Latest news with #OECD
RNZ News
an hour ago
- Politics
- RNZ News
School system 'fair' but we've been pretending it's 'great'
An international consultancy firm rated New Zealand's education system at the top of "fair", along with countries including Armenia and Greece, and behind Australia which was considered low in the "good" ranking. Photo: Supplied / Ministry of Education How good is the school system? According to an internal Education Ministry document it's "fair" and we've been fooling ourselves that it's "great". The document, sighted by RNZ and understood to date from 2023, also sets out three options for improving the system by specifying through the curriculum what teachers teach and how they teach it. "Our data suggests that the New Zealand education system would be defined at the top of FAIR by McKinsey 2010 yet we have been behaving as if it is GREAT," it said. The McKinsey reference appeared to be to a report by an international consultancy firm that rated education systems from "poor" to "excellent" based on performance in OECD tests between 2000 and 2010. The report placed New Zealand at the top of "fair" along with countries including Armenia and Greece and behind Australia which was considered low in the "good" ranking. Despite steadily declining scores , New Zealand ranked 10th in reading, 11th in science and 23rd in maths in the most recently published OECD Pisa tests of 15-year-olds. The ministry's document said the introduction of a new curriculum in 2007 without sufficient support caused problems for schools. "As we sought to shift from great to excellent, the 2007 curriculum went straight from a detailed curriculum to a very open curriculum. It did so however, without providing the supports needed to maintain and build on system coherence and capability," it said. "Some schools with strong networks, resources, and accountabilities manage to perform well with minimal system supports but many of those carrying the weight of high needs and complex issues struggle. Teacher and learners both struggle." The options for increasing the level of prescription in the curriculum ranged from a high degree practiced in "developing nations including Rwanda" to allowing a balance between the national curriculum and local decision-making similar to schools in Scotland and British Columbia. The document said the most severe option was designed to move schools from poor to fair and the least severe from good to great. The middle option, for moving school systems from fair to good, would mandate the school-level curriculum including what would be taught and when, though schools would retain some ability to localise their curriculum. It said similar approaches were used in Australia and Alberta in Canada. The document said under-prescription left decisions with schools and teachers "who do not always have the capacity or expertise to select appropriate content or approaches". "This can contribute to learner under-achievement and exacerbate inequitable outcomes. The New Zealand curriculum environment shows evidence of under prescription in the highly variable quality of learning that students receive," it said. The paper said over-prescription limited the ability of schools to respond to learners and contexts and to be innovative. "Over time, over prescription may contribute to curriculum overcrowding and a focus on coverage rather than meaningful learning; this can contribute to poor learner outcomes," it said. "Prescribed curricula are also liable to become outdated and require monitoring and support to stay up-to-date. A primary rationale for the design of the 2007 curriculum was to address over prescription in previous curricula." The paper said over-prescription limited the ability of schools to respond to learners and contexts and to be innovative. Photo: RNZ / Mark Papalii The ministry did not tell RNZ which of the options was being followed. However, it said it had advised successive governments about the need to balance national direction with local flexibility. "While high autonomy suits systems with uniformly strong practice and outcomes, New Zealand's variable, inconsistent, and inequitable performance-particularly for Māori, Pacific, disabled and low socio economic students means our current high autonomy settings are not justified," acting curriculum centre leader Pauline Cleaver said. She said the previous government acted on the ministry's advice by starting to make the curriculum clearer about what all learners must know and do, and deciding to mandate a common practice model for how literacy and mathematics should be taught. "The current minister has continued that trajectory, starting with issuing detailed curriculum and teaching practice expectations for English (Years 0-6), Mathematics & Statistics (Years 0-8), Te Reo Rangatira (Years 0-6) and Pāngarau (Years 0-8)." Cleaver said the documents specified what students should learn over time, when and how key content must be taught, and how it should be assessed. Auckland University professor of curriculum and pedagogy Stuart McNaughton said New Zealand's results in international tests were relatively good, but its ability to improve was only fair. "In terms of the the quality judgement from the OECD in point of time and then over time, we're relatively good, relatively high quality," he said. "But having said that, it is also true to say that we have had some declines in achievement and we need to recognise those overall declines in achievement which have in some of the assessments come from high performing students not performing quite as highly," he said. "It is an unfair system and we have a real problem with our equity profile." McNaughton agreed a greater level of prescription was required in the curriculum to improve New Zealand's school system, but he worried it might be going too far in places. "It depends very much on the degree to which both content and teaching are prescribed because if you take