Stuff reports:

A hero schoolboy is heading to court in a rare legal fight after he was suspended from college because his hair is too long.

Lucan Battison, 16, who received a bravery award in April for helping to save two women from drowning, was suspended from St John’s College in Hastings just a month later after being told he needed a haircut.

His father, Troy, has gone to the High Court seeking an urgent judicial review of the school’s decision. The case is likely to be heard later this month and principal Paul Melloy and the board of trustees will defend their actions.

When contacted yesterday, Troy Battison referred questions to lawyer Jol Bates, who said legal proceedings were “very much a last resort”, and the family wanted to get Lucan back to school as soon as possible.

So why doesn’t he just cut his hair?

Alternatively enrol in a school that doesn’t have a policy on hair length.

But if you choose to go to an integrated school (which is a choice, no one is zoned for it), then you have to accept their rules. If you don’t like them, then choose a school without a rule on hair length.

Economics teacher Peter Lyons has a regular column in the NZ Herald. His latest column is far more politics than economics, and seems to just repeat Labour talking points. First he says:

In 2009 the Government cut funding for adult community education classes. It was an easy target, as adult community education lacks the lobbying power of the tobacco, alcohol and gambling industries. As a result there was little organised public opposition.

Tobacco, alcohol and gambling do not get taxpayer funding. On the contrary they pay huge amounts of tax to fund stuff such as, well, adult community education.

So presumably Lyons wrote this just to try and paint the Government as captured by special interests (in fact it has agreed to tobacco plain packaging and a 50% increase in tobacco excise tax – far more than any previous Government has done).

A PricewaterhouseCoopers report said the benefit of adult education to the New Zealand economy was about $4.8 billion. The report concluded that every direct dollar spent produced a $16 gain to our economy. 

As Mr Lyons teaches economics perhaps he should read the PWC report and the critiques of it by professional economists. It’s nonsensical conclusions are based on an assumption that if you do a pottery clause, you magically become half as likely to ever commit a crime.

In 1996, I was teaching in Warkworth. At the start of the year I was rung by the evening class co-ordinator at Orewa College. She desperately needed an accounting tutor for an evening class starting that week. I reluctantly agreed to take the class for the first term until a permanent replacement was found.

There were 10 students. They included several single mothers on the DPB eager to learn a new skill. There was a guy with cerebral palsy in a wheelchair. I ended up taking the class for the entire year.

By the end of the year the number had dwindled to seven students, which was not a bad attrition rate given my skills as an accounting teacher. All passed the final exam. For most of them it was their first success in an external exam.

It is not difficult to do the maths on the potential wider economic benefits of one of these students furthering their study in accounting. If one of those ladies on the DPB carried on to complete an accounting degree she would have an earning capacity of at least $70,000 per year. Over a 30-year working life, this would total an extra $2.1 million in GDP for the economy.

And these are the courses still funded by the Government – English language, literacy and numeracy. It is the basket weaving courses that lost funding.

A further factor overlooked in the demise of community education is the benefits to civic society. It gets people out of their houses and mixing with others. They are also acquiring skills and developing talents in the process. It adds to what is referred to as social capital.

I bet you that the vast majority of those attending were well off middle class people. I’d far rather we spent more on literacy and numeracy for disadvantaged families than millions on pottery and cooking courses.

National has announced:

The National Party has selected local businessman and iwi leader Nuk Korako as its Port Hills candidate for the 2014 General Election. …
 
Mr Korako is of Ngai Tahu descent. He is married to Chris and is a father of four sons.
 
He balances the running of his own tourism consultancy with a range of community and iwi commitments.
 
Mr Korako currently sits on the Board of Cholmonderley Children’s Home and the Cholmonderley New Building Komiti, and sits on the Banks Peninsula Environmental Trust, Te Ihutai Ahuwhenua Trust, and the Torotoroa Trust.
 
His tribal commitments include the Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu Board (Tribal Governance Arm) and the Ngai Tahu Holdings Corporation Board (Tribal Commercial Arm).

A strong background in business, tourism, his Iwi and the environment. In fact he is a trustee of the Rod Donald Banks Peninsula Environmental Trust.

A couple of new rankings out by the Economist Intelligence Unit.

