Budget 2025: Principals In Marlborough Welcome Slashing Of Kahui Ako
A Marlborough school principal has welcomed the Government's decision to slash the school-clustering programme Kahui Ako Communities of Learning.
The Government announced that the programme would be disestablished as part of Budget 2025, with its funding being redirected into a $770 million investment into learning support.
Riverlands School principal Bradley Roberts said he believed that the almost $1m that went into Piritahi, Marlborough's Kahui Ako, could be better used elsewhere.
'Most of the people involved in the Kahui Ako were not even aware of how much resource went into them,' Roberts said. 'The Piritahi Kahui Ako … cost $950,000 a year to run.'
The Piritahi Kahui Ako was a collection of 21 schools and six kindergartens, representing 6000 students across the region.
Teachers nominated and approved by a school's principal and board of trustees could take paid time away from their usual tasks to foster collaborative teaching and leadership practices across schools; with the goal of lifting student achievement in Marlborough.
Roberts, who conducted a 20-week sabbatical research project on Kahui Ako, said the programme did little to lift student achievement, and suffered from 'too many parameters'.
'We could have done a lot more with the $950,000 if we [schools] were given more control over that resource,' Roberts said.
Roberts said most of the funding went towards extra pay for teachers and principals.
'The money went into people's back pockets. It didn't really go into initiatives or resources,' Roberts said.
In 2020, the New Zealand Principals' Federation, which represented hundreds of school principals, called on the Government to end the programme, saying that the meagre benefits did not justify the $110m per year price tag.
'I talked to 18 different Kahui leaders and principals as part of my research, and 18 out of 18 said if they could re-imagine the resource they would put it into learning support,' Roberts said.
Seddon School principal and Piritahi Kahui Ako co-leader Anita Phillips said the group was looking at data for under-served students to see how the schools could work together to better support them.
'Our [Kahui Ako] would come into schools to support those people, and then the principal co-leads would look at what needed to be done at a leadership level to ensure that everyone had adequate access to information or new thinking … around how best to meet the needs of the children.'
Phillips said Kahui Ako particularly focused on supporting Māori students.
'[Kahui Ako] did a huge focus for a very long time on culturally responsive practices, and we have really strong connections with local iwi now as a result,' she said.
'There has been an awful lot of teacher professional development that's come out of our Kahui Ako … network support, for sure.'
'One of the biggest impacts that we can have for children is to upskill our teachers.'
While Phillips said she was disappointed about the axing of the programme, she welcomed greater investment into learning support.
'We all want money to our children, right? Learning support is huge,' she said.
'If it's genuinely being directed to learning support and we genuinely benefit as a region … particularly if we are going to benefit with learning support co-ordinators, because we've been immensely under-served in that area.
'That will soften the blow somewhat.'
Principal of Marlborough Boys' College and board member for Witherlea School Jarrod Dunn said some of the work of the Kahui Ako needed to continue once the programme was gone.
'There will still be work that needs to be done, and I guess the school's going to have to fund that.
'If they're not funding those roles that we've got teachers in at the moment … It's how do we continue to fund those roles, given that the money and the staffing [was coming] through Piritahi Kahui Ako?'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
3 hours ago
- Scoop
Reviewing Our Strategy To Go Predator Free By 2050
Press Release – Science Media Centre Are New Zealand's upcoming predator free goals on the right track? Should we stick with the current target species list as is, or include other predators like feral cats? These are just some of the questions that the public is being invited to comment on as part of a strategy review of the Predator Free 2050 goal for the next five years. It's running in tandem with another public consultation on the next plan to implement New Zealand's biodiversity strategy for the next five years. Both plans are open for public submissions until 30 June. The SMC asked experts to comment. Professor James Russell, School of Biological Sciences, The University of Auckland, comments: 'The Predator Free 2050 strategy review signals that the New Zealand Government continues to take Predator Free New Zealand (PFNZ) seriously and is taking the opportunity to reflect on lessons from the first 10 years to fine tune the next five years. This coincides with a shift in the governance of PFNZ with the duties of the Government's original lead agency PF2050 Ltd now being transferred to the Department of Conservation (DOC). PF2050 Ltd made critical contributions to getting PFNZ underway by spearheading new projects on the ground that involved the community, enabling innovators to deliver new tools, and expanding the conservation frontier to rural and urban landscapes. 'There are some big questions the review is asking for feedback on, one of the biggest being whether the PFNZ programme should be strictly interpreted only as an eradication strategy for possums, rats and mustelids, or whether the PFNZ programme should be considered more literally as the management strategy for all non-native predators in New Zealand, and so expand its scope to include other species such as feral cats and mice (which are major predators of lizards). Importantly, whatever the outcome, introduced predators excluded from the scope of PFNZ would still be managed, and it is recognised that introduced predators are not the only threat to New Zealand's biodiversity. 