The Herald reports:

An internet safety group has backed the Prime Minister’s view that the public reporting of suicide is now virtually beyond control, because young people routinely discuss cases on websites.

John Key said yesterday that Parliament could “explore” the rules on suicide reporting because they were “somewhat defunct these days”.

“The reality is that, particularly with youth suicide, very quickly social networking sites like Facebook and blog sites report that. There’s huge engagement with young people around that information and so I don’t think blocking the media from reporting is achieving an awful lot.”

He said it would make sense to review the rules, but it was important to tread carefully because of the risk of copycat suicides.

The director of NetSafe, Martin Cocker, said Mr Key’s assessment was “bang on”.

I think we underestimate the capacity of kids to cope with information. The Internet has opened up the world to kids, and most of them cope fine with it.

On Twitter the other day I saw someone tweet how they had asked their two year old what she was doing on the computer, and her response was “checking facebook”!.

Mr Key was responding to chief coroner Judge Neil MacLean’s suggestion that reporting restrictions be eased.

He wants to encourage more openness, public debate and responsible media coverage of suicide, in the hope that this might reduce the suicide rate.

Which it hasn’t greatly.

I am annoyed with the National Business Review. In fact more than annoyed – I am angry.

Readers will have seen my links to their 40th birthday competition. People had the chance to win their weight in Veuve Clicquot and the competition was promoted on the basis of popular vote. Many bloggers got in behind Busted Blonde’s entry and she won the popular vote.

After the published deadline had passed, NBR announced that the popular vote winner would not win the competition (which was strongly implied), but that the top ten most popular would go into a pool, and judges would then select their favourite of the top ten.

NBR has the legal right to change the terms and conditions. This is not a debate about legality. They said the winner would be announced within seven hours of the vote closing. They changed this in the final hours to announcing it a week later, allowing judges to decide on someone other than the popular vote winner.

I deplore what NBR has done. They have acted unethically. If they had made clear at the very beginning that the popular vote winner would not count for anything, and all you had to do was be in the top ten – then I (and others) would have acted very differently. They basically conned bloggers and other social media users into promoting their contest for them under false pretences.

Quite a few people are upset about this. I’ll link to some of these in a second. Some are calling for boycotts of NBR, cancelled subscriptions etc. I’m not going to go down that path. I doubt NBR cares too much about losing my potential subscription (especially as they kindly provide me with a complimentary copy anyway).

My message to the National Business Review is that you have lost something infinitely more valuable than my subscription. You have lost both my respect and my trust. That is hard to do, and even harder to undo.

Both NBR and Veuve Clicquot  are suffering brand damage from this. Already blog posts are climbing up the ladder in Google page ranks. And it has spread over Twitter, with one of the world’s most famous wine critics contacting Busted Blonde wanting details of what has happened.

Posts on this saga are:

• Cactus Kate on The Great Veuve Clicquot Robbery
• Whale Oil on NBR losing its Veuve
• Keeping Stock declares it a fail for Veuve Clicquot and NBR
• Gonzo declares he will never ever drink Veuve Clicquot again
• Brunette at Roarprawn is sad
• Whale blogs an MP’s facebook comment saying he despises the NBR for their jack up competition
• Cline Heine, one of the most right wing people I know, declares you can not trust the National Business Review.
• And there is already a Facebook group of people declaring they will never drink Veuve Clicquot again.

As I said, I am angry. Not about the fact Busted Blonde did not win. I am angry that I was effectively conned into promoting their competition under false pretences. Now people may say, it is your own fault. They never stated explicitly that the popular vote winner would win – it was only strongly implied. And you are right – it is partly my own fault. I trusted National Business Review to act honourably. I was wrong, and have learnt a lesson.

UPDATE: I note that on Google NZ, a search for “Veuve Clicquot” already has this post higher ranked that the actual NBR competition.

Did you hear that David Bain has finally got a job?

Continue reading »

Many will have seen the story about the Swedish Police announcing rape charges had been filed against Wikileaks founder Julian Assange. The charges have now been dropped.

I am not a conspiracy theorist. In fact I like to mock people who think Bush planned 9/11 etc.

But I have to say that when I heard of the rape charges against Assange, my first reaction was to wonder “How the hell did the NSA manage to arrange that?”

The Dom Post reports:

It has been 27 years since Sir Michael Fowler last donned the mayoral chains – but the octogenarian is back for another tilt at Wellington City Council.

Promising not to be “a nuisance to anybody this time”, the 80-year-old artist and former architect is standing for the city’s Lambton ward.

“Actually, I thought about standing for mayor but my son would not let me. He’s right, of course. I’ve been there, done that and I know what it’s like … But he’s let me have a go as a councillor.”

