Toyota takes a dive
20th February 2010
A year ago we bought a Toyota Corolla. It’s a beauty – sleek, comfortable, drives like a million bucks and, according to the Dog and Lemon Guide, as safe as houses. In the past fortnight mounting revelations of faulty brakes, dodgy steering and sticky accelerators have made my Toyota seem as safe as a house in Haiti. I look at it sideways. What tiny menace lurks beneath its smooth features? What miniscule distortion of metal, what nano-slip of engineering mars a cable or lever or rod, biding its time, waiting to pitch me off the road?
I hesitate to read a newspaper or watch the news, fearful of further stories about my marred Corolla. Have the airbags been holed? Will the cigarette lighter explode?
I note with interest, and unease, that Toyota’s executives have decided, after a short interval of denial, to get everything off their chests. They are almost tripping over themselves in their rush to reveal the faults in their fleet, wisely realising that now the media is hunting them it will all come out anyway. They are wonderfully measured in their debasement of themselves, falling on their swords with the naked formality unique to Japan.
Interestingly, as the world’s most trusted car maker sinks to its knees it drags with it a host of lesser known but equally important businesses. One of these is Koito Industries. Koito is part of a group of companies that earn their living making components for Toyota and other companies. As far as I know Koito doesn’t make the sticky accelerators or slippery brakes that may or may not be fitted to my Corolla but it possesses a marvellous little scandal that is an intriguing sidebar to the Toyota story.
Koito makes aircraft seats. It sells them to airline companies all over the world and you are sure to have sat on its products. The airline industry has very strict rules about the safety of its seats. Each seat must be tested for strength and fireproofing. A few years ago there was so much demand for its aircraft seats a few of Koito’s engineers decided they didn’t have time to test each seat. They fabricated test results and even developed software that produced acceptable results when industry inspectors came to call.
There are now 150,000 suspect seats winging around the world in over 1,000 Boeing and Airbus planes. I’m sure I’ve sat in a few – they’re the ones that wobble and feel lumpy. Or was that just the inflight peanuts?
Koito’s dodginess creates a big problem for the airline industry, which is far more readily spooked than the car business by any taint of poor safety. Replacing or checking the safety of the seats will take time. In the meantime grounding every aircraft fitted with the dodgy seats would ruin half a dozen of the world’s biggest operators.
Airline companies are scrambling for strategies to reassure passengers they remain safe despite the risk of their seat falling apart beneath them. Some have suggested passengers should remain standing throughout their flight. Safety information has been modified to include advice about new brace positions for collapsing furniture. It is reported that budget airlines are considering ripping out all seats and requiring passengers to bring their own chair or sit on the floor. Early trials of this strategy led to problems with unbalanced aircraft as groups of passengers clustered together to play cards and complaints that passengers were looking up the skirts of cabin crew.
In Japan Koito Industries has been placed under an official improvement order – the industrial equivalent of home detention – while Toyota bandages its reputation. And as I nervously drive my Corolla to the airport I wonder if the seats on the aircraft will have been replaced by rows of beer crates.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Monday, February 08, 2010
Why National Standards worry teachers
6th February 2010
As children returned to school this week a major reform of education was launched. It was the New Zealand Curriculum, the result of years of careful development, consultation and training. It is a unique document to bring New Zealand education into the 21st century. Teachers, principals and Boards of Trustees are excited about its potential.
The launch of the new curriculum has of course been completely overshadowed by the introduction of National Standards. This is no surprise considering the government’s determination that National Standards, not the Curriculum, will be the most important educational change in 20 years.
Debate around National Standards puzzles the public. Why are government and teachers at odds over a policy that seems so obviously good for children? Surely it’s a no-brainer to want to know how your child is achieving against a standard and to have that information reported in plain language?
So why the fuss? John Key tells us the opponents of National Standards are just grumpy teacher unions defending a vested interest in keeping their members comfortable. In fact concerns about the Standards began among academics and include a growing number of school Boards and at least one of Mr Key’s own cabinet ministers.