Their Business Environment Rankings (ease to do business in) has NZ in 8th place, up three from 11th last time.

And for global food security, we are ranked 13th. The US is 1 and Austria 2. We have improved 0.3 from last time.

And I can’t find a link, but the Dom Post reported we are 5th again on their Democracy Index.

Stuff reports:

New Zealand spends millions of dollars on software to work out what and when to feed cows to maximise the yield from dairy herds.

But Chris South, team leader at Ministry of Education spinoff N4L, says that if you asked five history teachers at schools that were in the same deciles and areas, and had the same-sized rolls, what they used in their classrooms to help with their lessons, “you would probably get five different answers”.

“There is not just a disparity in knowing what resources are out there, but also in knowing how to use them,” he said.

“There are lots people getting totally different results from the same things.”

That could all change with Pond, a portal being developed by N4L.

It is designed to be the place in cyberspace that teachers will visit to find, use, adapt and comment on educational content uploaded by fellow teachers, professional providers of educational resources and useful material available on the wider internet.

Next year, the portal will also be opened up to students.

It could transform education or turn into an unholy mess. Failure won’t be through a lack of resourcing.

With a total cost of about $3.5 billion, the ultrafast broadband initiative is one of the country’s biggest infrastructure investments, and the priority is to hook up schools.

On top of its $1.35b contribution to the UFB initiative, the Government has committed a further $211m to pay for a managed network offering uncapped broadband to schools.

A big reason for all this spending is to provide better access to the content in Pond, which, like the managed network, is the responsibility of N4L, which has been set up as an independent Crown entity.

“The problems Pond solves are the difficulties of accessing fantastic content,” marketing manager Andy Schick said.

“We all know there is no such thing as page 2 on Google. You just look at page 1 and if it’s on page 2 it may as well not exist.”

So true.

I think the high speed Internet has huge potential for the education sector, It is potentially transformative. The investment in N4L could be one of the most important the Government has done – if it is managed well.

A few hundred teachers gathered in Wellington last month to get some hands-on time with the portal, which N4L is intentionally opening up only slowly to schools.

N4L is recruiting about 500 teachers to become “pioneer educators” in Pond.

Their job is to help N4L knock the portal into shape, so when N4L opens up Pond to the other 64,500 teachers this year there should be less chance of them navigating away forever in horror.

Trialling and testing is vital. 500 is a decent number to trial.

Also the Herald reports on a modern Christchurch school:

A high-tech new Canterbury school, which produces all of its own power and even boasts an internal radio station, was today described by the Prime Minister as a “window into the future” of what all New Zealand schools will eventually look like.

Pegasus Bay School, 30km north of Christchurch, is the first major school project completed as part of the Government’s $1.137 billion shake-up of greater Christchurch’s schools after the devastating earthquakes.

With solar panels on its roof, it is the first net-zero energy school in New Zealand.

It has ultra-fast broadband, its own radio station, and large, open classrooms — without any desks.

“It’s probably vastly different from what many people will have experienced in their own education but it’s the modern face of the future, and it’s what will be the hallmark of Christchurch as we build 21 of these schools as a result of the rebuild of Christchurch schools,” said Prime Minister John Key as he officially opened it today.

“This is a window into the future. All of the academic research shows you that these open, modern learning environments, with bigger classrooms, but with shared teachers, they are the way of the future, the way of making sure we life the professional development of teaching, but also doing the very best for our kids.”

The Herald has a photo. Looks great.

Ms Parata and Mr Key said that while Christchurch “went through a lot” while the government unveiled its education shake-up for the region, Pegasus Bay School has set the example for other schools as to what can be achieved.

“In the end, it’s like all of those things — people often resist change, but when they actually get to see the new product — as we said at the time of the debate — parents will be flocking to bring their [children] here,” Mr Key said.

I think parents and kids will e pretty happy.

One of the persistent challenges to photographing kereru, is getting on the same level as they are.  Otherwise you’re always pointing the camera upwards.  Which is distortionary and it generates a lot of views of kereru backsides.  The latter isn’t a very popular subject.

So in this case, I’d spotted that the birds were feeding off the berries of a ti kouka (cabbage tree) and I could get on the same level.  With a bit of patience, it was possible to capture a variety of photos.