Sir Michael served on the council for 15 years from 1968 – the last nine as mayor. He was credited by many for modernising central Wellington but criticised by others for overseeing the demolition of many historic buildings.

Sir Michael was one of the outstanding Mayors of Wellington. I am however unsure about how well he would fit in, being just an ordinary Councillor – and 27 years after he left Council.

Being in Lambton Ward, I’m going to have some hard choices. The candidates are:

• John Bishop
• Stephanie Cook
• Adam Cunningham
• Michael Fowler
• Marcus Ganley
• Mark Greening
• Ian McKinnon
• Iona Katherine Mary Pannett
• Kris Price

I’m definitely supporting John Bishop and Ian McKinnon. Stephanie Cook and Iona Pannett are both conscientious Councillors – even through their politics are not mine (they are Green). And a couple of the other challengers are quite decent also. Plus you have Sir Michael.

Back to the Dom Post article:

27 YEARS AGO

Wellington’s mayor was paid $31,200 per year, of which $6000 was tax-free.

Councillors were paid $29 per meeting, to a maximum of $2320 per year.

Average rates bill was $400.

WELLINGTON IN 2010

Wellington’s mayor is paid $153,660 a year and the deputy mayor $107,615.

Councillors are paid between $69,240 and $88,409, depending on their responsibilities.

The rates bill on an average home is around $2000.

Inflation over the 27 years has been 192%. The CPI went from 276 to 1100. If one takes that into account, the increases in real terms per year have been:

• Mayoral Salary – 2.5%
• Rates – 2.6%
• Councillor Salary – 34.1%

This reflects a belief I have long had – that Councillors went from being a part-time role to full-time jobs – and I think this has been a bad thing. I think it was better when Councillors were part-time Governors – like company directors. Instead too many are now professional politicians.

Bob Brockie writes:

But three Californian economists – Andrew Healy, Neil Malhotra and Cecilia Mo – have just shown that completely irrelevant events can swing public voting. They matched up top American college football and basketball results between 1964 and 2009 with results from senate and presidential elections.

The economists found that local wins and losses affected voters’ choice of candidates. More exactly, they found that a win in the 10 days before election day gave the incumbent candidate an extra 1.6 per cent more votes. The effect was most noticeable where sports teams had a big following of fans.

So if the All Blacks continue with this form, John Key will call the election for Saturday 29 October 2011 🙂

Of course the PM will not have the election campaign overlap with the Rugby World Cup. I believe the likely date is the last Saturday of November. I suspect that six weeks after a sporting event, any impact on how people vote will be minimal.

Today’s Dom Post editorial:

Earth to teachers: the cupboard is bare. The stopwork meetings called for today and tomorrow by the secondary teachers’ union suggest its executive inhabits a parallel universe.

In case the Post Primary Teachers Association has not noticed, the economy is flagging, businesses are cutting costs and most workers are making do with minimal or no pay increases. Some are grateful to just have jobs. Now is not the time to be demanding 4 per cent wage rises, increased KiwiSaver contributions, a laptop for every teacher and smaller class sizes. Nor is it the time to be downing chalk to vote on strike action.

The Dom Post has summed it up nicely.

In support of its claims, the PPTA quotes from an OECD report showing that after 15 years a New Zealand secondary teacher’s salary is 17 per cent lower than the OECD average. Strangely it appears to have escaped the union’s notice that the chippies, cleaners, dentists and doctors who will have to fund any pay increase for teachers through their taxes also earn significantly less than their counterparts in countries like Australia, the United States, France and Japan. That is the consequence of living in a country which does not perform as well economically as its peers.

Exactly. What would be interesting is to compare how teachers are paid in NZ compared to the average wage, and what the OECD average is compared to the OECD average wage.

There is a yawning chasm between the best and worst teachers. The Los Angeles Times has just published the results of a major study analysing the performance of individual students in the US’s second largest school district over several years. It shows that the quality of teaching has more to do with student performance than class sizes, socio-economic background or even the thing parents worry most about – the schools they attend. A good teacher can make a huge difference to a pupil’s performance in a single year. A poor teacher, down the hall in the same school, can have an equally big impact in the same period – but in an adverse way.

Hmmn, I think the editorial writer reads my blog 🙂

As I have said before, I’d pay the best teachers around $100,000 but the worse teachers under $40,000.

If teacher unions were genuinely focused on improving student performance they would work with the Government to devise a pay system that recognises the abilities of individual teachers.

That will never ever happen – sadly.

It is now 73 seats each as Labor have won a seat back off Andrew Wilkie – a former Green candidate. WIlkie was very likely to back Labor over the coalition anyway, so in one sense doesn’t change the overall dynamic.

However it does help perceptions, with Labor and Coalition now having the same number of seats. The Green MP will back Labor, so Labor can govern with at least two of three three Independents, while the Coalition needs all three.

