The curriculum is shaping up to be a battlefield of education policies in this election with concerns about declining literacy and numeracy rates across New Zealand. 

New Zealand is not the only country that's having a look at maths and the way it's taught, in an article in the Atlantic Dr Brian Conrad, Stanford mathematics professor and Director of Undergraduate Studies, critiqued the teaching of maths in the state of California.

He wrote that California is promoting an approach to maths instruction that's likely to reduce opportunities for disadvantaged students, the opposite of what they’re trying to achieve.

He joined Kerre Woodham to discuss the situation.

LISTEN ABOVE

The curriculum is shaping up to be a battlefield of education policies in this election with concerns about declining literacy and numeracy rates across New Zealand.  
New Zealand is not the only country that's having a look at maths and the way it's taught, in an article in the Atlantic Dr Brian Conrad, Stanford mathematics professor and Director of Undergraduate Studies, critiqued the teaching of maths in the state of California. 
He wrote that California is promoting an approach to maths instruction that's likely to reduce opportunities for disadvantaged students, the opposite of what they’re trying to achieve. 
He joined Kerre Woodham to discuss the situation. 
LISTEN ABOVE

Join Kerre Woodham one of New Zealand’s best loved personalities as she dishes up a bold, sharp and energetic show Monday to Friday 9am-12md on Newstalk ZB. News, opinion, analysis, lifestyle and entertainment – we’ve got your morning listening covered.

Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

Dr Brian Conrad: Stanford mathematics professor and Director of Undergraduate Studies on the teaching of mathematics in California

The Government is doing its bit to protect children from themselves by banning the use of smartphones during the school day and by moving to bring in legislation restricting social media use for children under 16. The schools are doing their bit, although it's more mopping up than prevention, by bringing in counsellors to help children, some as young as eight, who've been exposed to extreme online content. 

The question is what are parents doing to protect their own children? Teachers talk about hearing students discussing their gaming exploits late into the night and doom scrolling TikTok, Snapchat, and Instagram, repeating objectionable things they've heard online that they don't really understand. 

I'm not in the position of having to deal with young ones and smartphones, not in terms of setting the rules. The young ones in my house, the just-turned-nine year old and seven year old, love using my phone to look at videos or to add music to their playlists on Spotify, so I've put controls on the phone, but then we couldn't get some of Eminem's stuff, so we had to go for the radio edit version of Eminem. And that's fine, we work around that, but I have put controls on the phone just in case. It's not them looking for it, it's the accidental discovery of things that you cannot unsee. But I don't have to set the rules around how many hours they can have and when they can view it – that's for their parents to do. 

But surely, and that's the way it works in our house, you set limits on what the kids can access, how much time they have to access it, when they can access it, and if they break those rules, their rights are rescinded. That hasn't happened yet, but they're not old enough I suppose to go looking for trouble. But surely that's the way it works. It always has worked. You set the rules and if the children break the rules, then there are consequences for that. Or has parenting suddenly been turned on its head since the year 2020? 

Why on earth should schools have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on counsellors to mitigate the harm children have exposed themselves to outside of school hours when they're supposed to be under parental supervision? One parent talked about getting up to go to the loo in the middle of the night and seeing the light behind the closed bedroom door – their daughter was on the phone at 1am. That's not the school's problem if she has access to material she finds harmful or if she's been exposed to material that's disturbed her. 

When you're looking at the amount of money that schools say they're having to spend because the kids are so upset and beside themselves, surely that money could be better spent on activities or resources for the school that all children could enjoy, rather than have it spent on a small number of traumatised late night scrollers.  

I'd really love to know what the rules are, what rules you've set. According to the Greens, it's pointless putting any kind of restrictions on children and social media use. Pointless having legislation around it because the kids will just get around any restrictions placed on them by the government. But as a parent, can you say that you have put protections in place that work, that you have got rules in place for your house that work, or has the whole concept of parenting as I understood it completely and utterly changed, that there are no rules and there are no consequences? 