'The strategy for the next five years also needs to get the balance of investment right among planning, innovating and doing. Complete eradication of every last individual is not something that can be rushed into, and we need to make sure the PFNZ programme is being implemented in such a way so as to maximise the probability of successful eradication while minimising the costs, all the while generating the best outcomes for biodiversity. To ensure accountability, a set of new 2030 goals are proposed against which progress can be assessed to ensure PFNZ is continuing to proceed in the right direction at the right speed. 'To some extent the feasibility of achieving a Predator Free New Zealand is not so much a question of technical nor social feasibility, but simply one of cost – using technical and social innovation can we reduce the currently high cost of eradicating the target predators to a lower price which is affordable and acceptable to the New Zealand public and government. Predator Free New Zealand was always going to be an inter-generational programme and it is only a quarter of the way through its life, but its achievements are clear already and so is the fact that New Zealanders from all walks of life support these achievements.' Conflict of interest statement: 'James has received funding from the Department of Conservation, PF2050 Ltd and Zero Invasive Predators. He is on the organising committee of the Island Invasives 2026 conference.' Dr Duane Peltzer, Principal Scientist, Ecosystem Ecology, Manaaki Whenua Landcare Research, comments: Note: Dr Peltzer is commenting on both the Biodiversity Strategy review and the Predator Free 2050 review. 'The fate of our indigenous species and ecosystems is strongly affected by chronic threats from biological invasions including weeds, pests and diseases, and exacerbated by climate change. What is clear from Te Mana o te Taiao (the NZ Biodiversity Strategy) and embedded initiatives like Predator Free 2050 is that current efforts and approaches require greater resourcing and sustained effort to address these intertwined crises. 'The pair of implementation discussion documents out for public comment highlight major themes and critical actions clearly, and emphasise that co-ordinated actions are required across central and regional government. Perhaps unsurprisingly, there's a stronger emphasis on economics, investment and resourcing of biodiversity and conservation management than has featured previously. 'The focus throughout these implementation plans is on government agency actions, and some consideration is given to supporting or resourcing communities, landowners and business (Action 6). However, there are many additional opportunities, and perhaps hope, for making new progress toward biodiversity goals like: Considering the potential role of international 'nature-based' investments for biodiversity gains; and, Building skills and capacity for innovation of our workforce could be supported through major science system reforms including the emerging 'public research organisations' (including my own organisation becoming a PRO for 'bioeconomy') and universities; Meaningful action to improve local and indigenous people's role in biodiversity management is seen as a priority internationally, and could build strongly on aspirations for land and economic welfare beyond 'increasing protection of biodiversity on private and Māori land'. 'Most themes and critical actions not only require co-ordination or innovation among government agencies as repeatedly recommended by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, but rely crucially on social acceptance and support. A tangible example of this is considering the inclusion of cats as part of predator free activities: technical progress on management will fail without better approaches to navigate the difficult social dimensions of feral cats as pets and predators. Similarly, other introduced species like deer and pines are loved or loathed depending on species, location and people's perceptions. This reflects our pluralism for biodiversity and biosecurity that is scarcely acknowledged in these plans, yet pervasive. Therein lies a grand unresolved challenge of 'implementation'; how do we best achieve aspirational goals across diverse communities and landscapes?' Conflict of interest statement: 'I'm a past member and co-leader of the 'Advancing our knowledge' Predator Free 2050 collaborative group, was engaged with development of te mana o te taiao as part of the New Zealand's Biological Science Heritage National Science Challenge, and am the incoming Portfolio Leader for the Managing Invasive Species Group within Manaaki Whenua which includes research on predator ecology and management.' Dr Courtney Addison, Senior Lecturer, School of Science in Society, Victoria University of Wellington, comments: Comment on inclusion of cats 'One of the key developments in the Predator Free Strategy Review is the question of whether the PF remit should expand to include cats, mice and hedgehogs. 'Until now Predator Free has, culturally speaking, focused on three relatively 'easy' targets: in Aotearoa, rats (excluding kiore) and possums have strong, undesirable cultural associations and are even reviled. This has made it relatively straightforward to propose killing those species, and indeed, the many active PF projects around the country reflect a widespread willingness to do so. 'Cats and to a lesser extent hedgehogs are a different proposition. Many New Zealanders own and care for cats, share their homes with them, and regard them as companions or even family members. They grieve cats when they die, and often go to great lengths to ensure their comfort and longevity. The Strategy document distinguishes between feral, stray, and domestic cats, but whether these distinctions are seen as meaningful by wider communities remains to be seen. 