Click for larger, higher res image

Hat Tip: Whale Oil

It is rare for the Chief Judge to write a letter to the editor. She is obviously concerned that Labour’s policy paints a false picture of the situation in Christchurch,

The key aspects if her letter are:

• A specialist list has been in place since February 2012
• Earthquake cases get priority over other civil cases
• Court cases get before a judge within 55 working days
• Of 76 cases filed, 43 have been disposed of of which only 1 went to a full hearing
• Of the remaining 33, 17 are on track for a negotiated settlement
• 10 further cases may be negotiated also

So basically there are possibly only six cases that may go to a full trial at the District Court.

Stuff reports:

Businesses that breach employment standards could be “named and shamed” under Government proposals.

Some employers could also face jail sentences, steep fines, bans on doing business or seizure of equipment.

The options are laid out in a paper released by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment.

Labour Minister Simon Bridges wants to crack down on migrant worker exploitation.

About 17 per cent of employees report that they are not getting one of more of the minimum legal entitlements, including holiday entitlement, minimum wage or having an employment agreement.

The Labour Inspectorate says it is seeing growing evidence of “more serious and intentional” breaches, such as the exploitation of migrant workers and vulnerable groups.

In a discussion document, the ministry proposes a series of tougher sanctions.

It says current penalties – a maximum $10,000 fine for an individual and $20,000 for a company – are not high when used.

Between January 2008 and March 2013, labour inspectors took 69 cases to the Employment Relations Authority, and the average penalty was $2826.

Officials are canvassing opinion on the options, which include naming and shaming businesses that breach standards.

This would be for those who deliberately breach the law with “serious and harmful effects” or those who commit “moderate to serious” breaches. A similar policy was adopted in Britain in 2011.

Another option would extend financial penalties to deter unlawful behaviour and to ensure there is no financial gain from non-compliance.

Fines would also be targeted at individuals to stamp out “phoenixing” – when directors wind up a company and begin another to avoid enforcement.

I support all of these.

Most employers are good employers who treat staff well.

There are a small minority who are exploitative, especially of migrants. They breach labour and human rights laws. I think we do need to be tougher with the very bad employers.

Claire Trevett writes:

More critically for Cunliffe is the open opposition among senior members of his own team to any collusion with the Internet Mana Party. The caucus is split between those who believe the party should hold its nose and do what it must to get the Government benches and those vehemently opposed to any such deal. The official line is that Labour will make its decision after the voters have had their say. Yet MPs Phil Goff, David Shearer and Chris Hipkins, as well as Napier candidate Stuart Nash, have strongly and publicly condemned the Internet-Mana situation.

Such things are usually left to the leader to take a stand on in public. The fact these MPs went over his head and spoke out shows the strength of their views and suggests they are wary of what Cunliffe might do and hope to pre-empt it.

There is some suspicion about the influence of Cunliffe’s chief of staff, Matt McCarten, who has past allegiances to the Alliance Party, now reborn through Laila Harre under the Internet Party banner, and Hone Harawira’s Mana Party. He could well believe a deal in Te Tai Tokerau was a good idea. The MPs in question did get some return fire on David Cunliffe’s Facebook page from Labour supporters.

But Cunliffe can’t afford to ignore such strongly-held views in his caucus. He is about to head into his own danger zone. From June 20, Labour’s caucus has a three-month window to change the leader without having to go through the party’s new primary-style process giving its membership a vote.

If Cunliffe was thriving in the polls, he’d be on much safer ground to make such calls about the Te Tai Tokerau seat and the Internet Mana Party. There might be some grumbling but little else because there would be too much to lose by changing the leader. As things stand, it might not take much to spark a revolt whether a rival contender is ready and willing or not.

I’d forgotten that clause. There is no way caucus would roll Cunliffe if it meant an open leadership election again. But, they can do it safely after 20 June.

Stuff reports:

US House Majority Leader Eric Cantor has lost in his Republican primary election to a little-known economics professor, a stunning upset for the No. 2 Republican in the House and a major victory for the ultraconservative tea party movement.

