of a new staffer.

“And on Saturday they claimed they would provide every student between years five and 13 with a digital device worth $600 by providing a $100 subsidy and having parents pay $3.50 a week for 18 months. This will be news to Labour, but this adds up to only $373 per device.

They really need that Treasury secondee!

Stuff reports:

Labour’s proposal to reduce class sizes at schools has failed to win a universal gold star, with experts saying the small cuts without improving teaching would do little to raise the bar of student achievement.

Associate Professor John O’Neill, of Massey University’s Institute of Education, said the Labour Party’s proposal to cut school class sizes if elected in September would not achieve much without changes to teaching itself.

At the Labour election-year congress yesterday, leader David Cunliffe announced the party would fund an extra 2000 teachers, which would see primary and secondary school classes shrink by an average of three students by 2018.

But O’Neill said recent research suggested making classes slightly larger or smaller did not greatly alter the achievement levels for average students.

Indeed. Here’s a list of the 105 things which have been found to have a larger impact on student achievement than class size.

1. Self-reported grades
2. Piagetian programs
3. Providing formative evaluation
4. Micro teaching
5. Acceleration
6. Classroom behavioral
7. Comprehensive interventions for learning disabled students
8. Teacher clarity
9. Reciprocal teaching
10. Feedback
11. Teacher-Student relationships
12. Spaced vs. Mass Practice
13. Meta-cognitive strategies
14. Prior achievement
15. Vocabulary programs
16. Repeated Reading programs
17. Creativity Programs
18. Self-verbalization & Self-questioning
19. Professional development
20. Problem solving teaching
21. Not labeling students
22. Teaching strategies
23. Cooperative vs. individualistic learning
24. Study skills
25. Direct Instruction
26. Tactile stimulation programs
27. Phonics instruction
28. Comprehension programs
29. Mastery learning
30. Worked examples
31. Home environment
32. Socioeconomic status
33. Concept mapping
34. Challenging Goals
35. Visual-Perception programs
36. Peer tutoring
37. Cooperative vs. competitive learning
38. Pre-term birth weight
39. Classroom cohesion
40. Keller’s PIS
41. Peer influences
42. Classroom management
43. Outdoor/Adventure Programs
44. Interactive video method
45. Parental Involvement
46. Play Programs
47. Second/Third chance programs
48. Small group learning
49. Concentration/Persistence/Engagement
50. missing
51. Motivation
52. Early Intervention
53. Questioning
54. Pre school programs
55. Quality of Teaching
56. Writing Programs
57. Expectations
58. School size
59. Self-concept
60. Mathematics programs
61. Behavioral organizers/Adjunct questions
62. missing
63. Cooperative learning
64. Science
65. Social skills programs
66. Reducing anxiety
67. Integrated Curricula Programs
68. Enrichment
69. Career Interventions
70. Time on Task
71. Computer assisted instruction
72. Adjunct aids
73. Bilingual Programs
74. Principals/School leaders
75. Attitude to Mathematics/Science
76. Exposure to Reading
77. Drama/Arts Programs
78. Creativity
79. Frequent/Effects of testing
80. Decreasing disruptive behavior
81. Drugs
82. Simulations
83. Inductive teaching
84. Ethnicity
85. Teacher effects
86. Inquiry based teaching
87. Ability grouping for gifted students
88. Homework
89. Home visiting
90. Exercise/Relaxation programs
91. Desegregation
92. Mainstreaming
93. Teaching test taking & coaching
94. Use of calculators
95. Values/Moral Education Programs
96. Competitive vs. individualistic learning
97. Special College Programs
98. Programmed instruction
99. Summer school
100. Finances
101. Illness (Lack of)
102. Religious Schools
103. Individualised instruction
104. Visual/Audio-visual methods
105. Comprehensive Teaching Reforms
106. Class size

Now remember this doesn’t come from one study. This is a from a meta-analysis of 50,000 different studies. There have been 96 studies just on class size, and they have found the impact on learning is quite minor.

Westhaven Splendour, Auckland, New Zealand

This one is obviously for the Aucklanders amongst us – a classic view of Westhaven Marina and the harbour bridge.

Rising super early one morning I drove into the city in time for an incredible display of pre dawn light. This has always been a popular image with tourists and has literally sold to all corners of the world.

Click on the image for a larger view of this photograph or on this link to see it as a poster print.

Cheers

Richard [richardhume.com]

YouTube: Timeless – A Panoramic Journey