spinofflive
Image: Tina Tiller
Image: Tina Tiller

PoliticsNovember 14, 2023

Did donations translate into votes in the 2023 election?

Image: Tina Tiller
Image: Tina Tiller

In the three years leading up to the election, some parties banked a hell of a lot more than others. But did donors get bang for their buck? Emma Vitz takes a look.

The final votes have been counted. Negotiations are under way and Winston Peters continues his favourite tradition of keeping the country in limbo.

Will the shape of the new government be influenced by the political donations that the parties have collected over the past three years? Looking at the donations and votes received between 2021 and 2023, we see some clear differences.

National collected by far the most, with just over $9 million (in 2023 dollars) pocketed between 2021 and 2023 and over a million votes in the final count, equating to 38.08% in percentage terms. Act came second, pulling together almost $5 million. This translated into just under 250,000 votes (8.64%).

Meanwhile, the Greens, Labour and New Zealand First collected between $1.3 and $1.5 million each in the years leading up to the election. However, the Greens managed to collect 330,000 votes (11.6%), or about half of what Labour achieved (26.91%). New Zealand First pulled together 173,000 votes (6.08%) in the final count. Te Pāti Māori collected a modest $100k, which translated into just under 90,000 votes (3.08%).

All of this means that on a per-vote basis, for each of the 250,000 votes they ended up winning in the 2023 election, Act received almost $20 in donations between 2021 and 2023. This compares with just over $8 for each vote collected by National and just under $2 by Labour. Te Pāti Māori was the most thrifty political party to make it into parliament in 2023, receiving $1.17 in donations for every vote received in the recent election.

There are a number of ways to interpret these results, and your takeaway is likely influenced by your political persuasions. On the one hand, rightwing parties are backed by more money. On the other, Act has failed to translate that into the number of votes it was hoping for (earlier in the year the party was polling well into the double figures), and while it has 11 seats to New Zealand First's eight, it's now at risk of being usurped, at least in terms of in influence, by the less-well-funded party.

On the left, the Greens collected the largest amount of money per vote, which may hint at champagne socialism, or just generosity, depending on your perspective. Te Pāti Māori, which collected the smallest amount of donations but arguably had some of the greatest success in the final results, showed that a concerted grassroots campaign can succeed.

All of this is subject to change, since only donations over $20,000 have been disclosed for 2023, with smaller donations not requiring disclosure until the end of the year. However, the ways in which it is likely to change might surprise you. 

It might seem like the left should collect many small donations while the right relies on a few deep-pocketed individuals. Bernie Sanders loved to say that the average donation to his campaign was $27, and we might assume a similar dynamic holds in New Zealand. However, it’s actually much more of a split between the major parties and the minor parties, and it’s highly dependent on their general popularity. 

A far greater percentage of the total donations made to small parties comes in the form of large donations over $20,000. The smaller the vote share, the greater the proportion of total donations that comes from large donors. When large parties are languishing between 20 and 30% in the vote count, they collect the least amount of money from large donations. However, eventually the curve goes in the other direction – when large parties do really well, the proportion of their donations that come from large donors inches up a bit, perhaps cannibalising from the smaller parties. 

This speaks to the difference between the soft middle, who might donate a few dollars (or not) and vote for National or Labour (or not), compared to the small group of hardcore supporters of the minor parties. These people are much more likely to vote for their party of choice and donate generously, even when no one else will. 

Note that all figures have been inflated to 2023 dollars.

‘Like a thousand-piece jigsaw puzzle, each member is vital to the whole picture. Join today.’
Calum Henderson
— Production editor
Keep going!
Photo: Getty Images
Photo: Getty Images

PoliticsNovember 13, 2023

The problem with National’s plan to mandate ‘structured literacy’ in schools

Photo: Getty Images
Photo: Getty Images

There’s no consistent definition used in New Zealand, no clear definition put forward by the National Party, and it’s a term beset with trademark issues, writes Linda Kimpton.

In September, the National Party promised to mandate structured literacy as part of its literacy guarantee: “National will ensure every child learns to read using structured literacy by making it a requirement at primary school.” This announcement was met by service providers and resource sellers across New Zealand labelling what they already do as “structured literacy”, with one company going so far as to submit a trademark claim for the term in an effort to protect its intellectual property. Social media was buzzing with people celebrating the promised mandate, though their understandings of what structured literacy referred to were diverse and often contradictory.

In October, I ran two surveys through social media, shared across multiple New Zealand education groups, to find out what people thought structured literacy meant. The surveys turned up at least six different interpretations of the term, and only 1% of respondents thought the term was used consistently within New Zealand. No single definition dominated, with the two most popular responses hitting 23%.