it too far, you undermine the agency of the teacher, which is a great risk in a system that that prides itself on innovation and expertise, and the second risk is you've got to be really sure that you've got a good evidence-base for the content that you're providing," he said. McNaughton said the recently-introduced primary school English curriculum over-prescribed how the youngest children should be taught to read because years of evidence showed different children needed different approaches. Post Primary Teachers Association vice-president Kieran Gainsford said he agreed schools lost centrally-provided support in 2007. He said teachers were hopeful it would be restored under the current reforms, but worried the ministry might not be able to provide it and teachers would be left to introduce the new curriculum on their own. Principals Federation president Leanne Otene. Photo: Supplied Principals Federation president Leanne Otene said years of "flip-flopping" education policies had damaged the school system. "We have never been given an opportunity as a workforce to embed a curriculum and to really ensure that our workforce is confident and competent in the curriculum document and its teaching so that we can see improvement in student outcomes. We are just flip-flopping every time there's a change of government," she said. Otene said the problem was happening again with more than 70 percent of teachers and principals telling a recent NZEI survey that curriculum change was happening too fast. "At the moment that pace of change is overwhelming schools... Our principals who are leading teaching and learning for goodness sake, haven't even received any professional development yet and they are supposed to be leading these curriculum changes in their schools. So I would agree, we're not a world class education system," she said. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Khaleej Times
7 hours ago
- Business
- Khaleej Times
OPEC, IEA crude oil demand forecasts may be too cautious
A key difference in crude oil demand forecasts between this year and 2024 is that both OPEC and the International Energy Agency (IEA) are being far more cautious in their growth expectations. While the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and the wider OPEC+ group publicly maintain that strong demand and a tight market justify increasing oil output, the numbers in their monthly report are more circumspect. It is largely the same for the IEA, which forecast in its July monthly report that global crude demand will grow by 700,000 barrels per day (bpd) in 2025, the slowest pace since 2009. OPEC's July report is slightly more bullish, forecasting oil demand will increase by 1.29 million bpd in 2025, with 1.16 million bpd coming from countries outside the developed economies of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). The forecasts from both the IEA and OPEC are now so cautious that they actually run the risk of being too pessimistic, especially in the top-importing region of Asia. This is in stark contrast to last year, when OPEC in particular was massively bullish in its demand forecasts even as Asia's crude oil imports were declining. There is, of course, a difference between demand forecasts and imports, but the level of seaborne imports is the key driver of crude prices, given it is this market, which accounts for about 40% of global daily oil demand, that sets the global prices. In its July 2024 monthly report OPEC forecast that Asia's non-OECD oil demand would rise by 1.34 million bpd in 2024, with China accounting for 760,000 bpd of this. However, Asia's crude imports actually declined in 2024, dropping by 370,000 bpd to 26.51 million bpd, according to data compiled by LSEG Oil Research. It was the first decline in Asia's oil imports since 2021, at a time when demand was hit by the lockdowns prompted by the COVID-19 pandemic. The gap between OPEC's bullish forecasts for much of 2024 and the reality of weak crude imports by Asia may have tempered the exporter group's forecasts for 2025. The question is whether they are now actually being too cautious. Asia recovery OPEC's July monthly report forecast that non-OECD Asia's oil demand will rise by 610,000 bpd in 2025, with China the main contributor at 210,000 and India, Asia's second-biggest crude importer, seeing an increase of 160,000 bpd. The IEA said in its July report that it expects China's total oil product demand to rise by 81,000 bpd in 2025, while India is expected to see a gain of 92,000 bpd. Total non-OECD Asia is forecast to see demand rise by 352,000 bpd. Both the OPEC and the IEA numbers seem modest, especially since Asia's crude imports actually saw relatively strong growth in the first half of 2025. Asia's imports in the first six months of the year were 27.25 million bpd, an increase of 510,000 bpd from the same period last year, according to calculations based on LSEG data. Imports increased in the second quarter, especially in China, as refiners took advantage of the weakening trend in oil prices that prevailed at the time cargoes were being arranged. It is likely that some of the increase in oil imports was used to build inventories, a process that may extend into the second half if oil prices remain soft as OPEC+ increases output amid the economic uncertainty created by U.S. President Donald Trump's ongoing global trade war. If there is one lesson to be learnt from the difference between this year's circumspect oil demand forecasts and last year's buoyant estimates, it is that price plays a far bigger role in demand, especially in Asia. Part of the reason Asia's crude imports fell short of forecasts in 2024 was because prices remained elevated for much of the year, reaching above $92 a barrel in April and only briefly dropping below $70 in September. This year, prices have been softer, with benchmark Brent futures peaking at just over $82 a barrel in January, and trading as low as $58.50 in May.
