spinofflive
Empty-Classroom.png

PoliticsMarch 13, 2024

Is truancy really as bad as National claims?

Empty-Classroom.png

The government has hammered the statistic that 46% of students aren’t regularly attending school. The truth is a little more complex. 

Behind a dairy, two teens in school uniform pool their money for some vape juice before heading to a friend’s house nearby. The teens know their friend’s parents will be asleep and won’t care what they’re up to. Back in the classroom, a frustrated teacher takes the roll, scanning across a room full of empty desks to register the large number of students who haven’t bothered to show up that day. 

It’s a scene that easily springs to mind when reading recent headlines about truancy, and the oft-quoted statistic that 46% of students aren’t regularly attending school. Playing political football with attendance, National has taken the worse sounding of two overall attendance figures and run with it to support their narrative of opposition failings in education. 

So is truancy really the problem it’s been made out to be?

‘Love The Spinoff? Its future depends on your support. Become a member today.’
Madeleine Chapman
— Editor

While absenteeism is an ongoing challenge here in Aotearoa, the figures can paint quite a different picture depending on how you look at them. “Without understanding the statistics, people think, ‘This is terrible!’” says Principal of Remuera Intermediate Kyle Breweton. “But is it really that terrible?” That depends on the circumstances, he adds. “If [absence] is through hardship and [students] just can’t get to school, that’s quite different to a kid that’s swanning around Asia on a family holiday.”

According to Ministry of Education figures, in term three last year, less than half of children across the country (46%) were regularly attending school. This shocking figure is accurate, and yet on any given day during the same term 85% of students were present in class, which paints a far less worrisome picture. What do these two very different measures mean, and how can they both be true?

Firstly, the regular attendance stat (46%) requires some context to grasp fully, namely the definition of “regular attendance”. To the uninitiated, it may sound vague and easily achieved by any kid who shows up to school the majority of the time. But the parameters are much more stringent. In order for a child to be deemed as a regular attendee, they must be present 90% or more of the time. In this instance, “regular” is like scoring an A for attendance. 

The stat for daily attendance (85%) shows that children are actually showing up to school in more palatable numbers, with an average of 26 students out of a class of 30 present on any given day. It is useful to note that the 15% of kids who are absent on any given day includes a full range of students, from those with almost perfect attendance to those with chronic truancy, which is why it is important that both metrics are captured. 

But one statistic that took some digging to find is that 57% of total absence time is justified (for example, absence due to illness, being stood down, or for reasons deemed acceptable within a school’s attendance policy, like a family bereavement) and therefore outside the control of parents, schools and previous governments alike. 

Vaughan Couillault, principal of Papatoetoe High School and president of the Secondary Principals’ Association of New Zealand, points out that the widely touted attendance figures don’t differentiate between justified and unjustified absences. “At the end of the day, absence is binary, a student is either here or isn’t,” he says. “So when you look at the regularly attending stats, it covers people in hospital, it covers funerals, it covers everything.”

In term three, 2023, short-term illness and medical reasons were the largest contributor to absence in every week, and the proportion of time lost to illness has almost doubled in the last 10 years. Couillault gives the example of a student at his school who had six days away this term with a chronic respiratory condition. “The term is 50 days long, once you’ve been away a week you’re not regularly attending. It doesn’t matter why.”

 It’s a high bar in a post-pandemic world, where the messaging has changed from “it’s OK to send your little tykes to school with a runny nose,” to the now widely accepted attitude that people who are sick should stay home. In fact, those still following official guidelines around Covid infections will automatically fall into the irregular attendance category for the term if they happen to get sick on a Monday and isolate for the recommended five days. 

The other influence of Covid has been lax parental attitudes toward school, which is reportedly the biggest influencer of attendance. After seeing their children missing so much school during lockdowns, many parents aren’t prioritising attendance as much as they did pre-pandemic, and there has been an increase in parent-sanctioned days off. A 2022 ERO report found that a third of parents would be happy to take their children out of school for a holiday for a week or more.

In term three last year, 21% of unjustified absence time was for this reason, with over 86,000 students taking a half day or more for a holiday. Brewerton says his school sees a definite dip in attendance in the weeks skirting the holidays, with parents using those extra days to extend the trip while taking advantage of lower air fares. Another piece of the puzzle is that many employees (especially shift workers) aren’t always able to take their leave during the peaks of school holidays, so if they want to travel with their school-aged children, they must do so during term time. 