If the Coalition loses a seat on specials, then Labor will retain power. The most marginal seat is Hasluck, where the current margin to the Coalition is 382 votes. It was 363 on election night so to date they are doing okay on specials.

Incidentally the coalition candidate is Ken Wyatt, who if confirmed will be the first indigenous Australia to be elected to the Federal House. I was staggered when I heard this.

NZ has had indigenous MPs since 1868. We currently have 20 MPs who are of Maori descent. As of 2004, NZ has had 79 Maori MPs (probably now over 90), so hard to comprehend how Australia is just about to have their first indigenous Federal MP.

Bob Katter is a hard fit for a Labor Government. Here is what he said on climate change:

“I mean, if you could imagine 20 or 30 crocodiles up there on the roof, and if all that roof was illumination, and saying that we wouldn’t see anything in this room because of a few croco-roaches up there,” he continued stating that “Are you telling me seriously that the world is going to warm because there’s 400 parts per million of CO2 up there?”

Yes he seriously argued that because crocodiles don’t totally block out all light, then carbon dioxide can’t be keeping heat in.

The other two Independents are more friendly to Labor, and there are reports they may split from Katter.

The Herald reports:

Overstayers are turning themselves in after finding life here to be “unbearable”, says an immigration adviser.

The number of overstayers has been steadily declining since 2004, the Department of Labour says.

It estimates there are 15,760 overstayers in the country, down from 15,880 last October.

This is good. Overstayers undermine those migrants who move here legally. Overstayers should not be able to gain employment or welfare, and should be deported as they are located.

New Zealand takes in tens of thousands of migrants legally, plus 1,000 or so refugees a year. We should support those who follow the correct process, and get rid of those who do not.

The dairy owners are not too happy:

Several changes announced yesterday included a law that will clarify that dairies and convenience stores cannot be off-licences, therefore cannot sell alcohol.

Ashok Darji, who owns Ash’s Wine and Lotto Superette in Mission Bay, says the move unfairly targets and punishes dairies.

“It basically contradicts. People who want to get a lot of cheap alcohol will go to the supermarket. And a little superette – that’s mostly a customer coming home from work and just wants to pick up a bottle of wine.

“It’s not really our core business, but it’s more a convenience thing. They’re not coming here to buy a dozen beers, they’re going to supermarkets, so why [punish] us?”

Mr Darji has been selling wine at his superette for more than 10 years.

He said during that time, he had never had any problems regarding his selling alcohol, and was upset that he – with many others around the country – would be punished.

It would be interesting to see some solid research on how much alcohol is sold where, to try and ascertain if dairies are a problem.

In this story, my dreams come true. Labour is campaigning for the entire Palmer report to be adopted:

Labour leader Phil Goff said he wanted the commission’s full set of recommendations, including an increase in alcohol excise and tougher rules on advertising.

A vote for Labour means a vote for a 50% increase in alcohol excise tax, a ban on Tui billboards, sports teams losing tens of millions of dollars in sponsorship, outlawing the Speights Southern Men ads, a compulsory one way policy at 2 am, and making it an offence for a 19 year old to have a glass of wine in a restaurant with their parents.

This story reports on the impact on RTD makers:

Independent Liquor Group has been given a serve in liquor law reforms announced yesterday.

The South Auckland-based firm dominates the market for “Ready To Drink” products popular with the young – the segment most directly affected by the changes.

The company, owned by private equity group Pacific Equity Partners, got sobering news with the Government limiting the maximum alcohol in RTDs to just 5 per cent.

Many RTDs are 7 per cent and above. In particular, Independent’s bourbon and coke brand Woodstock is a market leader in the RTD market. Its alcohol content is 8 per cent.

I’ve never had an RTD myself. From what I can tell, the intent of the package is to make it hard for people to get hammered on RTDs. What we don’t know is whether this means people will stick with RTDs if they are the same strength as beer, or will they move onto hard spirits?

Derek Cheng reports that the Government did not agree to the recommendations to ban Tui billboards:

Tui billboards, alcohol-sponsored music festivals and sexy television advertisements depicting euphoric parties will not be affected by the Government’s alcohol reform package, despite evidence that a crackdown on marketing would reduce youth drinking.

If you do want Tui billboards banned, Labour is promising to do so.

Having said that I don’t think the current ASA self-regulatory model is effective. There needs to be a sanction for ads which breach the code beyond no longer displaying the ad. I think there needs to be actual penalties for advertisements that breach the code.

The Auckland Mayoral contenders support the 4 am closing.

The NZ Herald editorial says the package is a solid start:

Anything less than a full-scale embrace of the Law Commission’s 153 recommendations on reducing the harm caused by alcohol was always going to lead to accusations of Government tinkering and timidity.