The Government is doing its bit to protect children from themselves by banning the use of smartphones during the school day and by moving to bring in legislation restricting social media use for children under 16. The schools are doing their bit, although it's more mopping up than prevention, by bringing in counsellors to help children, some as young as eight, who've been exposed to extreme online content.&nbsp;
The question is what are parents doing to protect their own children? Teachers talk about hearing students discussing their gaming exploits late into the night and doom scrolling TikTok, Snapchat, and Instagram, repeating objectionable things they've heard online that they don't really understand.&nbsp;
I'm not in the position of having to deal with young ones and smartphones, not in terms of setting the rules. The young ones in my house, the just-turned-nine year old and seven year old, love using my phone to look at videos or to add music to their playlists on Spotify, so I've put controls on the phone, but then we couldn't get some of Eminem's stuff, so we had to go for the radio edit version of Eminem. And that's fine, we work around that, but I have put controls on the phone just in case. It's not them looking for it, it's the accidental discovery of things that you cannot unsee. But I don't have to set the rules around how many hours they can have and when they can view it – that's for their parents to do.&nbsp;
But surely, and that's the way it works in our house, you set limits on what the kids can access, how much time they have to access it, when they can access it, and if they break those rules, their rights are rescinded. That hasn't happened yet, but they're not old enough I suppose to go looking for trouble. But surely that's the way it works. It always has worked. You set the rules and if the children break the rules, then there are consequences for that. Or has parenting suddenly been turned on its head since the year 2020?&nbsp;
Why on earth should schools have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on counsellors to mitigate the harm children have exposed themselves to outside of school hours when they're supposed to be under parental supervision? One parent talked about getting up to go to the loo in the middle of the night and seeing the light behind the closed bedroom door – their daughter was on the phone at 1am. That's not the school's problem if she has access to material she finds harmful or if she's been exposed to material that's disturbed her.&nbsp;
When you're looking at the amount of money that schools say they're having to spend because the kids are so upset and beside themselves, surely that money could be better spent on activities or resources for the school that all children could enjoy, rather than have it spent on a small number of traumatised late night scrollers. &nbsp;
I'd really love to know what the rules are, what rules you've set. According to the Greens, it's pointless putting any kind of restrictions on children and social media use. Pointless having legislation around it because the kids will just get around any restrictions placed on them by the government. But as a parent, can you say that you have put protections in place that work, that you have got rules in place for your house that work, or has the whole concept of parenting as I understood it completely and utterly changed, that there are no rules and there are no consequences?&nbsp;

Kerre Woodham: Are parents restricting their kids' online access?

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/b35d7df6-c859-43ad-b4d3-b40900008171/transcript

Shipping prices could soon be rising for cheap online stores like Shein and Temu. 

Changes from next month will add fees and levies to small parcels crossing the border, making them fairer and helping cover Customs costs. 

It should save taxpayers $70 million in parcel subsidies. 

Customs Minister Casey Costello told Kerre Woodham Mornings border control can't cope with the more than 24 million packages entering New Zealand each year. 

She says the relationship between retailer and couriers may need changing, and could increase the price of some goods. 

LISTEN ABOVE   

Shipping prices could soon be rising for cheap online stores like Shein and Temu.&nbsp;
Changes from next month will add fees and levies to small parcels crossing the border, making them fairer and helping cover Customs costs.&nbsp;
It should save taxpayers $70 million in parcel subsidies.&nbsp;
Customs Minister Casey Costello told Kerre Woodham Mornings border control can't cope with the more than 24 million packages entering New Zealand each year.&nbsp;
She says the relationship between retailer and couriers may need changing, and could increase the price of some goods.&nbsp;
LISTEN ABOVE &nbsp;&nbsp;

Casey Costello: Customs Minister on the changing fees and levies for small parcels entering New Zealand

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/1f816d10-2a6c-4dbe-9bdd-b40801881e80/transcript

It was a glorious weekend. Somewhat marred when I read this story from Anna Leask in yesterday's New Zealand Herald. I really had to I really had to reset myself after reading this. Anna writes, urgent calls for change are mounting after a third Christchurch woman was murdered by a violent repeat offender who was subject to monitoring and a raft of prison release conditions designed to keep the community safe. Which it didn't.