While it used to be a middle-class problem for children to skip school for winter skiing trips and beach escapes to the islands, these absences are becoming more widespread across the socioeconomic spectrum, given we live in a more globalised world. Increasing school populations have whānau living outside the country, so many of the recent so-called holiday absences are actually due to family reunification, especially after the borders opened again. No matter the motivation, with the average length of holidays lasting for 10.6 half days (ie more than one week of school), travel is another reason students slip into that non-regular attendance category.

Everybody’s gone skiing (Photo: Getty Images)

Another common reason for absence is time taken for family or cultural events, such as a funeral or the unveiling of a grandfather’s headstone at the one-year milestone, as is customary in Fiji. Due to cultural obligations, Māori and Pasifika parents are more likely to keep their children out of school for such an event. 

Bereavement is deemed justified in attendance records, but most other cultural events are not, despite their significance to the people involved. Pat Newman, principal of Hora Hora Primary School in Whangarei, reports that his school intentionally doesn’t start until after February 6th because of the large number of absences they used to have from families attending Waitangi Day events.

Other examples of “parent-condoned truancy” relate to wider societal issues like mental health and the challenges that come with deprivation. Declining attendance has been steepest in low-decile schools. Ragne Maxwell, principal of Porirua College, says that absenteeism isn’t usually wilful, and often comes down to pressures on families from increasing poverty. “Most parents want their children going to school regularly,” she says, pointing out that she often has young people missing school to help care for sick siblings so their parents can keep working, and that students themselves often have jobs to help support the family.

In New Zealand, under the 2020 Education and Training Act, every child between the ages of six and 16 must attend school. Parents can legally be fined for each day their child is absent from school without a justifiable excuse, but this is rarely actioned. The new government has hinted at more disciplinary measures, which does not sit well with Maxwell. “A punitive approach to truancy is counterproductive,” she says. “We are here to work with families and support them in sending their children to school. If they are afraid of being fined, the relationship will be jeopardised.” 

Couillault, the Papatoetoe High School principal, agrees, and is adamant he won’t be fining parents. “Fining them $50 a day or whatever just takes food out of the kids’ mouths,” he says.

Associate minister for education David Seymour says that fines won’t be imposed on families facing financial hardship, but he has not provided details about the circumstances in which more punitive measures will be taken. Nor has he acknowledged the ever-changing needs and circumstances of families that don’t always line up with attendance frameworks and expectations. 

The government’s hard line on attendance may be in part driven by their desire for better academic results, as attendance has been proven to be correlated with achievement. “Face to face, every day matters,” Couillault says. “The more face-time you can get at school, the better the chance the learning outcomes will be what you want them to be.” 

But Couillault points out that the 90% threshold for regular attendance is probably unrealistic.If I can get a kid to school 80% of the time,” he says, “I can probably get them their qualification.” 

Keep going!
Cow-listening-to-radio.png

PoliticsMarch 12, 2024

A disinformation campaign, the 2023 election and new government policy

Cow-listening-to-radio.png

A Groundswell-sponsored speaking tour during the 2023 election is a case study in disinformation, writes researcher Byron C Clark.

“Now Doug, I’m only letting you on the show today if you promise, hand on heart, you’re not going to get me into trouble.” 

That was how Jamie Mackay (a former sheep farmer and a current equity partner in a Southland dairy farm) introduced soil scientist Doug Edmeades in a November 2022 episode of The Country, Newstalk ZB’s flagship rural radio programme. “You are a bit of a climate change denier, you hate regenerative agriculture, now you’re saying methane’s not even a problem. Who do I believe, Doug?” 

Edmeades tells him he can believe the science, before stating that the press is “captured by one side of the argument” and “the other side of the argument doesn’t get out”. 

According to a 2021 report from the Climate and Clean Air Coalition (CCAC) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), “methane has been second only to carbon dioxide (CO2) in driving climate change during the industrial era”. This was echoed in the 2022 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, which described methane (CH4) as “the second biggest contributor to global warming” noting that about a quarter of greenhouse gas emissions come from land-related activities like agriculture. New Zealand is unusual compared to other industrialised countries in that 43% of greenhouse gas emissions are methane rather than carbon dioxide. More than 85% of those methane emissions come from animal agriculture.