Cantor, viewed as a possible successor to House Speaker John Boehner, was taken down by a political novice with little money named Dave Brat. His win marked the biggest triumph this year for tea party supporters who until a few years ago backed Cantor, a former state legislator who rose to Majority Leader in 2011.

This is a huge upset. Cantor lost, and lost decisively (12% margin) despite having the far larger budget ($5 million to $200,000).

Cantor was on the right wing of the Republicans. The American Conservative Union scored him 84/100 in the last session and 95/100 lifetime rating. The National Taxpayers Union gave him a B- which was about average for Republicans.

John Armstrong at the Herald lists the seven factors he thinks will matter in the election:

1. John Key’s personal popularity.
2. The ‘no-change’ election.
3. The alternative.
4. The myth of the ‘missing million’ voters.
5. The economy, of course.
6. The Big Dot-commotion.
7. Winston Last. But not least.

I’d put No 5 as very important.

He rates the parties also in terms of campaign readiness:

• National 8/10
• Labour 6/10
• Greens 9/10
• Maori Party 3/10
• ACT 6/10
• Mana/Dotcom 5/10

Tom Peters at World Socialist writes:

Over the past month, New Zealand’s main opposition Labour Party, the Greens, the Maori nationalist Mana Party and the right-wing NZ First Party, have intensified their xenophobic campaign to restrict immigration, particularly from China and other Asian countries. The parties are seeking to make this a central issue in the lead-up to the September election.

Labour, which lost the 2011 election by a landslide, is floundering in the polls and widely seen as no different to the conservative National Party government. Since National was first elected in 2008 it has implemented a series of brutal austerity measures to impose the global economic crisis on working people, leading to soaring living costs and increasing poverty and inequality. Labour essentially agrees with the government’s attacks—including thousands of public sector job cuts, health and education cuts, and an increase in the regressive Goods and Services Tax.

Now Labour and its allies are whipping up hostility to immigrants, blaming them for the deepening crisis, particularly the soaring cost of housing. 

So the Socialists and the Greens are both attacking Labour for their attempt to blame house prices on immigrants.

They also attack Mana:

Depicting Chinese immigrants as a new colonising force, intent on dominating NZ’s economy, provides the rationale to support the US build-up to war against China, or else take a neutral position. At the same time, the campaign reflects the material interests of layers of big business and the petty bourgeoisie, including the Maori elite represented by Mana, who see foreign investors as rivals.

Mana’s statements are further proof that there is nothing remotely progressive about the party, which uses national chauvinism and racial identity politics to divide the working class and block any challenge to the capitalist system.

I think Mana gave up being progressive when they took the $3 million from Mr Dotcom.

Trans-Tasman reports:

Is NZ becoming too dependent on the Chinese market? It’s a question worrying many authorities as they see China absorbing the bulk of NZ’s exports of milk powder, but also 50% of NZ wool and forestry exports, as well as big volumes of seafood, fruit and sheep meat. ANZ Bank economists Cameron Bagrie and Con Williams, taking what they call “a big picture view” have done an exercise studying alternate Asian markets. They say while the speed of the increase in NZ’s trade connectivity with China has been staggering (China now takes 22.6% of total exports), NZ has hardly been standing still in other markets.

Over the last 5 years, double-digit growth in exports has been achieved in 46 of the countries NZ trades with (22% of total).

We are of course vulnerable to China, but the fact we are growing other markets also mitigates the risk.

Vernon Small writes:

 In the very strange case of Colin Craig and the Conservative Party, there is little doubt that John Key and his campaign maestro Steven Joyce are reluctant suitors.

Deal or no deal?

Welcome to John Key’s nightmare – or the closest you get to a nightmare when your party’s on 50 per cent and your opposition is fractured into five parts.

The prime minister has said he will announce a job-lot of deals with potential support parties in coming weeks.

On the face of it “arrangements” with all three make sense. In a tight race why throw away a chunk of Centre-Right support on your side of the fence, especially if Internet-Mana is going to vacuum up two or three seats on the other side?

Indeed.

Tactical voting is nothing new. In 1999 Helen Clark told Labour voters to vote for the Jeanette Fitzsimons in Coromandel. And last election the Greens told their supporters to vote for the Labour candidates in Auckland Central and Ohariu.