'PF2025 has anticipated these complexities, and the current consultation is a first step to solicit people's feelings about feral cat control. It's also a good opportunity to start a more expansive conversation about what kind of lives and relationships we want to have with other species, and how we might cultivate those. On a different note, it is surprising that the PF document makes no mention of animal welfare.' Comment on innovation 'Predator Free 2050 is such a tricky undertaking to write about. It represents a massive bet on the power of science and innovation at a time when those very things have been gutted by government. It's also a big swing for an aspirational environmental future—at a time when government has both withdrawn funding for conservation and made multiple policy decisions that directly jeopardise the environment. 'What to make of these seemingly incoherent moves? They reflect very transparently what innovation studies has documented in case after case—that bids for innovation, even if well intentioned and productive, are often used to justify the deferral of less flashy but important work in the near term. (It's worth noting that the 'linear model of innovation' that emerged in the mid-1900s was itself predicated on a link between basic and applied research. This model has been widely critiqued, but its imprint in the PF Strategy raises questions given the newly constrained funding environment for basic research.) 'Of course, that's not an argument against innovation or R&D, but we should think carefully about the dynamics that come with this path forward—especially given the aim to generate private and philanthropic funding. We have a recent cautionary tale in the government's stalled attempt to meet its greenhouse gas emissions reduction via privately operated carbon capture. Going all in on innovation for predator control while other aspects of the environment languish may be politically convenient, but irresponsible.' Conflict of interest statement: 'I currently hold a Marsden Fast Start to explore the social complexities of 1080 use in Aotearoa.' Dr Grant Norbury, Principal Researcher, Manaaki Whenua Landcare Research, comments: 'A review of the Predator Free programme is a very good idea. The four objectives proposed over the next five years are sound, but I worry that by 2050 we will still be struggling to develop the necessary tools and social licence to remove every individual target pest from the mainland. There is no doubt that better predator control methods and improved outcomes for some native fauna will be achieved, but there is a massive difference between developing better ways to reduce pest numbers versus removing every individual. And at what cost? What other conservation options could we spend the money on to achieve more reliable outcomes? Eradication of any pest requires a specific set of conditions that must be met, otherwise there is no point starting. We need the right technology to remove every individual (or very close to it) from every nook and cranny in New Zealand, whether it's a remote side valley in the backcountry of rugged Fiordland, or in a busy suburb in downtown Auckland occupied by thousands of people. Predators are like us – they have personalities, some are very shy and cautious of anything that looks different in their environment. If we cannot make every individual interact with whatever technology we devise to remove them, we're not going to win. Also, people will complicate matters. New Zealand is world-renowned for eradicating pests, but these successes have been almost entirely on uninhabited islands. On the mainland, we need to deal with the complexity of 5.2 million people going about their lives in towns, cities, farms, and industry. Pest eradication amongst millions of people will be a massive challenge.'
Scoop
5 hours ago
- Scoop
Reviewing Our Strategy To Go Predator Free By 2050
Are New Zealand's upcoming predator free goals on the right track? Should we stick with the current target species list as is, or include other predators like feral cats? These are just some of the questions that the public is being invited to comment on as part of a strategy review of the Predator Free 2050 goal for the next five years. It's running in tandem with another public consultation on the next plan to implement New Zealand's biodiversity strategy for the next five years. Both plans are open for public submissions until 30 June. The SMC asked experts to comment. Professor James Russell, School of Biological Sciences, The University of Auckland, comments: 'The Predator Free 2050 strategy review signals that the New Zealand Government continues to take Predator Free New Zealand (PFNZ) seriously and is taking the opportunity to reflect on lessons from the first 10 years to fine tune the next five years. This coincides with a shift in the governance of PFNZ with the duties of the Government's original lead agency PF2050 Ltd now being transferred to the Department of Conservation (DOC). PF2050 Ltd made critical contributions to getting PFNZ underway by spearheading new projects on the ground that involved the community, enabling innovators to deliver new tools, and expanding the conservation frontier to rural and urban landscapes. 'There are some big questions the review is asking for feedback on, one of the biggest being whether the PFNZ programme should be strictly interpreted only as an eradication strategy for possums, rats and mustelids, or whether the PFNZ programme should be considered more literally as the management strategy for all non-native predators in New Zealand, and so expand its scope to include other species such as feral cats and mice (which are major predators of lizards). Importantly, whatever the outcome, introduced predators excluded from the scope of PFNZ would still be managed, and it is recognised that introduced predators are not the only threat to New Zealand's biodiversity. 