New Straits Times
10 hours ago
- Business
- New Straits Times
S.Korea's farmers beg not to be sacrificed for US trade deal
THE apples grown in the South Korean county of Cheongsong in the country's southeast are so renowned for their flavour that they are often given out in neatly-packaged gift boxes during national holidays. But apple farmers, who account for about a third of the roughly 14,000 households in the sleepy rural area, worry that their way of life could be under threat from an influx of cheap US imports. Fanning concerns, South Korea's trade minister suggested last week that Seoul could make concessions on some agricultural imports, although he said sensitive items should be protected, as part of any deal to eliminate or reduce punishing US tariffs on cars, steel and other key exports. "US apples are very cheap. We can't compete with them," said Shim Chun-taek, a third-generation farmer who has been growing apples for two decades. He now fears South Korean farmers risk being sacrificed to appease the US and support the country's manufacturing sector. The United States has long called for better market access for its farm products from beef to apples and potatoes. US President Donald Trump in April slammed steep tariffs on rice in South Korea and Japan. South Korea has taken steps to open its market and is now the top buyer of US beef and the sixth-biggest destination for US agricultural exports overall. Still, Washington has complained about persistent non-tariff barriers. South Korea's quarantine agency is still reviewing US market access requests for apples more than 30 years after they were filed, sparking calls by Washington to expedite the approval process for a range of fruits and potatoes. Any opening up of the sector would increase pressure on apple farmers already wrestling with a host of problems, from climate change to an ageing population and wildfires, which have led to rising costs, smaller harvests, and higher prices. Bank of Korea governor Rhee Chang-yong last year said runaway prices of apples and other farm goods were contributing to inflation and that there was a need to consider more imports. The central bank noted South Korea's grocery prices were higher than the average for OECD countries, with apple prices nearly three times higher than the OECD average. "I think it is difficult to justify absolute protection to certain agriculture sectors simply because of its high sensitivity," said Choi Seok-young, a former chief negotiator for the Korea-US free trade deal. It was hard to view the delayed quarantine process as "rational based on science and international norms," added Choi, who is now a senior adviser for law firm Lee & Ko. Agriculture has emerged as one of the sticking points in US trade talks with South Korea and Japan, after countries such as Indonesia and Britain agreed to allow more agricultural imports from the US in recent trade deals. Seoul has long restricted shipments of US beef from cattle older than 30 months. Massive protests from South Koreans worried about safety due to mad cow disease followed a 2008 agreement with the United States to lift the restrictions. Shim, 48, who wakes at 3am every morning to work on his orchards, said it would be impossible to find alternative crops to grow in the mountainous area. The tariff talks have already fuelled protests from farmers' groups. There could be more to come. "We oppose the imports of apples no matter what," Youn Kyung-hee, mayor of Cheongsong county, told Reuters, adding that people will not "sit still" if Seoul opens up the market.