In the case of UnitedFuture, it is an easy equation.

Peter Dunne is a dream ally. He won’t go with the other side, causes only the occasional headache on principle each term, and has ministerial experience.

Even if you dump him he doesn’t go feral. And the chances are his party will poll so low that he will create an overhang seat – a net gain for the Right.

If a party gets below 0.4% then it is an overhang seat.

ACT and David Seymour in Epsom are slightly more problematic.

Seymour is earnest lobby fodder for National, his party is on the spectrum – as in the Right-wing one – and if he gets over the line there is a serious chance he will bring in another MP. However, the whiff of John Banks’ exit lingers in the air and there is an outside chance that Epsom voters will return the reluctant candidate Paul Goldsmith anyway.

And they have every right to do so.

I think Epsom voters will vote tactically, as they did previously. But the choice is up to them. National may say we are only seeking the party vote in an electorate – but they still stand a candidate, giving voters the choice. Epsom voters are not controlled by National. If they don’t want to tactically vote, then they won’t. All National will be doing is saying we’re happy for people to vote for the ACT candidate, as having ACT in Parliament means you get a National-led Government.

Which brings us to the third option, and the very strange case of Colin Craig and the Conservative Party.

There is little doubt that Key and his campaign maestro Steven Joyce are reluctant suitors.

But on the experience of 2011, Craig is likely to attract more votes than the other two combined.

So will National hold its nose and cut him a deal?

Well, the Conservatives have said they don’t want a deal.

Back in the here and now, Key is playing a much more equivocal game with the Conservatives than the other two parties.

Maybe there was an element of game-playing on Key’s part, but on Tuesday he noted Craig’s enthusiasm for a deal with surprise as he harked back to earlier comments from Craig that he was not seeking an accommodation and was confident of clearing the 5 per cent hurdle.

Another Stuff story reports:

National backbencher Mark Mitchell says Conservative Party leader Colin Craig is “dreaming” if he thinks he will be gifted his seat.

Craig, who was defeated by Mitchell in Rodney by 12,222 votes in 2011, said this week he expected to be offered a deal handing him one of the Rodney, Upper Harbour or East Coast Bays seats in the September election.

Based on current polls, if Craig wins an electorate seat, he would take one or two MPs with him into Parliament, helping National gain a majority.

They could get 4 MPs. They got 2.7% last time and 2.8% gets you four MPs.

I’d be amazed if there was any deal in Rodney or North Shore. It simply would never happen.

Ultimately I imagine the decision will come down to necessity. If the polls show National, ACT and United Future likely to be able to form a Government, then why deal with the Conservatives and risk electoral damage from a deal.

But if it looks like NZ First would hold the balance of power, then I’d say Colin Craig is a far more attractive option than Winston. You can trust Craig, but not Peters.

As I previously blogged, I support changing the abortion law so that pregnant women don’t have to claim not having an abortion would be a threat to their mental (or physical) health. In practice we have abortion on demand, but now in law.

However misrepresenting the current law is wrong, as done by a Green Party staffer.

That is entirely wrong. The current law in no way says abortion is illegal full stop. Pro-life NZ points out the current law.

Now as I said, I agree with Leah, and disagree with Pro-life NZ, on changing the law. But I can’t condone such blatant mistruths being told about the current law.

The latest desperate go by Labour is to blame National for the recent killings in West Auckland.

David Cunliffe’s chief setter upper of secret trusts blogs at The Standard:

Lately West Auckland has been in the news for all the wrong reasons.  Four alleged homicides in less than a month, two domestic, one from a neighbourhood dispute and the latest allegedly involving a 12 year old and a 13 year old and the robbery of a local dairy owner have put West Auckland in the media for all of the wrong reasons.

The deaths have created a deep sense of unease.  What is going wrong?

Local MP Phil Twyford has expressed his deep misgivings:

What kind of country have we become when a dairy owner is killed in his shop at 7 o’clock in the morning allegedly by a child with a knife?

“The young accused were well known to local shopkeepers in a retail centre where begging, intimidation and anti-social behaviour have unfortunately been all too common.