But the plans announced yesterday amount to a reasonably practical and coherent response to the problems that have arisen from two decades of liberal liquor laws.

Sensibly, the temptation to return to a time when access to liquor was strictly constrained, but drinking habits were in many ways worse, has been resisted. Instead, there is to be a targeted assault on the excesses encouraged by the current regime.

Vernon Small reports those who wanted more:

The Salvation Army, Alcohol Action and the Drug Foundation said the Government should have raised excise on alcohol to make drinking more expensive – a key recommendation from the Law Commission, which reviewed all the alcohol laws.

The Drug Foundation said it was “deeply disappointed that two vital areas of reform have been ignored: the proliferation of cheap booze and the intense marketing, advertising and promotion of liquor”. …

Professor Jennie Connor, head of preventive and social medicine at Otago University, said the changes would make no substantial difference to the heavy drinking culture, or to the scale of harm caused. They were a small step in the right direction, but were like “fighting a bushfire with a couple of garden hoses for the next 20 years. The Government has seriously misread public concern about heavy drinking and needs to rethink its policies”.

If Professor Cooper thinks the public were demanding a 50% increase in alcohol excise tax, she is seriously wrong.

John Hartevelt reports another critic:

The director of Christchurch’s National Addiction Centre, Professor Doug Sellman, said the Government was wrong to see alcohol abuse as essentially a youth problem.

Research found that 92 per cent of New Zealand’s heavy drinkers were 20 years and over, and 70 per cent were 25 and over.

“Aiming measures primarily at youth while avoiding anything substantial that would reduce heavy drinking among adults is scapegoating young people for the country’s heavy drinking culture and fails to address the main issue,” he said.

The Government had avoided the big policy decisions, such as increasing prices and restricting advertising, and ended up with a package that was “like treating cancer with a couple of aspirin”.

So does that mean banning Tui billboards would be like chemotherapy?

The Press reports Bob Parker supports the package:

Liquor-law reforms will enable Christchurch communities to “write their own futures”, Mayor Bob Parker says.

The Government yesterday announced a package of alcohol measures.

The reforms feature a proposal allowing communities to decide their own “alcohol plan”, including the concentration, location, and opening hours of liquor outlets.

Parker said he felt “very positive” about the proposed reforms.

“We’ve been waiting for something like this for a long time.”

Finally The Press editorial says they are a step in the right direction but a lost opportunity:

The package of Government policies to reduce problem drinking is a step in the right direction but it is still a relatively modest step.

While the measures it will introduce are welcome, in several areas, including the adult drink-driving limit and the price of alcohol, the Government has resisted calls for more decisive action. …

Overall, therefore, although the Government package will assist in the battle against excessive drinking, it also represents a lost opportunity to make more serious progress in our society’s goal of ending the binge drinking culture.

Have been in the lockup for the Government’s response to the Law Commission report on alcohol. It is one of the largest cabinet papers on record, with a huge 202 recommendations. The Minister has obviously spent a lot of time going through the issues.

The zealots have already slammed the report because the Government did not implement everything the Law Commission recommended. I say thank God for that. The previous Labour Government commissioned that report, from a body headed up by a former Labour Prime Minister.  Why on earth a National Government would be expected to do everything they say, I don’t know.

We have elections in this country to decide policies, and I am glad the Government has not gone down the total nanny state path. In some areas they have gone done that path, but nowhere near as bad as it could have been.

If Labour want to campaign at the next election to ban Tui billboards, outlaw alcohol sponsorship of sports, hike the alcohol excise tax by 50%, make it a crime for a 19 year old to have a glass of wine with his/her parents in a restaurant and force bars to have a one way policy at 2 am, then that would make my day. The alcohol zealots should encourage Labour to promise that, and then the people can decide at the election.

So what is in the Government’s proposals.

