Posts by NBH
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
[Post removed to avoid dogpiling ;-) ]
-
Hard News: What Now?, in reply to Sacha,
Unfortunately it looks like they won't be Sacha, as they'd been operating on the basis that the more comprehensive post-Census Disability Survey would be available.
-
Hard News: What Now?, in reply to Sacha,
I'm not sure Sacha - I'll check with my contacts and get back to you.
-
The Quality of Life survey is, in an unfortunate coincidence, being conducted at the moment. Needless to say, they won't be collecting any more data for Christchurch (I'm not sure what they'll be doing with the data collected before the quake).
-
NZDEP 2006 is an actual measure of 'deprivation' of an area based on a variety of different variables (not just income): http://www.moh.govt.nz/moh.nsf/pagesmh/8066/$File/NZDep2006_av-dep-scores.pdf - Christchurch areas look to be on pp7-8 of that PDF. Unfortunately I don't think a really useful graphical representation for this discussion is available online, but there's a high-res map of the Canterbury DHB region that you can blow up to get a general picture of the region: http://www.moh.govt.nz/moh.nsf/Files/deprivation-maps/$file/canterbury.pdf
NZDEP is measured by decile, so a value of '1' means that an area is one of the 10% least deprived areas, while '10' means it's one of the 10% most deprived areas.
-
Hard News: What Now?, in reply to Kate Hannah,
Following on from Kate's response to Giovanni, the Education Directions blog (http://www.ed.co.nz/) has been keeping up an excellent daily summary of the tertiary education sector's experiences and responses.
-
Just for the record, I've dealt with the Census folk (and StatsNZ people generally) in a professional capacity and there is absolutely no way that this cancellation/deferral will have been in any way influenced by the Government. The Statistics Act specifically states that the Government Statistician (i.e. the CE of Statistics NZ) operates independently of the Government/Minister, and they take that independence (and quality of their data) incredibly seriously.
And +1 to NZlemming's post too.
-
Paul got in before me but, just to emphasise his response to Matthew, the following publication provides a good overview of changes in the 'apprenticeship'-related space (i.e. the collapse of apprenticeship numbers and growing dissatisfaction with the system through the 80s, and the consequent development of the industry training system) up until the early 2000s: http://www.itf.org.nz/user/file/75/ITF%20Funding%20History.pdf
The industry training system certainly isn't perfect, but internationally it's seen as a leading example of 'sectoral' approaches to workforce development. It's a pity that we don't talk about this more, given that we are something of a world leader in the area.
[A small declaration of interest here's appropriate: I used to work in the area at the national level]
-
If you're interested in thoughts and discussions about 'where to now' for progressive politics in New Zealand, it might be worthwhile taking a look at the Policy Progress blog http://www.policyprogress.org.nz/ Since it doesn't shy away from theory it can get a bit dense at times, but the main writer is exceptionally good (as are many of his guest posters).
-
There's another rather good post on the standards issue today at the new Education Directions blog:
http://www.ed.co.nz/2010/02/08/national-standards-not-a-bad-idea/