To meet greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals, New Zealand plans to reduce biogenic methane emissions by 10% below 2017 levels by 2030, and by between 24 and 47% below 2017 levels by 2050. This plan is part of the Global Methane Pledge, to which participating countries have agreed to take voluntary actions to contribute towards a global 30% reduction in methane emissions by 2030.  Achieving this will almost certainly require the reduction of herd sizes – though not necessarily a reduction in the amount of milk and meat produced.

“Doug, I’m confused by the science, and I don’t think I’m alone there,” Mackay tells his guest. “Because my understanding is methane, short-lived gas compared to CO2, is much more potent in the atmosphere while it’s there?” 

“Well that’s what IPCC and climate alarmists say, but it’s actually not true,” replies Edmeades. The interview continues in this vein:

“I’m saying in terms of the methane issue, it’s a dead duck [that] shouldn’t be considered. They should just withdraw all that policy. Certainly the CO2 needs to be considered, but when CO2 is compared in an atmosphere of water, it doesn’t behave as the IPCC would have you believe.” 

“Doug, isn’t CO2 nature’s fertiliser?” 

“Of course it is. Look at it another way, apparently there is about 400 parts [per] million CO2 in the atmosphere if that were to double, bless it, if it were to double then plant growth would increase while about 20-30% so there’s no downside to this, there’s no downside.”

“Well. There is a downside: it’s called climate change and global warming. Are you denying that that’s happening, Doug?”

“No, I believe that climate changes all the time, the question is, is there any evidence that humans affect the natural climate changes and the answer that I’ve come up with, that other people have, is that there is no evidence of a human effect on climate changing.” 

Doug Edmeades (Photo: Supplied)

The “nature’s fertiliser” argument contains a grain of truth. Increased carbon in the atmosphere does increase plant growth, but the negative impacts on climate change on crops need to also be taken into account. Contrary to Edmeades, there are many, many downsides. For one, crops grown with elevated CO2 levels become less nutritious. Researchers have found that if the level of CO2 in the atmosphere reaches 550 parts per million — the level expected by mid century — food crops will lose enough nutrients to cause a protein deficiency in 150 million people.

The statement that there is no evidence of a human effect on climate changing is an outright falsehood. While Mackay does respond with “I don’t buy that” before moving on to questions about regenerative agriculture (the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change was well established by 2022) platforming this fringe view did a disservice to listeners of The Country.

Two weeks later, on the recommendation of Edmeades, the guest was Tom Sheahen, described as “an American academic and scientist who says methane and nitrous oxide are, wait for it, irrelevant greenhouse gases, so it begs the question, is he a climate change denier or are New Zealand farmers being sold a pup by Jacinda [Ardern] and James [Shaw]?”

A few minutes into the interview, Sheahen is asked straight up if he’s a climate denier.

“We call ourselves climate sceptics,” he responds. “The term denier was of course invented as a pejorative term to make anybody who criticised the Al Gore point of view sound like a Nazi, OK?” According to Sheahen, serious scientists ignore the label “climate denier” because it’s “nothing but a PR stunt by the keepers of the orthodoxy who wanted to push their own narrative.”

At the time of this interview, Sheahen is in New Zealand on holiday, but in 2023 he returns with the support of Groundswell for a speaking tour. According to a short article about the Invercargill event he was to speak at on the website WhatsonInvers, Groundswell had initially asked Beef + Lamb NZ to fund the visit but in the end had to fund the tour privately.

Tom Sheahen speaks in Invercargill (Photo: YouTube)

“Tom calls methane an irrelevant gas when it comes to its effect on the climate. That’s what New Zealand farmers want to hear,” announces host Peter Williams on Groundswell Radio, the group’s podcast. It’s a revealing statement. While Sheahen was out of step with the scientific consensus on climate change, he was saying what farmers wanted to hear, and as such was being given a platform on the likes of The Country and Groundswell Radio. He also joined former Federated Farms president Don Nicholson and Southland District Councillor Jaspreet Boparai for a lengthy interview on Greenwashed, the climate change focused show on Reality Check Radio (RCR), the online platform started by the anti-vaccine group Voices for Freedom.