1. More powers for local authorities to set a local alcohol policy which will determine locations for licenses premises, trading hours etc. This is sensible in my opinion as the needs of Wainuiomata (for example) may be very different to Courtenay Place.
2. Tighter criteria for off-licenses so only eligible are retailers where alcohol is 85% of sales or grocery stores where food is 50% of sales, or hotels/taverns – unless there are a lack of premises in the area. Again, no real issues with this.
3. Provision of free drinking water a requirement for premises which sell alcohol for consumption on the premises. At present this is a custom, not a requirement.
4. A maximum trading hours for off-licenses of 7 am to 11 pm. I don’t support this, but am glad they at least changed it from 10 pm to 11 pm. I often am doing supermarket shopping at 10 pm, so will be able to grab a bottle of wine still.
5. Maximum trading hours for on-licenses from 8 am to 4 pm. Again I don’t support this, but it is only an hour earlier than the de facto 5 am close most places have. It isn’t true nothing good happens after 4 am – ironically by that time of the night you are normally on non alcohol drinks sobering up. So forcing a closure at 4 am may in fact make things worse.
6. Rejected the proposed one way policy from 2 am. Thank goodness for that. It would have destroyed Courtenay Place as you wouldn’t be able to have outside drinking areas under such a policy.  It would also have led to all sorts of problems as people can’t catch up with their friends etc.
7. Local authorities can vary the national trading hours (both shorter or longer) if they wish. So Queenstown for example might set a time beyond 4 am. However their decision can be appealed for reasonableness. I think this is good flexibility.
8. Parliament loses it exemption from liquor licensing laws.
9. Split purchase age of 18 for on-license and 20 for off-license. This will be a conscience vote. This is better than a 20/20 age but is quite deeply flawed. As one looks at the details one will still be able to supply alcohol to 18 and 19 year olds (just not sell it directly) so it will create a culture of supplying alcohol to those who can not legally buying it. You will hear more on this point.
10. Ironically 19 year olds will be able to sell alcohol in supermarkets and bottlestores, but not buy it! To be fair, currently a 17 year old can sell alcohol also.
11. Parents can continue to supply alcohol to their own children at home, or in any private setting or at certain licenses premises such as restaurants.
12. Under 18 year olds can not possess or drink alcohol in public, unless with a parent. This will be a $200 infringement.
13. Consent of a parent is needed to supply alcohol to an under 18 year old, and supply without consent can be a $2,000 fine. Long overdue – finally it is an offence to give a 14 year old a bottle of vodka.
14. The adult who supplies alcohol (with consent) to under 18 year olds must do so responsibly and supervise the consumption. Again – long overdue. This is what may have made a difference to the Kings College case.
15. The 50% increase in excise tax is rejected. Yay. I have yet to see a compelling economic analysis that the current excise tax does not cover the external costs of alcohol.
16. A minimum price regime will be considered in a year’s time once they gather data from retailers. I have some sympathy for a minimum price regime, as loss-leading on alcohol isn’t that desirable. It is a better response than an across the board excise tax increase.
17. Will be an offence to promote excessive consumption of alcohol or to advertise in a way that appeals to those under the purchase age. Also can not promote free alcohol or make purchase of alcohol mandatory for other goods and services.
18. The recommendation to have a total ban on all alcohol advertising and sponsorship has been rejected and sent back to Russia. Having said that I do think the current ASA code on alcohol advertising is ineffective and do actually support there being some sort of penalties for advertisements that breach the code. At present the only penalty is the advert gets withdrawn.
19. Makes it an offence with a fine of up to $2,000 to make a false representation of age. So having a fake ID could not be very expensive. Also an offence to lend someone your ID so they appear 20.
20. They have rejected the proposed $200 fine for people who spend the night in the cells detoxing. I like this proposal but the argument against is it would cost more to set up the fine system, than it would bring in, and also it may discourage drunk people from approaching the Police for assistance – which could lead them to more harm.
21. The Ministers of Justice and Health can ban certain products deemed undesirable such as alcoholic milk, or alcoholic iceblocks. I never knew one could get alcoholic milk!
22. RTDs to be a maximum 5% and also a maximum 1.5 standard drinks. This is also a good move, as it was the RTDs that had four or five standard drinks in them which were plastering people. At 1.5 standard drinks they actually become difficult to get too drunk off.

Overall, it could have been a lot worse – some stuff I don’t like, but they have rejected the worst excesses of the zealots. There are a lot of things there that will help – especially banning supply to under 18 year olds without consent or supervision.

I’ll blog more on this over time. But I think Simon Power has done a pretty good job with this one. As I said at the beginning, Labour will make my day if they campaign on implementing the entire Law Commission report.

SUBMISSION OF DAVID FARRAR
TO THE ELECTORAL LEGISLATION SELECT COMMITTEE
ON THE PARLIAMENTARY SERVICE AMENDMENT BILL 2010

About the Submitter

1. This submission is made by David Farrar in a personal capacity. I would like to appear before the Committee to speak to my submission.

