Posts by Russell Brown
-
Hard News: Media3: Standards Showdown, in reply to Stephen Judd,
Journalists have to write stories that resonate with readers. Maybe the boring truth that there is little useful to be learned from National Standards numbers just isn’t enough.
I think there's something in that.
-
If I wasn't out of the office, I'd add a bit more about tensions with the principle of open data -- and the importance of public entities complying with the OIA.
-
Cracker: What Would Charlotte Do?, in reply to Sacha,
not broadcasters then?
Heh. No.
-
Heh. And so, Damian and I wound up today in a Twitter argument with other journalists that showed, once again, what a rubbish medium for argument Twitter is. Oh well ...
-
Hard News: Flying Again, in reply to Ben Howe,
Grant – I would like to know as well.
Lolz. Emily says she's going to watch Media3 on demand. You could give her a shout-out ;-)
-
Just to note that I took out a sentence in the post about there not being a deal with the Chills.
I gather that although it’s taken a long time settling, there is now a new deal between Flying Nun and the Chills.
Good to know.
-
Hard News: Flying Again, in reply to Geoff Lealand,
What other things on Media3 this week, Russell? I am bringing up another vanload of students on Thursday.
There will be national standards ...
-
Hard News: Flying Again, in reply to Moz,
Oooh, shiny shiny downloads. Flying Nun now sell FLAC (forgive me if this is old news).
News to me too. And WAV downloads too -- at only $12 an album. This suggests they haven't been very successful at getting us to pay attention.
-
Cracker: What Would Charlotte Do?, in reply to David Cormack,
I’ve had a couple of “Ricky Gervais” types tweet back at me – and I think that’s the exciting part about Twitter, a chance to engage with people who you would never otherwise engage with.
I got a reply back from Chuck D when he was on Twitter reminiscing about legendary Public Enemy shows -- I mentioned their Electric Ballroom show in London in 1988. That was cool.
And I'd like to remind Graham Linehan that we used to work on the same magazine years ago, but it's hard not to sound like a dick saying "hey! remember me!?"
-
A rather odd editorial in the Herald this morning:
A vocal lobby argues none of this information should be made available by the state. It is too early in the life of national standards, results are inconsistently judged at a school level, insufficiently moderated at a national level and devoid of numerous explanations for the higher or lower performances of schools.
Further, schools should not have to explain all these deficiencies to their parent bodies once their interest is pricked by news reports.
The criticisms of inconsistent judgment and moderation are valid. The Government met a parent demand for yardsticks to measure children’s learning but then failed to ensure schools applied those yardsticks the same way and with equal rigour. National standards are highly politicised; those who opposed their introduction oppose their school-by-school publication.
There is much intolerance of any use of this “ropey” information. A high priesthood of data analysis bemoans news media interest, however hedged with caveats, as betraying the apple in favour of the orange. Yet the combined “wisdom of the crowd” of thousands of schools and teachers, warts and all, does suggest, for example, fewer children meet standards in writing nationally than reading or mathematics.
Or maybe it suggests something else altogether. But don’t let that worry you.