OnPoint by Keith Ng

Hey Herald. So "children in bigger classes and bigger schools get better grades", hur?

"Children in bigger classes and bigger schools get better grades" implies a relationship between these two things. This kind of relationship, if it's strong, might look something this:

On the other hand, if it's a weak relationship, it might look something like this:

This is what your relationship actually looks like (courtesy of DimPost):

Note the R^2 value. What does it mean?

The closer the R^2 value is to 0, the poorer the fit. Your R^2 value is 0.137. If we take out the special schools, that goes down to 0.0738. This is what we would call a "poor" fit.

Also:

If you would like to learn more about statistical interpretation, please read the following books:

I don't know what this "NCEA" thing is, but I hope that, one day, they'll start teaching it in schools.

Hey John Hartevelt. Let me get this straight. A lot of people told you not to published this data. Some of them were dicks to you, others gave you very specific reasons:

Anyone who read the National Standards results as a proxy for quality would be quite foolish. We wouldn't do that and we don't suggest you do, either. For starters, they are not moderated, so one school's "well below" may be another's "at" or "above". There is just no way of knowing - yet - exactly how the standards have been applied across schools.

But even if they were moderated, the standards alone could not tell you everything about how a school is doing by its pupils. As many of the experts we canvassed for this project have noted, quality is most evident in what a school does to push its pupils up, not in how well they do at attracting the brainiest, most-privileged kids in the first place.

These are very specific reasons, and not mere technicalities. So, as you asked, why publish the data at all?

Our critics have already suggested this is a "business decision". An official in the Education Minister's office charged that it was "solely aimed at gazumping" the Government's own website. Both accusations reflect the bias of their authors - and both are wrong. Of course we want people to look at what we have published here; to talk about it and to debate it. But that does not mean our decision to publish National Standards data was a "business decision". This project has been led by journalists from the beginning. That has made it subject to our own standards of journalistic rigour. We have not simply dumped all of the new National Standards data online.

"Because journalistic rigour"? That's not a defence, John. You can have the best intentions, but that doesn't change the facts.

Are students Ahuroa School better than those at Abbotsford School because the former has 12.8% below/well-below standard, while the latter has 15%? It is not possible to know because, as you say, the data is not moderated.

Are 12.8% of students at Ahuroa School unable to read adequately? Are 15% at Abbotsford School unable to read adequately? It is not possible to know because, as you say, Ahuroa's "well below" might be Abbotsford's "above".

Is Ahuroa School a better school than Abbotsford School? Are either of them good schools? It is not possible to know because, for the reasons you mentioned, anyone who use these results as a proxy for quality would be quite foolish.

Let me put a question to you. With all these caveats, what *is* the right way to use the data?

You have missed the point of all those people pleading with you not to release the data. It's not that people like me think people like you are unable to draw the right conclusions from the data. It is that, if subjected to standards of statistical rigour, there are aren't many right conclusions that can be drawn by anyone. Maybe longitudinal analysis over time. Maybe looking at demographic differences between ethnicities and gender. But certainly, very few things at a whole-of-system level.

You suggest your readers are smart enough to gain the right insight from this data. They are not. *Nobody* can get the right insight from this data because it's not there.

Also: I think it's pretty disingenuous to say that the data isn't moderated so schools aren't directly comparable, then feature a school comparison tool as the main way of navigating the data. Just sayin'.

Also: To be fair, data side notwithstanding, their reporting is really good.

Hey NZ Herald. Thanks for proving the point that professional dress and professional behaviour don't go hand-in-hand.

Today, they ran one news story and two opinion pieces on the unprofessionalism of Laura McQuillan's pants. Kirsty Cameron's piece had, as a pull-out quote:

"..your dress should reflect your credibility and acknowledge the environment."

"Credibility" is kinda ironic, because on that same page, they stole a picture off Twitter without attribution, said McQuillan worked for Radio NZ (actually the NZ Newswire, and previously for RadioLive), and said she was asked to leave the court by the judge (she was asked to leave the press bench by a registrar, so she reported from the public gallery). How did they get all this wrong? Because neither Cameron nor the reporter who wrote the news story called McQuillan (though John Drinnan, to his credit, called her boss) and got the entire story off Twitter instead.