Executive Summary

1. I support the Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill 2010 as it provides a necessary limitation on what advertisements can be funded by the taxpayer during an election campaign.
2. The history of this issue goes back to the 2005 election, when the Auditor-General found much of the parliamentary spending was illegal and outside the law.
3. Parliament’s response was to legislate an interim definition of what was allowable that was wide – anything that did not explicitly call for votes, money or members was okay.
4. The problem with the interim definition is that it would have allowed a repeat of 2005, when you could have taxpayer funded election pledge cards being paid for by Parliament, just weeks or days before an election.
5. One solution is to adopt a more narrow definition during the entire parliamentary term – banning any publications that promote a political party or MP. The problem with this solution is that in practice it could never work. Almost all parliamentary publications involve a degree of party and MP promotion. One can not easily draw a fine line between parliamentary and political publications. The Opposition should be able to campaign against (for example) the Government’s budget, from their parliamentary budget. Otherwise the Government will be too powerful.
6. The solution adopted in this bill, is to have a wide definition of what is allowable for two years and nine months (approx), and to have a much tighter definition during the three month regulated period.
7. I support this solution, and in fact have publicly urged such a solution since 2006. It doesn’t unduly restrict the operations of Parliament during most of the parliamentary term, but makes the election period fairer by preventing parliamentary parties and incumbent MPs from being able to spend taxpayer money on their advertising materials.
8. The ability to get an advisory opinion from the Electoral Commission as to whether a proposed publication is an election advertisement will, I am sure, be welcomed by MPs and staff of the Parliamentary Service.
9. One issue I would raise is whether s3A(2)((a)(i) and (ii) should also exclude communications that explicitly call on people not to elect a particular person or party vote for a particular party. This would seem desirable to me, as I don’t think (for example) taxpayer funded pamphlets should ever explicitly refer to how people should vote.

In summary I urge the Electoral Legislation Committee to recommend the Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill 2010 be passed.

David Farrar

Marginal Revolution blogs an amazing story from the LA Times:

The Times obtained seven years of math and English test scores from the Los Angeles Unified School District and used the information to estimate the effectiveness of L.A. teachers — something the district could do but has not.

The Times used a statistical approach known as value-added analysis, which rates teachers based on their students’ progress on standardized tests from year to year. Each student’s performance is compared with his or her own in past years, which largely controls for outside influences often blamed for academic failure: poverty, prior learning and other factors….

In coming months, The Times will publish a series of articles and a database analyzing individual teachers’ effectiveness in the nation’s second-largest school district — the first time, experts say, such information has been made public anywhere in the country.

One can almost hear the alarm bells going off in NZEI and PPTA offices around the country. You thought school league tables were bad – how about teacher league tables. And worse of all, ones that take into account outside influences, so that they do measure the impact a teacher has over time.

This graphic is not a mockup with fake names and made up data. These are two real teachers, and their real performance.

After a single year with teachers who ranked in the top 10% in effectiveness, students scored an average of 17 percentile points higher in English and 25 points higher in math than students whose teachers ranked in the bottom 10%. Students often backslid significantly in the classrooms of ineffective teachers, and thousands of students in the study had two or more ineffective teachers in a row.

And consider how fiercely teacher unions fight against performance pay.

The conclusion is one that strikes home:

We cannot simultaneously claim, however, that teachers are vitally important for the future of our children and also that their effectiveness should not be measured.  As systems like this become more common students will benefit enormously and so will teachers. Moreover, I see this as a turning point. Once parents have this kind of information who will allow their child to be in a class with a teacher in the bottom ranks of effectiveness?

Oh my God. Allowing parents to choose what schools their kids go to. When will this lunacy end.

And the from the LA Times article itself:

Contrary to popular belief, the best teachers were not concentrated in schools in the most affluent neighborhoods, nor were the weakest instructors bunched in poor areas. Rather, these teachers were scattered throughout the district. The quality of instruction typically varied far more within a school than between schools.

This has been stressed back home also.

Although many parents fixate on picking the right school for their child, it matters far more which teacher the child gets. Teachers had three times as much influence on students’ academic development as the school they attend. Yet parents have no access to objective information about individual instructors, and they often have little say in which teacher their child gets.

Parents should not get any choice in which school their kids attend, let alone which teachers they have. This is heresy.

Other studies of the district have found that students’ race, wealth, English proficiency or previous achievement level played little role in whether their teacher was effective.

But it is all about the decile they live in!

No one suggests using value-added analysis as the sole measure of a teacher. Many experts recommend that it count for half or less of a teacher’s overall evaluation.

This is key. How you improve performance on such tests is not the only factor that should be taken into account. It is not a perfect measure. But it is still a pretty damn useful one.

On average, Smith’s students slide under his instruction, losing 14 percentile points in math during the school year relative to their peers districtwide, The Times found. Overall, he ranked among the least effective of the district’s elementary school teachers.

Told of The Times’ findings, Smith expressed mild surprise.

“Obviously what I need to do is to look at what I’m doing and take some steps to make sure something changes,” he said.

Isn’t that great? Rather than get defensive and decry the analysis, he is going to re-evaluate his teaching methods.

And also:

Still, Caruso said the numbers were important and, like several other teachers interviewed, wondered why she hadn’t been shown such data before by anyone in the district.

“For better or worse,” she said, “testing and teacher effectiveness are going to be linked.… If my student test scores show I’m an ineffective teacher, I’d like to know what contributes to it. What do I need to do to bring my average up?”