Nicole Tuxford, Juliana Herrera, and Chantal McDonald, three Christchurch women murdered in the place they should have been safest, in their own homes. All killed by men with long, documented histories of violence against women, including rape, kidnap, and even previous murders. Men who were released under supervision and conditions designed to keep the public safe.

Nathan Boulter murdered Chantal McDonald in front of her kids, 13 days after he was released from prison where he'd been sent after terrorising, abusing, and kidnapping other women. In 2022 Juliana Herrera was murdered by a convicted rapist, Joseph Brider. He'd been released on parole 72 days before he crept into her house while she was sleeping and subjected her to a prolonged sexual and physical assault before stabbing her to death. And Nicole Tuxford was murdered by Paul Pounamu Tainui, otherwise known as Paul Russell Wilson, who was on parole for the earlier rape and murder of his girlfriend. The girlfriend he'd previously killed had told her mother it was just a matter of time before she ended up dead. She knew he was going to kill her. She knew he was going to do it sooner or later, and he did, and then he was sent to prison, and then he did it again.

After each woman's murder, Corrections mounted a review. Corrections confirmed it communicated and worked with police and others in a multi agency group to monitor the parolees' risk and compliance with their conditions. Clearly they haven't learned any lessons. Not after the first one, not after the second, not after the third. There'll be a fourth and a fifth. And primarily, primarily it's because these men have been given sentences where they have to come out eventually. And then it's on Corrections to try and monitor them, and they can't be monitored.

They have shown through their actions that they cannot be rehabilitated, if they could be habilitated at all. If they were given preventive detention, we, the community and women in particular, wouldn't have to worry. Have a look at Australia. You know, they are not considered a particularly backward, primitive society. You wouldn't think of Australia and think, oh yeah, but they're nutters, you know, they chop people's hands off in the square. No, they don't do that. But what they do do, is keep the community safe.

A man who raped and killed an international student was sentenced to 30 years minimum jail term.  The Crown appealed that because they said despite the fact he was 20 at the time of the attack, that he pleaded guilty, he had no criminal record and had not premeditated the offence, the Crown said its sheer violence meant the safety of the community needed to be placed above the limited prospect of him being rehabilitated when he was released. They argued the minimum 30 year sentence was manifestly inadequate for a 20 year old who pleaded guilty, who'd never had a history of criminal offending. And what do our judges do? Nine years, 10 years, 12 years for people with long, documented histories of violence and abuse.

Another one, Derek Barrett, 32 initially sentenced to at least 34 years in jail in 2017 in Sydney for killing his 26 year old niece who was boarding with him and his wife at the time. It's 46 years. That's what the judge handed out, 46 years, and he's eligible for parole in 34 He probably won't get it because they found out later he'd done all sorts of unspeakable things when they found a USB. That's what that's how much the courts in Australia value the lives of women. Innocent women who have their lives completely and utterly destroyed in prolonged assaults by men who are very, very sick.

Now, in our case, over the ditch in New Zealand, we knew these men were sick. They'd shown they were sick. They'd shown they had absolutely no interest in rehabilitation, and they'd been recalled to jail a number of times for assaults against women before they murdered again. Had our judges applied the same consideration in sentencing these men with their proven history, the other two in Australia had never put a foot wrong that anybody had found out about.

They might have been deviant creeps in their in their private life, hadn't commit you know, they hadn't shown to the judges that they'd done anything wrong. These ones have. Join the dots. Could we make it any clearer? All three of those women named in Anna's article and many, many other women would still be alive today if we applied the sort of sentencing that Australian judges think is perfectly reasonable to apply to monsters who are sick and depraved and see women as a means of satisfaction. What will it take for our judges to hand down sentences to offenders that truly reflect the horror of their crimes.