DW
10 hours ago
- Business
- DW
'Made for Germany': German Companies show optimism – DW – 07/22/2025
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has joined forces with the country's top business leaders, who pledge major investment to pull Germany out of recession. There is always an element of psychology in economics. If companies are confident they can do good business in the future, they will strongly invest. If prospects look poor, they will hold on to the money. The COVID-19 pandemic with its collapse of international supply chains, the war in Ukraine, the subsequent energy crisis and inflation, the weakening economy in China — all took a heavy toll on the export-oriented German economy. Economic activity nosedived. Germany slid into a lasting recession. Since then, optimism has not returned. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) registered a lower investment ratio for Germany in 2024 than all other 38 member countries. That will soon change, according to the heads of leading companies in Germany. A total of 61 of them, including corporations such as Airbus, BASF, BMW, Deutsche Börse, Mercedes-Benz, Rheinmetall, SAP, Volkswagen but also the US corporations Nvidia, Blackrock and Blackstone — have launched the initiative "Made for Germany." The name is reminiscent, deliberately, of the slogan "Made in Germany" which has become a symbol of quality. Together, the corporations representing a third of the German economy want to invest €631 billion ($733 billion) in Germany over the next three years. The money will go toward new and existing factories, as well as research and development. "We want economic growth, we want to strengthen Germany's competitiveness, we want to defend our technological leadership or extend it further," one of the alliance's two initiators, Siemens chief executive Roland Busch, said following a meeting of the initiative with government politicians at the chancellery. Christian Sewing, chief executive of Deutsche Bank and co-initiator of the alliance alongside Busch, expects even more businesses to join. "Germany is back. It's worth investing in Germany again," said Chancellor Friedrich Merz of the conservative Christian Democrats (CDU) after the meeting. "We stand here before one of the largest investment initiatives that we have seen here in Germany in recent decades. We are not a location of the past, but a location of the present and above all the future," he added. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video The mood in the chancellery was clearly positive. However, the economic situation in Germany remains sluggish; the country is facing its third year in a row without growth. Given the tariff policies of US President Donald Trump, the outlook is anything but good. Reviving the economy is the top priority for Germany's new government. The coalition of the center-right Christian Democrats and Christian Social Union (CDU/CSU) and the center-left Social Democrats has been in office since early May. They have made their first steps: The Bundestag federal parliament and Bundesrat upper house have authorized the borrowing of €500 billion ($580 billion) for a special fund for government investment in infrastructure and climate protection. Its intended focus is to whip the country's ailing transport routes into shape, invest in energy networks, digitization and research. Energy prices for the industry will be reduced, and businesses are set for massive tax relief. Initially, investment in production facilities, machinery, equipment, research and development will be accounted for during tax assessments. In the medium term, taxes on business are to be reduced. In Friedrich Merz, Germany now has a chancellor who himself spent many years in business. Among other roles, the lawyer formerly chaired the supervisory board of the US financial investor BlackRock. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video "Today we have begun a new form of cooperation," Siemens head Busch said. "The conversation has shown that politics and business are on the same page." Deutsche Bank CEO Sewing added: "In my view, we are experiencing a government that is moving quickly. The most important things — growth and competitiveness — are right at the top of the agenda." To release the announced billions, politicians should ease up on regulations and give companies more freedom, Sewing said. Businesses are calling for reforms, especially concerning bureaucracy and social security contributions which push up the cost of labor. In Germany, employers and employees each pay half of worker contributions to health insurance, unemployment insurance and pensions. Due to higher costs for healthcare, health insurance contributions increased across the board at the beginning of this year. Contributions to long-term care insurance are expected to rise in 2026. In Germany, 42% of the gross national product goes toward social services. Pension funds are the biggest driver of this. Germany is an ageing society, and the baby boomer generation will retire from the workforce in the coming years. In addition, life expectancy is increasing. To afford the old-age pension, the government must contribute more money to the pension funds each year. According to the OECD, reforming social insurance is the biggest challenge for Germany. If nothing changes, the government will need to keep taking on more debt to keep social systems afloat. Chancellor Friedrich Merz has announced that reforming the social system is next on his coalition's political agenda. Initial findings are expected in the coming you're here: Every Tuesday, DW editors round up what is happening in German politics and society. You can sign up here for the weekly email newsletter, Berlin Briefing.