“The community is asking why there has not been a more visible police presence, with regular foot patrols to discourage law-breaking. There is a community constable delegated to cover Henderson but the officer is based in Massey. We’d like to see a community constable based in the town centre, with a shop front on the main street.

The right have responded predictably.  Cameron Slater claimed that Twyford was politicising murder.  Obviously as far as he is concerned it is better for the causes not to be debated.

This claim is deeply hypocritical.  David Farrar during 2008 posted a series of posts suggesting that violent crime was worsening and implying that the fifth Labour Government was responsible.

Firstly I blogged on official crime stats, I never went blaming the Government the day after a (alleged) murder. That is sad and desperate.

As for the “suggestion” that violent crime was worsening, well here are the stats from Stats NZ:

Doesn’t that tell a dramatic story.

The Government doesn’t control all, or even most, of the factors that cause crime. But it does control policy on sentencing, parole and bail, and also funding for Police and for rehabilitation.

Presland continues:

As far as I am concerned there is a political element to what is happening out west and this is why this Government’s policies should be put under the microscope.  Potential causes include the following:

1. Poverty.  Three of the deaths occurred in one of the poorest parts of West Auckland and the alleged killer in the fourth was apparently begging.  Trickle down is not working.

2. Policing.  I have heard that the Waitakere Criminal Investigation Unit is severely understaffed, with up to a third of positions not currently filled.  There are many dedicated police officers working in the area but if the Police does not have sufficient resources they will not be able to do their job properly.

3. Education.  It is astounding that the Government can find $360 million to attempt to bribe teachers with promises of more pay but cannot increase funding for alternative education.  Imagine what a difference this sum could make if applied to kids who are clearly at risk.

4. Working conditions.  The right are already saying “what about the parents”.   Sure there are bad parents around.  There are also good parents working inhumane hours just to make ends meet.

I think my favourite is that National offering $360 million to pay the best teachers more, so they can share their skills with colleagues, is somehow linked to the murder in West Auckland. And this isn’t some deranged anonymous blogger – but one of the closest advisors to the Labour Leader.

Incidentially see Mr Presland wants to play this game, there were 234 homicides (and related offences) in the last three years (2011 to 2013). In 2006 to 2008 there were 291. So does that mean Labour in its third term had failed to do anythng about poverty, policing, education and working conditions? And doesn’t the 20% drop in homicides then mean that those factors have all improved?

Of and finally, as Mr Presland is talking about West Auckland, I had a look at the violent crime stats for Waitemata Police District.

In 2008 there were 3,952 violent crimes in Waitemata. In 2013 there were 3,134. That’s a huge 26% drop.

So I say bring it on, if Labour wants to start talking violent crime in West Auckland. It will be a great way to get them ever lower in the 20s in the polls.

UPDATE: Rachel Smalley also calls out Labour for politising a tragedy. Smalley notes:

However Mr Twyford suggests that questions should be asked about why there hasn’t been a more visible police presence in Henderson with regular foot patrols to discourage law-breaking. There is a suggestion that a more visible police presence would have prevented this crime.

I don’t think you can say that a lack of police resources contributed, on some level, to Mr Kumar’s death. I don’t think that police officers walking the streets would have stopped such a senseless crime. Whoever killed Mr Kumar had no compassion or respect for humanity, and I don’t believe that you could have prevented what happened by instructing a policeman to walk down the street from time to time.

Tragedies like the murder of Arun Kumar should not be politicised. We’ve seen politicians out in Henderson. Len Brown’s been there, the Auckland mayor. Labour MPs have paid their respects. But I think the Kumar family’s greatest support right now will come from the police, not from politicians.

I don’t want to see more police on the streets. I want to see better parenting in our homes. That’s where the issue of accountability lies. Children who are loved and nurtured don’t grow up to be killers.

Labour, I think, has picked the wrong fight on this.

I think it is just a sign of Labour’s desperation.

As widely expected, the Reserve Bank has lifted the official cash rate from 3.00% to 3.25%. To put things in context, I’ve graphed the level of the OCR from 1999 to today. It is still significantly below the early 2000s, let alone the mid 2000s.

The Herald reports:

The Government’s $359 million expert teachers policy has proved to be the latest in a series of “epic failures” in the education sector due to a lack of consultation with teachers and Labour will soon announce a better model it says.