LISTEN ABOVE

It was a glorious weekend. Somewhat marred when I read this story from Anna Leask in yesterday's New Zealand Herald. I really had to I really had to reset myself after reading this. Anna writes, urgent calls for change are mounting after a third Christchurch woman was murdered by a violent repeat offender who was subject to monitoring and a raft of prison release conditions designed to keep the community safe. Which it didn't.
Nicole Tuxford, Juliana Herrera, and Chantal McDonald, three Christchurch women murdered in the place they should have been safest, in their own homes. All killed by men with long, documented histories of violence against women, including rape, kidnap, and even previous murders. Men who were released under supervision and conditions designed to keep the public safe.
Nathan Boulter murdered Chantal McDonald in front of her kids, 13 days after he was released from prison where he'd been sent after terrorising, abusing, and kidnapping other women. In 2022 Juliana Herrera was murdered by a convicted rapist, Joseph Brider. He'd been released on parole 72 days before he crept into her house while she was sleeping and subjected her to a prolonged sexual and physical assault before stabbing her to death. And Nicole Tuxford was murdered by Paul Pounamu Tainui, otherwise known as Paul Russell Wilson, who was on parole for the earlier rape and murder of his girlfriend. The girlfriend he'd previously killed had told her mother it was just a matter of time before she ended up dead. She knew he was going to kill her. She knew he was going to do it sooner or later, and he did, and then he was sent to prison, and then he did it again.
After each woman's murder, Corrections mounted a review. Corrections confirmed it communicated and worked with police and others in a multi agency group to monitor the parolees' risk and compliance with their conditions. Clearly they haven't learned any lessons. Not after the first one, not after the second, not after the third. There'll be a fourth and a fifth. And primarily, primarily it's because these men have been given sentences where they have to come out eventually. And then it's on Corrections to try and monitor them, and they can't be monitored.
They have shown through their actions that they cannot be rehabilitated, if they could be habilitated at all. If they were given preventive detention, we, the community and women in particular, wouldn't have to worry. Have a look at Australia. You know, they are not considered a particularly backward, primitive society. You wouldn't think of Australia and think, oh yeah, but they're nutters, you know, they chop people's hands off in the square. No, they don't do that. But what they do do, is keep the community safe.
A man who raped and killed an international student was sentenced to 30 years minimum jail term. &nbsp;The Crown appealed that because they said despite the fact he was 20 at the time of the attack, that he pleaded guilty, he had no criminal record and had not premeditated the offence, the Crown said its sheer violence meant the safety of the community needed to be placed above the limited prospect of him being rehabilitated when he was released. They argued the minimum 30 year sentence was manifestly inadequate for a 20 year old who pleaded guilty, who'd never had a history of criminal offending. And what do our judges do? Nine years, 10 years, 12 years for people with long, documented histories of violence and abuse.
Another one, Derek Barrett, 32 initially sentenced to at least 34 years in jail in 2017 in Sydney for killing his 26 year old niece who was boarding with him and his wife at the time. It's 46 years. That's what the judge handed out, 46 years, and he's eligible for parole in 34 He probably won't get it because they found out later he'd done all sorts of unspeakable things when they found a USB. That's what that's how much the courts in Australia value the lives of women. Innocent women who have their lives completely and utterly destroyed in prolonged assaults by men who are very, very sick.
Now, in our case, over the ditch in New Zealand, we knew these men were sick. They'd shown they were sick. They'd shown they had absolutely no interest in rehabilitation, and they'd been recalled to jail a number of times for assaults against women before they murdered again. Had our judges applied the same consideration in sentencing these men with their proven history, the other two in Australia had never put a foot wrong that anybody had found out about.
They might have been deviant creeps in their in their private life, hadn't commit you know, they hadn't shown to the judges that they'd done anything wrong. These ones have. Join the dots. Could we make it any clearer? All three of those women named in Anna's article and many, many other women would still be alive today if we applied the sort of sentencing that Australian judges think is perfectly reasonable to apply to monsters who are sick and depraved and see women as a means of satisfaction. What will it take for our judges to hand down sentences to offenders that truly reflect the horror of their crimes.
LISTEN ABOVE

Kerre Woodham: Three women killed by repeat offenders, when will courts learn?

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/e48edf29-cbbb-4359-8702-b4070187a58b/transcript

Dr Brian Conrad: Stanford mathematics professor and Director of Undergraduate Studies on the teaching of mathematics in California

In 1 playlist(s)

Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

Social links

Follow podcast

Recent clips