Reuters
14 hours ago
- Business
- Reuters
OPEC, IEA crude oil demand forecasts may be too cautious
LAUNCESTON, Australia, July 22 (Reuters) - A key difference in crude oil demand forecasts between this year and 2024 is that both OPEC and the International Energy Agency (IEA) are being far more cautious in their growth expectations. While the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and the wider OPEC+ group publicly maintain that strong demand and a tight market justify increasing oil output, the numbers in their monthly report are more circumspect. It is largely the same for the IEA, which forecast in its July monthly report that global crude demand will grow by 700,000 barrels per day (bpd) in 2025, the slowest pace since 2009. OPEC's July report is slightly more bullish, forecasting oil demand will increase by 1.29 million bpd in 2025, with 1.16 million bpd coming from countries outside the developed economies of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). The forecasts from both the IEA and OPEC are now so cautious that they actually run the risk of being too pessimistic, especially in the top-importing region of Asia. This is in stark contrast to last year, when OPEC in particular was massively bullish in its demand forecasts even as Asia's crude oil imports were declining. There is, of course, a difference between demand forecasts and imports, but the level of seaborne imports is the key driver of crude prices, given it is this market, which accounts for about 40% of global daily oil demand, that sets the global prices. In its July 2024 monthly report OPEC forecast that Asia's non-OECD oil demand would rise by 1.34 million bpd in 2024, with China accounting for 760,000 bpd of this. However, Asia's crude imports actually declined in 2024, dropping by 370,000 bpd to 26.51 million bpd, according to data compiled by LSEG Oil Research. It was the first decline in Asia's oil imports since 2021, at a time when demand was hit by the lockdowns prompted by the COVID-19 pandemic. The gap between OPEC's bullish forecasts for much of 2024 and the reality of weak crude imports by Asia may have tempered the exporter group's forecasts for 2025. The question is whether they are now actually being too cautious. OPEC's July monthly report forecast that non-OECD Asia's oil demand will rise by 610,000 bpd in 2025, with China the main contributor at 210,000 and India, Asia's second-biggest crude importer, seeing an increase of 160,000 bpd. The IEA said in its July report that it expects China's total oil product demand to rise by 81,000 bpd in 2025, while India is expected to see a gain of 92,000 bpd. Total non-OECD Asia is forecast to see demand rise by 352,000 bpd. Both the OPEC and the IEA numbers seem modest, especially since Asia's crude imports actually saw relatively strong growth in the first half of 2025. Asia's imports in the first six months of the year were 27.25 million bpd, an increase of 510,000 bpd from the same period last year, according to calculations based on LSEG data. Imports increased in the second quarter, especially in China, as refiners took advantage of the weakening trend in oil prices that prevailed at the time cargoes were being arranged. It is likely that some of the increase in oil imports was used to build inventories, a process that may extend into the second half if oil prices remain soft as OPEC+ increases output amid the economic uncertainty created by U.S. President Donald Trump's ongoing global trade war. If there is one lesson to be learnt from the difference between this year's circumspect oil demand forecasts and last year's buoyant estimates, it is that price plays a far bigger role in demand, especially in Asia. Part of the reason Asia's crude imports fell short of forecasts in 2024 was because prices remained elevated for much of the year, reaching above $92 a barrel in April and only briefly dropping below $70 in September. This year, prices have been softer, with benchmark Brent futures peaking at just over $82 a barrel in January, and trading as low as $58.50 in May. Enjoying this column? Check out Reuters Open Interest (ROI), your essential new source for global financial commentary. ROI delivers thought-provoking, data-driven analysis of everything from swap rates to soybeans. Markets are moving faster than ever. ROI can help you keep up. Follow ROI on LinkedIn, opens new tab and X, opens new tab. The views expressed here are those of the author, a columnist for Reuters.