Two of the largest structured literacy advocacy groups in New Zealand do have a very clear interpretation of structured literacy. Both Lifting Literacy Aotearoa and Dyslexia Evidence Based state that structured literacy specifically refers to the meaning promoted by the International Dyslexia Association (IDA), an organisation based in the United States, which is based on “highly explicit and systematic teaching of all important components of literacy”, including decoding, spelling, reading comprehension and written expression. They believe this to the extent that they have used the IDA interpretation like a checklist, to declare that particular New Zealand service providers are not delivering structured literacy.

Both these large advocacy groups have declared in the past that the Better Start Literacy Approach (BSLA), an approach used in over 40% of New Zealand schools, is not a structured literacy approach. Yet the National Party, through its education spokesperson Erica Stanford, has repeatedly stated that BSLA is structured literacy. BSLA also self-identifies as a structured literacy approach.

National calls the Better Start Literacy Approach ‘structured literacy’. Some NZ advocates disagree.

There is a reason that the IDA’s definition of structured literacy is treated as definitive by these advocacy groups, and that it turns up in some definitions among New Zealanders: in 2016, the IDA publicly claimed to have coined the term, and asserted that it was their brand and trademark. They later succeeded in trademarking the term. They released infographics to explain what it must include, and in 2018 they released a 41-page document explaining the structured literacy approach in detail. The IDA set up an accreditation process, and accompanying fees, for any organisation that wanted to deliver structured literacy.

Yet even those in New Zealand who turn to the IDA to define structured literacy disagree about what it requires. Some solely rely on their own interpretation of the principles in IDA’s infographics; others insist on using the 41-page IDA document.

The fact IDA has asserted its trademark over “structured literacy” has not gone unnoticed by our Ministry of Education. In October 2022, the ministry said it preferred to use the term “structured approach to literacy” when discussing BSLA in particular, because of IDA’s trademark. (This was before a private company in New Zealand submitted its own claim to the trademark.)

These trademark and definition issues have been avoided by other governments when adopting their own approaches intended to align with the science of reading, by avoiding the term “structured literacy” altogether. They have instead used terms such as “systematic synthetic phonics”, “science of reading”, or come up with their own term to capture the shift (such as Canada’s “Building Blocks of Reading”).

If the National Party insists on using the term structured literacy, it needs to be careful not to adopt a definition that is either too narrow or too broad. An overly restrictive and heavily prescribed definition will unjustifiably limit literacy practices in New Zealand, and could put high-quality service providers out of business. The science of reading has given us a solid foundation on which to build good practice, but it has not delivered us the fine detail of what this must look like in practice.

The IDA interpretation of the science of reading is exactly that: an interpretation. It is not a definitive or universally accepted version of best practice amongst those who otherwise agree on what the science of reading tells us. It is arguable that the IDA definition of structured literacy would be too narrow.

At the other extreme, adopting an overly broad definition of structured literacy may lead to superficial changes that will not impact on classroom practice and therefore not deliver the hoped-for improvements in literacy outcomes. For example, a loose definition may simply lead to rebranding and terminology change rather than substantive change, or may lead to elements simply being added to fundamentally flawed approaches rather than changes being made to the approach itself.

The allocation of tens of millions in public funding turns on being clear on what structured literacy means, and yet there is no consistent definition used in New Zealand, no clear definition put forward by the National Party, and it is a term beset with trademark issues.

This does not bode well for a strong and united shift towards an approach that is aligned with the science of reading.

The National Party has alternatives it could pursue to get more New Zealand schools to adopt a science of reading-aligned approach, which avoid many of the above issues. A first option is it could choose a term that is not already trademarked. National could create its own term or seek suggestions from New Zealand teachers and literacy experts on a term they would feel comfortable using.

A second option is mandating against the use of poor approaches to teaching fundamental literacy skills. In particular, National could ban the use of “three-cueing”, which is foundational to the “balanced literacy” approach. This is a less prescriptive option than mandating a single approach, and is an option that has been pursued in some states in America.

The final option I’ll mention here is that National could recognise that the Ministry of Education was already taking significant strides towards promoting and funding better literacy practices. Reading recovery and the balanced literacy approach more broadly were increasingly being rejected across New Zealand schools without any mandates being necessary. An educative approach that convinced teachers to shift towards better practices, supported by science and evidence showing that those approaches are better, may have been more respectful and more respected than a structured literacy mandate.

The incoming government can make all the changes it wants to shift New Zealand schools towards a science-based approach to literacy and towards better outcomes for all students, without specifically resorting to a structured literacy mandate. If they insist on the mandate (as they likely will, given the prominence of their promise to do so), I hope they will carefully consider the competing definitions of structured literacy and share their own intended meaning with the rest of New Zealand as a priority, before further confusion and divisions take hold.

Politics