The Government policy which would see “expert” and “lead” teachers identified and paid extra to act as role models across several schools was slammed by primary teachers union the NZEI and the NZ Principals Federation after they met to discuss it this week.

What the story doesn’t mention is that the PPTA has said:

The government’s $359 million Investing in Educational Success (IES) program has been a positive example of sector collaboration, says PPTA president Angela Roberts.

Roberts welcomes today’s release of the working group report on the initiative which will see schools across the country collaborating rather than competing.

From PPTA’s point of view the consultation over IES was comprehensive, robust and genuine, Roberts said.

“We stepped up to the challenge and engaged as fully as it is possible to do.”

The sector had worked hard together to find pragmatic answers and there had been significant movement from the originally unacceptable cabinet paper, Roberts said.

“You know it’s collaboration when it’s hard work – and this was really hard work.”

“We feel cabinet has heard us,” she said.

Now the PPTA is not exactly a friend of the Government’s. It opposes the Government on many other issues. It would not be saying that there has been genuine consultation and changes – unless there had been.

NZEI National President Judith Nowotarski said leaders from national and regional principal and teacher groups had sent a clear message that the policy, as it currently stood, was “unacceptable and unworkable” and “identified the lack of direct benefit for children in this policy”.

School leaders were concerned the policy would remove highly rated teachers and principals from their schools for two days a week, which would impact on children’s learning.

The PPTA actually deals with this in a blog post:

4. The evidence is lacking

There is plenty of evidence on the professional benefits of mentoring and the positive results that focusing on collaboration rather than competition will bring.

5. There is growing disquiet and concern in the sector…

Only in a small part of the beltway in Wellington.  Elsewhere schools are thinking about what clusters they are already in and what they need to do to be ready to pick up the extra staffing and funding that will come in next year.  Listen carefully – that is the sound of professionals collaborating.

Again why would the PPTA say this, if they did not think the policy was beneficial?

Labour’s education spokesman Chris Hipkins said the fact that teachers and principals were willing to turn down pay rises of up to $40,000 a year “reflects how bad they believe this policy is”.

It’s more a reflection that the NZEI just wants a Labour-led Government so National Standards can be abolished.

Mr Hipkins said Ms Parata had learned nothing about working with teachers.

“She has overseen epic failures including the class size debacle, the Christchurch schools mergers, charter schools and National Standards. And let’s not forget Novopay.”

Again I quote the PPTA blog:

1. There has been no consultation.

This might be true if these changes had been legislated in place but that’s not what happened. The $359 million was an employer offer made to unions for them to bargain and amend with the aim of eventually putting it into their collective agreements.   If using the democratic structures of unions to made changes for teachers isn’t consultation what is?

Strange that this article quotes the NZEI and Labour at length, and doesn’t even mention the views of the PPTA.

But I welcome the (almost) clear sign from Labour they they oppose this policy (they pretended to support it when first announced). This gives people another reasons to vote National.

The Insurance Council points out:

Insurers involved in the Canterbury earthquake recovery have 22,455 over cap dwelling claims with 87% fully settled or agreed with customers.

Based on figures collected in the CERA quarterly survey, at the end of March 2014 there were 9,877 (44%) dwelling claims closed and completely settled.

“There is a further 9,755 (43%) which CERA refers to as ‘pending settlement’, which essentially means the insurance company has reached an agreement with their customer and is in the process of being settled, so contrary to what Mr Cosgrove suggests there is no dispute,” says Insurance Council spokesman Samson Samasoni.

“Pending settlement means that there are builders on site completing the rebuild or repair, it’s scheduled for a rebuild or repair or they’re waiting to receive their cash settlement. Insurers don’t call it ‘completely settled’ until the key to the front door has been handed over or the cheque is banked,” he says.

Mr Cosgrove says that ‘sending an offer to a claimant is not settlement’.

“Our members don’t call that a settlement either. There are 1,508 over cap dwelling claims in that category, where the insurer has made their customer an offer but the insured hasn’t made a decision, many are saying it’s because they’re waiting to know what their land settlement is going to be from EQC before making a decision,” says Mr Samasoni. “We anticipate that there may be small percentage of this 1,508 that will end up in some form of dispute”.

