- Date published:
5:30 pm, May 11th, 2023 - 26 comments
Categories: Daily review - Tags:
Daily review is also your post.
This provides Standardistas the opportunity to review events of the day.
The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).
Don’t forget to be kind to each other …
Poot's statement to Europe: a pair of aging chekist thugs.
Traditionally, at the Victory Day parade, Putin is flanked by two veterans who fought in the Second World War, writes the quoted source. This year, however, the two who stood next to the Kremlin leader did not fight in the war. Moreover, they were part of the dreaded Soviet secret police, Agentstvo reveals.
According to the investigative website, to Putin’s right was former NKVD agent Yuri Dvoikin, 98, who was sent to the Lviv region of western Ukraine in 1944 for “operations to liquidate partisans” of Ukrainians.
Dvoikin “voluntarily enlisted in the army in 1942, but never reached the front,” writes the Agentstvo website. Because he was a good shooter, he was an instructor for snipers, and in 1944 he was sent to Lviv, to eliminate the Ukrainian resistance.
To Putin’s left sat former KGB officer Ghenadi Zaitsev, born in 1934, who participated in the suppression of the 1968 revolution in Czechoslovakia, the Prague Spring, Agentstvo reveals.
This is interesting – a comprehensive 'no faith' response from a top Auckland school to the new NCEA level 1 curriculum.
Time will tell, but this is not a good straw in the wind for the NCEA curriculum revamp.
St Cuths typically has the top-achieving students sitting the IB – so they will be very concerned to ensure they are well prepared.
Some Principals use such a position to show just how "much higher their standards are" than those of those dumb State Schools. Therefore we should send our kids to St Cuths.
I can't see that conscientious rewriters would dumb down the curriculum.
And incidentally General Science way back then was Physics, Chemistry and Biology. It worked so well to enable experiences to help decisions to specialize.
The Herald has made its arbitrary judgement again and the Auckland school is a 'top' school.
There must be a list on their office walls they use to indicate whether the word 'top' should be used in a story to describe a school, particularly in a headline.
Having been baptised with the label it seems having taken it away is unlikely. I have seen reports of appalling behaviour in so-called 'top' schools. The shitty behaviour, the sexual abuse or bullying, the terrible attitudes certainly indicated to me they weren't 'top' schools.
My letter to the editor after a spate of very undesirable events in such establishments, asking what qualifications attracted the label, was not published.
St Cuths is always in the top 10 or so schools across NZ for exam results. So in the context of NCEA – characterising it as a 'top' school seems reasonable.
No doubt, if the article was about kapa haka – then they would be an also ran.
You do know Belladonna that some Top schools get high pass rates by training the students to pass exams. A few years ago Auckland Grammar John Graham was proudly explaining how from Year9 the boys sat many practice exams so by the time they reached year 11 they were killed at passing exams, which is not the same as being highly educated.
You do know Ianmac, that many of the 'top' schools have an outstanding success rate with students being able to enter (and continue to graduation) in internationally ranked universities.
Whereas students from (what used to be Decile 1, and is now some meaningless MoE number range), are lucky to have 1% of their students go on to any tertiary education at all.
While I don't believe that this is (or should be) the goal for every student – to ignore the academic success that can be achieved is pure ostrich territory.
Did you make the number 1% up, or is it related to an actual school you can identify?
I've since identified one decile one college that exceeds that low expectation, of course it could be an outlier (c10% onto university and c33% to other tertiary).
My most sincere apologies – it appears that the number is 2.5%, rather than 1% from decile 1 schools attending university.
Contrast this with the roughly 20% from decile 9-10.
Looking at the whole of the tertiary sector, it's 3.5 vs 16%
This is, of course, data from the fees-free scheme – so only records 1st year tertiary.
Official data released to the Herald under an OIA – so seems to be fairly authoritative.
There are, of course, outlier schools at all deciles (both for excellent and abysmal performance).
It's an estimate, but based on actual data
This article is from 2018 – but things are unlikely to have changed.
There is some difference between access to the most contested places in university and university itself, let alone all tertiary education.