Hey NZ Herald. Before you criticise someone else's pants for being unprofessional, perhaps you should make sure that your work isn't.

Disclaimer: I am friends with McQuillan through our mutual association with Salient. I do not own, nor have I ever owned, sequin pants.

I am writing to heartily endorse Joshua Drummond for the position of Press Relations and Regulatory Affairs Manager at British American Tobacco.

I have known Mr Drummond for many years through our mutual association with the Freedom Importers Association of Hamilton. We celebrate enterprise and freedom by importing cigarettes into New Zealand though our underground tunnels with China and Belarus. Our non-fictional organisation, in fact, represents over 80% of the NZ tobacco black market as estimated by Ernst & Young. Mr Drummond's intimate knowledge of this sector will no doubt prove invaluable to your organisation as you continue to praise its contribution to the economy.

During his time with our organisation, he has proved himself both resourceful and committed to the cause of freedom from the nanny state. On one occasion - the celebration of Dr Don Brash's election as Prime Minister - Mr Drummond personally walked from our Belarus depot with 19 cartons of cigarettes internally concealed within his person. Why did he internally conceal the cigarettes when we had underground tunnels? Because that was how much he loved freedom.

Mr Drummond's commitment to the cause of liberty is only matched by his resourcefulness and skill in modern public relations techniques. His ability to astroturf is unequalled in New Zealand. In the 2011 election, two-thirds of ACT candidates (and all of ACT On Campus) were, in fact, Joshua Drummond with rubber masks. I am not at liberty to name those candidates, but needless to say, Mr Drummond had much more success than the non-Drummond candidates.

During my last visit, Carrick Graham confided to me that he wished Mr Drummond was his son. This is a sentiment that we all share, and I am sure you will too, once you have witness the magnificent beacon of freedom and the dirty bomb of individuality that is Joshua Drummond.

Yours faithfully,

Keith Ng
Manager (Government and Cartel Relations)
Freedom Importers Association of Hamilton

To state the obvious: Student loans are loans. When you pay off a loan, you stop paying. So if repayments go up from 10% to 12%, graduatues won't pay more - they just pay *earlier*.

This impacts on government finances:

1. The government collects future revenue earlier, allowing them to "get back to surplus" earlier. This part is purely political.
2. Collecting revenue earlier means they don't have to cover interest on it. This is a real saving, but this is only worth a fraction of the "revenue increase".
3. It will marginally worsen default rates, because:

• Graduates who don't default will pay the same amount (i.e. 100% of their loan), only sooner. (No effect on default rate.)
• Graduates who default because of bankruptcy or death will pay more before they go broke/die. (Very small positive effect.)
• Graduates who default by skipping the country will pay a tiny bit more before they leave. (It's for a short time while they're on a graduate wage - Very small positive effect.)
• The after-tax wage in NZ will decrease, making working overseas more attractive, causing more to leave and default on their loans. (Small negative effect.)

Increasing repayment rates DOES NOT improve default rates. It is a cynical policy, but not terribly significant either way.

Also: Stupid targeting is stupid

But this four-year limit thing. Seriously: RAGE.

This is not welfare. Welfare is welfare. We fund tertiary education because a well-educated workforce strengthens the economy and pays more taxes - it's an investment.

And it makes sense to target our investment for maximum return. Who are the people most worthy of funding? What kind of skills do we want in the economy? Where do we get the most bang for our buck?

On what planet is the answer "people who study for less than four years"?

We bemoan degree inflation, the fact that everyone is supposed to spend three years of their life at a degree factory getting a worthless undergrad that imparts neither wisdom or practical skills, and now, the government ONLY wants to give allowances to undergrads? Don't we need specialists anymore? Scientists? Doctors? Researchers? Cross-discipline study?

In terms of targeted allocation of allowances, this is arbitrary, perverse and just goddamn stupid.

--

Keith Ng is a self-loathing BA(Hons) graduate.