'The strategy for the next five years also needs to get the balance of investment right among planning, innovating and doing. Complete eradication of every last individual is not something that can be rushed into, and we need to make sure the PFNZ programme is being implemented in such a way so as to maximise the probability of successful eradication while minimising the costs, all the while generating the best outcomes for biodiversity. To ensure accountability, a set of new 2030 goals are proposed against which progress can be assessed to ensure PFNZ is continuing to proceed in the right direction at the right speed. 'To some extent the feasibility of achieving a Predator Free New Zealand is not so much a question of technical nor social feasibility, but simply one of cost – using technical and social innovation can we reduce the currently high cost of eradicating the target predators to a lower price which is affordable and acceptable to the New Zealand public and government. Predator Free New Zealand was always going to be an inter-generational programme and it is only a quarter of the way through its life, but its achievements are clear already and so is the fact that New Zealanders from all walks of life support these achievements.' Conflict of interest statement: 'James has received funding from the Department of Conservation, PF2050 Ltd and Zero Invasive Predators. He is on the organising committee of the Island Invasives 2026 conference.' Dr Duane Peltzer, Principal Scientist, Ecosystem Ecology, Manaaki Whenua Landcare Research, comments: Note: Dr Peltzer is commenting on both the Biodiversity Strategy review and the Predator Free 2050 review. 'The fate of our indigenous species and ecosystems is strongly affected by chronic threats from biological invasions including weeds, pests and diseases, and exacerbated by climate change. What is clear from Te Mana o te Taiao (the NZ Biodiversity Strategy) and embedded initiatives like Predator Free 2050 is that current efforts and approaches require greater resourcing and sustained effort to address these intertwined crises. 'The pair of implementation discussion documents out for public comment highlight major themes and critical actions clearly, and emphasise that co-ordinated actions are required across central and regional government. Perhaps unsurprisingly, there's a stronger emphasis on economics, investment and resourcing of biodiversity and conservation management than has featured previously. 'The focus throughout these implementation plans is on government agency actions, and some consideration is given to supporting or resourcing communities, landowners and business (Action 6). However, there are many additional opportunities, and perhaps hope, for making new progress toward biodiversity goals like: Considering the potential role of international 'nature-based' investments for biodiversity gains; and, Building skills and capacity for innovation of our workforce could be supported through major science system reforms including the emerging 'public research organisations' (including my own organisation becoming a PRO for 'bioeconomy') and universities; Meaningful action to improve local and indigenous people's role in biodiversity management is seen as a priority internationally, and could build strongly on aspirations for land and economic welfare beyond 'increasing protection of biodiversity on private and Māori land'. 'Most themes and critical actions not only require co-ordination or innovation among government agencies as repeatedly recommended by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, but rely crucially on social acceptance and support. A tangible example of this is considering the inclusion of cats as part of predator free activities: technical progress on management will fail without better approaches to navigate the difficult social dimensions of feral cats as pets and predators. Similarly, other introduced species like deer and pines are loved or loathed depending on species, location and people's perceptions. This reflects our pluralism for biodiversity and biosecurity that is scarcely acknowledged in these plans, yet pervasive. Therein lies a grand unresolved challenge of 'implementation'; how do we best achieve aspirational goals across diverse communities and landscapes?' Conflict of interest statement: 'I'm a past member and co-leader of the 'Advancing our knowledge' Predator Free 2050 collaborative group, was engaged with development of te mana o te taiao as part of the New Zealand's Biological Science Heritage National Science Challenge, and am the incoming Portfolio Leader for the Managing Invasive Species Group within Manaaki Whenua which includes research on predator ecology and management.' Dr Courtney Addison, Senior Lecturer, School of Science in Society, Victoria University of Wellington, comments: Comment on inclusion of cats 'One of the key developments in the Predator Free Strategy Review is the question of whether the PF remit should expand to include cats, mice and hedgehogs. 'Until now Predator Free has, culturally speaking, focused on three relatively 'easy' targets: in Aotearoa, rats (excluding kiore) and possums have strong, undesirable cultural associations and are even reviled. This has made it relatively straightforward to propose killing those species, and indeed, the many active PF projects around the country reflect a widespread willingness to do so. 'Cats and to a lesser extent hedgehogs are a different proposition. Many New Zealanders own and care for cats, share their homes with them, and regard them as companions or even family members. They grieve cats when they die, and often go to great lengths to ensure their comfort and longevity. The Strategy document distinguishes between feral, stray, and domestic cats, but whether these distinctions are seen as meaningful by wider communities remains to be seen. 