The real scandal is that it took a newspaper to do, what the education profession could not, or would not, do.

The Herald reports:

Act MP Heather Roy said last night she was extremely disappointed to learn her former ministerial adviser Simon Ewing-Jarvie leaked the notes for last week’s caucus meeting to the media.

I’m glad Heather is disappointed. But was she surprised? Who else could it have been?

Mrs Roy said last night: “I do not condone the leaking of documents in any circumstances and was extremely disappointed and angry when I discovered last Friday that Simon Ewing-Jarvie had leaked my notes for last Tuesday’s meeting.

It took until Friday to work it out?

Commenting on innuendo about her friendship with Dr Ewing-Jarvie, Mrs Roy told the Herald in a statement: “I am not and never have had an inappropriate relationship (affair) with Simon Ewing-Jarvie.”

This matches a comment made yesterday on Kiwiblog by someone obviously close to them:

Don’t do yourself a disservice by implicating anything inappropriate in the Roy-Ewing-Jarvie relationship.

The two families have been friends for years – spouses and children included. In fact, you’ll struggle to find two more ‘functional’ family units in the country.

Heather Roy did stay at the Ewing-Jarvie home on Friday night – along with Simon’s wife and daughter! In fact, it occurred because Heather’s husband had called her to tell her not to return home, because its was surrounded by media.

The sad thing for Heather is the leaking of the dossier by Ewing-Jarvie has destroyed her politically. I doubt she would now make the top 20 on the party list, as ranked by members. The feedback I am getting from them is they just want to move on and unite the party.

The time has come for people in ACT to place the party ahead of their egos. Having ACT disappear just makes a Green/Labour Government more likely.

ACT are lucky that voters in Epsom are smart, and they understand the value having ACT in Parliament brings to National. But that is not unconditional – ACT need to look like they can bring in at least three or more MPs, to make it worthwhile to vote tactically. Now they only need to be at 2% or so to get at least three MPs, so they can remain viable after this.

But if the infighting continues, then the beneficiary of it all will be Deputy Prime Minister Russel Norman!

news.com.au reports:

NEW evidence has reportedly unmasked the mystery racing driver known as The Stig who appears in “Top Gear” disguised in a white helmet and black visor.

Documents naming a former Formula Three driver called Ben Collins, 35, point to his being the famous anonymous figure, NewsCore reports.

Collins had been suspected for some time anyway, after he was named as a consultant to the show in a report on the Richard Hammond crash in 2006.

The Herald on Sunday reports:

Welcome to One News – if you’d like to know how Australia’s elections work, we’re completely incapable of telling you.

That seemed to be the problem for presenter Simon Dallow when he fronted a segment on our closest neighbour’s electoral system.

As an instructional, the Friday night broadcast told viewers little that was accurate about the 1200 candidates vying for the 150 seats in the House of Representatives and 40 of the 76 seats in the Senate.

In fact, it used a completely different voting system to explain what 14 million voters – of 22 million citizens – would be doing with their votes.

The mistake was picked up by political animal and blogger David Farrar. He told Kiwiblog readers: “What a pity they got it so wrong. Simon Dallow, who fronted it, should send an angry-gram to whomever produced that item.”

I wasn’t aware political animal was a formal descriptor!

Throng report an apology from TVNZ:

We’re looking into how we got this so very wrong and sincerely apologise to our viewers for the very embarrassing mistake.

Kudos to TVNZ for being upfront.

1. Labor ran an awful campaign. Almost policy-free, and all about demonising Tony Abbott.
2. Tony Abbott ran a very good campaign, and really only stuffed up once on the campaign trail.
3. Gillard’s climate change policy of referring the issue to a citizen’s assembly was their biggest mistake as it alienated both sides on that issue and was seen as utterly cynical.
4. Rudd’s leaks against Gillard did damage Labor, and the anger over his rolling was a factor.
5. Even if Labor retain government, Gillard may face an unhappy caucus as the Rudd faction will point out she blew his majority.
6. The truth is Rudd probably would have lost by a bigger margin, but this will fade from memory.
7. While the three Independents can put Abbott into power, he will not have a Senate majority, so don’t assume it is a done deal for Abbott.
8. It is possible Labor and Greens could do a coalition deal, with some Green Senators becoming Ministers. They need Wilkie (likely) and at least one Independent to support them in the House, unless they pick up an extra seat on special votes.
9. The two election parties were such a contrast – Labor half empty and dejected, and Liberals cheering their hero Tony.
10. Whatever happens, a three year term for the next Government looks unlikely.

TVNZ says:

Guyon Espiner will be live from Sydney to talk about the result of the Australian election – the winners and losers and all the morning-after reaction.