RCR, unlike the other shows he appeared on, advertised Sheahen as President of the Science & Environment Policy Project (SEPP). SEPP is an American advocacy group that disputes the scientific consensus not just on climate change, but also on ozone depletion and second-hand smoke. The funding of SEPP is opaque, but it’s been revealed that they have received money from ExxonMobil and the American think tank Heartland Institute, an organisation that has for decades worked to discredit established science on climate change. The now defunct New Zealand Climate Science Coalition (NZCSC), had received $25,000 from the Heartland Institute. Doug Edmeades, who in addition to appearing on The Country has also been a guest on Greenwashed, was at one point the agricultural spokesperson for NZCSC. During that time he penned a submission on the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill that concluded:

“Do increasing concentrations of GHG [greenhouse gases], and in particular carbon dioxide, from man’s activities, result in an increase in global temperatures? It is concluded that this hypothesis can be rejected solely on the evidence that global temperatures are not determined by atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. In addition the paleoclimate record is consistent with this conclusion; changes in global temperature both positive and negative have occurred long before the advent of man and the use of carbon-based energy.” 

Following Sheahen’s speaking tour, On September 14 2023, Groundswell launched a new campaign opposing the taxing of methane emissions, and solicited donations from supporters. The website associated with the campaign states “We reject the GWP100 standard for measuring methane as outdated and unscientific and accept the IPCC’s AR6 Report making clear that new science states ruminant methane’s warming ability is exaggerated by 300 to 400%.” GWP100 refers to Global Warming Potential over 100 years, and is used to create a common metric between short-lived greenhouses cases like methane and long-lived CO2.

The 2023 IPCC report Groundswell refers to does not contain the word ruminant. Methane however is mentioned throughout. As in the 2022 report, it is noted as the second biggest contributor to climate change after carbon dioxide. The report notes that in modelled pathways that limit warming to 1.5°C, global methane emissions are reduced by 34 [21 to 57]% below 2019 levels by 2030, and by 44 [31 to 63]% in 2040 —similar reductions as to what New Zealand has pledged. 

Groundswell found a political ally in the Act Party. “Farmers in countries who are our biggest trading partners are not paying a price for their methane emissions. Under Act, New Zealand farmers wouldn’t either,” stated dairy farmer and Act MP Mark Cameron in a press release promising to “end the war on farming” (issued before the launch of Groundswell’s campaign). While New Zealand is the first country to use tax on ruminant methane to incentivise reducing emissions, four out of five of New Zealand’s largest trading partners have signed up to the Global Methane Pledge. 

Jamie McFadden, Groundswell’s environmental spokesperson, had an opinion piece published by The Press on October 6, 2023. “This election is a turning point in our history,” wrote McFadden. “And while the difference between the major political parties may not seem huge, the outcomes following the election will be.

“I do not say it lightly; this election is about the survival of family farming, rural communities, natural heritage, respect for people and property, local decision making and democracy.”

‘If you regularly enjoy The Spinoff, and want it to continue, become a member today.’
Toby Manhire
— Editor-at-large

Groundswell spent $141,061 trying to influence the outcome of the election. The bulk of the advertising done by the group was on social media. Many of the ads made reference to the plight of rural New Zealand, while others highlighted issues around heath, education and crime. “New Zealand is unrecognisable and Labour is the problem 🚩” read the text accompanying one advertisement, next to a black and white photo of Chris Hipkins captioned “64% of New Zealanders believe we are more divided than ever before.” That ad had half a million impressions on Facebook. 

Groundswell got what they’d hoped for. The coalition agreement signed between National and Act includes a promise to “review the methane science and targets in 2024 for consistency with no additional warming from agricultural methane emissions.” A review of methane science and targets will no doubt show that reaching warming targets will require a reduction in methane emissions. The review may delay those reductions, though farmers already had until the end of 2025 before needing to pay a price for emissions. The whole affair is a case study in disinformation, and reminds us all to be aware of who is trying to influence us, and to what end. 

This article was made possible thanks to a grant from the Bruce Jesson Foundation to write about climate change disinformation. Byron C Clark will also be speaking on this topic at the Climate Disinfo night school presented by Tohatoha.

But wait there's more!