Is your argument, therefore, that kids from decile one schools can only get into courses which have no enrolment caps?
You might also find this informative. This is not even UE level – just the basic literacy test.
No my argument is the fact that this
is not true. Consider yourself fact checked.
See data above. My estimate was out – but not by as much as your cherry-picked and unidentified example.
Consider yourself fact-checked.
I made no claims – and your own evidence refutes your own claim.
The only decile 1 school I looked at to check was Mangere College. I made no claims based on it, as a single case could be an outlier, as I stated.
So, do you now accept that entry into tertiary education from Decile one is around 3.5% dropping to 2.5% for university level – contrasted with 16-20% for decile 9-10.
Note, that these percentages appear to broadly reflect the UE qualification ratio between decile 1 & 10. Most kids at Decile 1 don't even gain UE (only 9%)- so aren't even eligible for enrolment at uni.
Figures from here – using 2020 stats, since something seems to have gone wrong with the 2021 ones for Otago/Southland.
Do you have any comment about this?
Or only interested in gotcha.
As you can imagine, there are loads of stats for the NZ educational sector.
If you are interested in what happens to school leavers then this might be a good place to start:
If you want to know the breakdown of school leaver’s attainment, then start here:
The Interactive Dashboard is very handy. For example, it shows that in 2021 16.09% of Decile 01 students had UE as their highest attainment and 26.43% had Level 3 or above.
When I look at this, there seems to be something wrong with the figures for 2021 for Otago/Southland (100% at Level 1)
Checking 2020, I seem to get a total of around 9% with UE (adding the UE totals, and dividing by the number of regions).
How are you calculating this? Are we looking at the same data?
NB: if we are, it seems incredible that zero kids in Otago/Southland and Nelson/Marlborough/West Coast got UE in 2020.
I did not ‘calculate’ anything.
I used this link (https://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/statistics/school-leavers), scrolled down to the Interactive Dashboard, clicked on the button labelled School Decile and obtained a coloured stacked bar graph of highest attainment by decile. The default year is set at 2021 but you can change the year easily using the Filters (Year) on the LH side of the dashboard.
I cannot make it any simpler than this.
PS in 2020, UE was the highest attainment of 18.07% of all Decile 01 students. The percentages that I have quoted in my comments are for the total national population (default setting).
Whereas, when I search for School leavers highest educational attainment, and limit by decile 1 & year – I get very different figures.
This splits it across regions – hence the note of the strange data in Otago/Southland.
[Sorry, can't figure out how (or if) I can add in an screenshot of what I see]
I wonder what is going on with the data?
I have no idea what data set or time series you’re using, so I can’t help you sort out the apparent inconsistency.
Back in the day there was less choice in the NCEA1/SC year.
Science was one subject, as was maths and english and there was no economics. It was either commercial studies (business) and accountancy (some did both). People only did 5 subjects each year (NCEA 1, 2 and 3).
The move to identify specific competencies, within wider subject areas, seems to have become confused with greater depth of teaching and any return to the former practice, with a dumbing down of standards. This might suggest, either a certain naivety or a capacity for misrepresentation.
The people asked to comment were the Minister (who referred to the Ministry of Education), Seymour (do they not know who Chris Baillie is), Stanford and the "New Zealand Initiative" known for their partisanship.
That the direction of the revamp is not one designed for those with an established focus on IB and foreign university placement is no surprise. That is one predicated on enabling a smoother process to an international career path. A nation, in a world with skills shortages, has to consider an education system with a wider purpose than that.
“i WOnDEr WhY tHe KidS ArEN’t VOtiNg FOr RepUBliCAnS”
If I were the Local Government Minister …
I would be agreeable to replacing the Mayor with an appointee (and acting CEO) on two conditions
1 The CEO resigns and the position is advertised.
2 There is an investigation (someone is appointed to do this) into the historic and ongoing affairs of the council (wide and open brief, as to disfunction and "irregularities").
We're from the government and we're here to help and how are the PGF projects going …
But first a question, why should only the Mayor (and or CEO) be removed, and on what grounds?