Paul Holmes interviews Justice Minister Simon Power about the government’s plan for liquor reform. How will the government respond to the Law Commission’s 153 recommendations and can they tackle our binge-drinking culture?

We have a special Christchurch mayoral debate. Mayor Bob Parker and Progressives leader Jim Anderton go head-to-head for Christchurch’s mayoral chains. What do they have planned for the mainland’s big city?

On the panel with Dr Therese Arseneau are lawyer and former ACT MP Stephen Franks and NZ Food & Grocery Council CEO and former National MP Katherine Rich.

Plus we’ll get the word from the blogsphere, David Farrar of Kiwiblog and Bomber Bradbury from Tumeke are on live.

Except we are not on live. We did pre-records.

Will be a very interesting show. Anderton v Parker, plus the Aussie elections plus the alcohol law changes.

The Herald on Sunday has an interesting piece on Simon Ewing-Jarvie.

I haven’t talked to Simon for a few years, but have chatted to him a few times in the past – like myself he is very much into technology. On a personal level, always found him very relaxed and interesting. But around six months ago I started to hear stories that were less than flattering. I don’t have enough first hand knowledge to say who may be at fault, but the HoS story raises some interesting issues:

The Security Intelligence Service withheld security clearance for Simon Ewing-Jarvie, a former New Zealand Army lieutenant colonel, shortly before he took part in an Act Party insurrection. …

Early this month, SIS officers working on a standard investigation into the adviser’s background decided he should not be allowed to see or access classified material.

In the first week of August, Prime Minister John Key’s chief of staff Wayne Eagleson was sent a document stating that Ewing-Jarvie’s status had shifted to “non-access to any classified material”.

Security checks are usually straightforward, with SIS officers checking disclosures by staff against paper records, tracking an individual’s life to the present. Any variation results in closer scrutiny.

SIS officers had been attempting to carry out the clearance work on Ewing-Jarvie for most of the year but had difficulty pinning him down to discuss details.

It is rare indeed to not get an SIS clearance. Even I managed it! 🙂

It is almost incomprehensible that one could work for a Defence Minister and not have security clearance.  One can only wonder why clearance was not given.

Political confidantes of Roy have expressed concern over the advice she has been receiving from Ewing-Jarvie and the depth of their relationship.

The Herald on Sunday observed Roy leaving Ewing-Jarvie’s home yesterday morning.

Her car, which was parked outside his house at 10.30pm on Friday, was in the same place at 7am.

Well that’s subtle.

The SST also has a story, where Ewing-Jarvie admits to leaking the Roy dossier. This is no surprise, as Whale Oil has already outed him for it.

The HoS editorial:

Another ‘innocent’ man is about to get out of prison.

Convicted double killer John Barlow will next week walk free from Wellington’s Rimutaka Prison after serving about 15 years for the execution-style killings of father and son Eugene and Gene Thomas in 1995.

Barlow was convicted at a third trial after the first two juries could not agree on a verdict. He has had a Privy Council appeal dismissed. The 64-year-old will walk out to the support of his wife, Angela, and daughter Keryn.

The family maintains Barlow is innocent. Keryn has even completed the first draft of a book on the case, which she says reveals some of the torment the family has had to suffer.

As the old joke goes, everyone in prison is innocent.

As for torment and suffering, well my thoughts remain with the Thomas family who lost a father and son. There is no parole for them.

1253 Latest from ABC is Coal 73 and Lab 72. I still think Gillard will hang on but it will be claimed she has lost moral mandate to govern by coming second.

11:26 Wow it is getting tight, and a hung Parliament now more likely. Labor and Coalition both have 68 seats. Greens 1 and Independents 4. That leaves nine seats to decide it.  At present five have Labor in front and four Libs, so that would be 73 Labor 72 Coalition. Gillard will need not just the Green MP but at least one of the four Independents. Abbott is now down and out yet if this eventuates. He could govern with all four Independents. Greens will hold balance of power in Senate.

11:20 Abbott will not be PM, but will (like Don Brash) be revered as the opposition leader who almost won the unwinnable election. A difference is Abbott did it after one term, meaning Labor will have to work very hard to get a third term.

10:50 Sky TV now saying hung Parliament a strong possibility if Labor lose seats in WA or SA.

10:35 In the event of a hung Parliament, Julia Gillard will remain Prime Minister I predict. The one or two Green MPs will back her, and the three Independents are more likely to – despite being former Nats.

10:30: Not at the bar as my internal clock is still not adjusted from Europe and I fell asleep at 6 pm and just woke back up at 10.30 pm!

At the moment it is looking like the Coalition picks up 15 and loses 3, which would leave Labor with exactly 76 seats – the bare minimum needed to govern alone.

While any victory is a victory, to come so close to being the only first term Government to almost lose power since the 1930s will be a nasty wakeup call.