So the actual numbers that go to court will probably be low hundreds.

The Philanthropy Roundtable writes:

Twenty-five years ago, charter schools hadn’t even been dreamed up. Today they are mushrooming across the country. There are 6,500 charter schools operating in 42 states, with more than 600 new ones opening every year. Within a blink there will be 3 million American children attending these freshly invented institutions (and 5 million students in them by the end of this decade).

It is philanthropy that has made all of this possible. Without generous donors, charter school could never have rooted and multiplied in this way. And philanthropists have driven relentless annual improvements—better trained school founders, more prepared teachers, sharper curricula, smarter technology—that have allowed charter schools to churn out impressive results.

Studies show that student performance in charter schools is accelerating every year, as high-performing models replace weaker ones. Charter schools as a whole already exceed conventional schools in results. The top charters that are now growing so fast elevate student outcomes more than any other schools in the U.S.—especially among poor and minority children.

This is what Labour and Greens are vowing to end.

An extract from the report:

Bill Gates explains that after his foundation decided in the mid‑1990s to focus on U.S. schooling, it poured about $2 billion into various education experiments. During their first decade, he reports, “many of the small schools that we invested in did not improve students’ achievement  in any significant way.” There was, however, one fascinating exception. “A few of the schools that we funded achieved something amazing. They replaced schools with low expectations and low results with ones that have high expectations and high results.” And there was a common variable: “Almost all of these schools were charter schools.”

And:

By 2014 there were 2.6 million children attending 6,500 charter schools in the U.S. Every year now, more than 600 new charters open their
doors for the first time, and an additional 300,000 children enroll (while a million kids remain on waiting lists, with millions more hungrily waiting in the wings). Charter school attendance began to particularly accelerate around 2009, and as this is written in 2014 it looks like there may be 5 million children in charters before the end of the decade.

This is the worst nightmare of Labour/Greens and the educational unions. That charter schools in NZ provide successful and popular. Once they do, they’ll never be able to abolish them. They have to kill them off before they have a chance to prove themselves.

And some highlights:

• The 9,000 students at Uncommon Schools are 78 percent low‑income and 98 percent African‑American or Hispanic, yet all seniors take the SAT, and their average score is 20 points above the college‑readiness benchmark
• At KIPP charter schools, home to 51,000 pupils in 21 states, 96 percent of eighth graders perform better than their local district counterparts on reading, and 92 percent perform better in math
• Among charter school students in Washington, D.C. (almost half of that city’s public school population), the on‑time high‑school graduation rate is 21 percentage points higher than that among conventional school students: 77 percent to 56 percent
• In New Orleans—long an educational disaster zone—the city schools rank first in the state for student growth now that more than eight out of ten students attend charters (some details on the Big Easy’s charter experience will follow in just a few pages)

Wouldn’t it be great if in the next decade we could get some results like that.

The Washington Post reports:

A Los Angeles Superior Court judge ruled Tuesday that tenure, seniority and other job protections for teachers have created unequal conditions in public schools and deprive poor children of the best teachers.

We don’t have formal tenure here, but it is near impossible here to sack a teacher purely because they are ineffective at teaching.

In a 16-page ruling, in the case of Vergara v. California, Treu struck down three state laws as unconstitutional. The laws grant tenure to teachers after two years, require layoffs by seniority, and call for a complex and lengthy process before a teacher can be fired.

David F. Welch, founder of an optical telecommunications manufacturing firm, charged that job protections allow the state’s worst educators to continue teaching and that those ineffective teachers are concentrated in high-poverty, minority schools, amounting to a civil rights violation.

And the court agreed.

The ruling was a setback for the labor unions, which represent about 400,000 educators in California and whose core mission is to protect teachers’ jobs.

Which is fine, so long as you understand that is their core mission.

In states such as California, there are so many legal and procedural hurdles before a tenured teacher can be fired, they say, that it’s difficult to shed even the worst teachers.

Sounds familiar.

This Saturday is 30 years since Rob Muldoon called the snap election. NZ on Screen has the news bulletin from that night, which brings back memories.