'PF2025 has anticipated these complexities, and the current consultation is a first step to solicit people's feelings about feral cat control. It's also a good opportunity to start a more expansive conversation about what kind of lives and relationships we want to have with other species, and how we might cultivate those. On a different note, it is surprising that the PF document makes no mention of animal welfare.' Comment on innovation 'Predator Free 2050 is such a tricky undertaking to write about. It represents a massive bet on the power of science and innovation at a time when those very things have been gutted by government. It's also a big swing for an aspirational environmental future—at a time when government has both withdrawn funding for conservation and made multiple policy decisions that directly jeopardise the environment. 'What to make of these seemingly incoherent moves? They reflect very transparently what innovation studies has documented in case after case—that bids for innovation, even if well intentioned and productive, are often used to justify the deferral of less flashy but important work in the near term. (It's worth noting that the 'linear model of innovation' that emerged in the mid-1900s was itself predicated on a link between basic and applied research. This model has been widely critiqued, but its imprint in the PF Strategy raises questions given the newly constrained funding environment for basic research.) 'Of course, that's not an argument against innovation or R&D, but we should think carefully about the dynamics that come with this path forward—especially given the aim to generate private and philanthropic funding. We have a recent cautionary tale in the government's stalled attempt to meet its greenhouse gas emissions reduction via privately operated carbon capture. Going all in on innovation for predator control while other aspects of the environment languish may be politically convenient, but irresponsible.' Conflict of interest statement: 'I currently hold a Marsden Fast Start to explore the social complexities of 1080 use in Aotearoa.' Dr Grant Norbury, Principal Researcher, Manaaki Whenua Landcare Research, comments: 'A review of the Predator Free programme is a very good idea. The four objectives proposed over the next five years are sound, but I worry that by 2050 we will still be struggling to develop the necessary tools and social licence to remove every individual target pest from the mainland. There is no doubt that better predator control methods and improved outcomes for some native fauna will be achieved, but there is a massive difference between developing better ways to reduce pest numbers versus removing every individual. And at what cost? What other conservation options could we spend the money on to achieve more reliable outcomes? Eradication of any pest requires a specific set of conditions that must be met, otherwise there is no point starting. We need the right technology to remove every individual (or very close to it) from every nook and cranny in New Zealand, whether it's a remote side valley in the backcountry of rugged Fiordland, or in a busy suburb in downtown Auckland occupied by thousands of people. Predators are like us – they have personalities, some are very shy and cautious of anything that looks different in their environment. If we cannot make every individual interact with whatever technology we devise to remove them, we're not going to win. Also, people will complicate matters. New Zealand is world-renowned for eradicating pests, but these successes have been almost entirely on uninhabited islands. On the mainland, we need to deal with the complexity of 5.2 million people going about their lives in towns, cities, farms, and industry. Pest eradication amongst millions of people will be a massive challenge.'
RNZ News
11 hours ago
- RNZ News
Highest number of 15-year-olds drop out of school since 2007
Last year 1376 teens were allowed to leave school before the age of 16. Photo: RNZ / Richard Tindiller More 15-year-olds are being allowed to leave school, Education Ministry figures show. In both 2023 and 2024 the number of early leavers was higher than any year since 2007. The ministry said 1376 teens were allowed to leave before the age of 16 last year, though the figure was preliminary because some might have later returned to school. In 2023, 1291 15-year-olds were granted early leaving exemptions, giving an early leaving rate of 20 per 1000 15-year-olds. However, Māori students were granted exemptions at a rate of 47 per 1000 15-year-olds and accounted for 761 of the 2023 exemptions. The figures also showed Northland had the highest rate of early leaving exemption at 61 per 1000, followed by Nelson with 42 and Bay of Plenty with 41. A ministry report on the 2023 data showed several schools in the group classified as facing the most socio-economic barriers had early leaving rates ranging from 150 to nearly 350 per 1000 15-year-olds. The report said the number of applications for early leaving exemptions reached more than 70 per 1000 in the early 2000s, but a rule change in 2007 dropped the rate to 11. "Between 2008 and 2012, the rate of early leaving exemptions continued to decrease and remained at a consistently low level. Following the 2008 global financial crisis, from 2009 to 2014 the unemployment rates for 15- to 19-year-olds were very high (over 18 percent) and this may have affected the number of requests for an early leaving exemption. Since 2014, the number of approved early leaving exemptions has been increasing. In 2014, there were 362 approved early leaving exemptions, increasing to 1291 in 2023," it said. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