The most immediate concern is that the Standards have not been trialled. The government’s haste to implement an election promise saw National Standards written and introduced within twelve months, a timeframe that made a mockery of consultation and a stark contrast to the introduction of the New Zealand Curriculum.
The roll out of NCEA into secondary schools should have taught us the errors of introducing complex change without sufficient trial. The fact is we don’t know how well the Standards reflect what children can achieve. They draw together a range of assessment methods currently used in schools but not designed to work together to make a definitive (or simplistic) generalisation about a child’s achievement against a National Standard.
Another concern is lack of training. Teachers are experts in assessing children’s learning but the government believes too many are not up to scratch. Unfortunately this is not matched with resources for implementing National Standards. The $26 million announced this week for teacher development, along with a similar sum announced last year, are to support poorly performing schools identified by National Standards results. As this information will not be available until 2012 it is hard to see how the money will be allocated. In the meantime, apart from some on-line resources, most schools are receiving no support.
A grave concern of teachers is that data showing how their school performs will eventually be available for the media to construct league tables. The concern springs not from fear of accountability but from the real damage league tables do to student achievement.
The threat in league tables stems from the tendency of National Standards to become minimum standards. Schools under pressure to look good in the league table will devote their resources to lifting the greatest number of children up to the bar. This means they will concentrate on children just below the Standard, to the neglect of those above or well below. So both the bright and the most needy children suffer, with the ironic result that National Standards produces the very mediocrity and inequity it aims to eradicate.
This has been the experience in Britain and the USA. Both countries are now scrambling to extricate themselves from the disasters of high-stakes assessment. Anne Tolley claims we will not reproduce their mistakes because we have not opted for a single national test, but the danger lies not in how children are tested but in the use of the data to create league tables.
Teachers are frustrated by the Minister’s determination to make our education system appear broken. Mrs Tolley creates the impression that National Standards fill a gaping void. This is far from the truth. Teachers already know who is not achieving and are working effectively to support those children, often in the most trying conditions.
Mrs Tolley justifies her policies by repeating that 20% of students are failing. What she means is that currently 20% of students fail to achieve literacy and numeracy standards at University Entrance level (NCEA level 2). This figure has been dropping for some time and those groups at greatest risk of failure, Maori and Pasifika students, are already the focus of a range of interventions.
Education in New Zealand is world class, our teachers are professional and open to change. If the government agreed to trial National Standards and to legislate against league tables the opposition would largely vanish. Is that too much to ask?
Peter Verstappen
6th February 2010
6th February 2010
As children returned to school this week a major reform of education was launched. It was the New Zealand Curriculum, the result of years of careful development, consultation and training. It is a unique document to bring New Zealand education into the 21st century. Teachers, principals and Boards of Trustees are excited about its potential.
The launch of the new curriculum has of course been completely overshadowed by the introduction of National Standards. This is no surprise considering the government’s determination that National Standards, not the Curriculum, will be the most important educational change in 20 years.
Debate around National Standards puzzles the public. Why are government and teachers at odds over a policy that seems so obviously good for children? Surely it’s a no-brainer to want to know how your child is achieving against a standard and to have that information reported in plain language?
So why the fuss? John Key tells us the opponents of National Standards are just grumpy teacher unions defending a vested interest in keeping their members comfortable. In fact concerns about the Standards began among academics and include a growing number of school Boards and at least one of Mr Key’s own cabinet ministers.
The most immediate concern is that the Standards have not been trialled. The government’s haste to implement an election promise saw National Standards written and introduced within twelve months, a timeframe that made a mockery of consultation and a stark contrast to the introduction of the New Zealand Curriculum.
The roll out of NCEA into secondary schools should have taught us the errors of introducing complex change without sufficient trial. The fact is we don’t know how well the Standards reflect what children can achieve. They draw together a range of assessment methods currently used in schools but not designed to work together to make a definitive (or simplistic) generalisation about a child’s achievement against a National Standard.
Another concern is lack of training. Teachers are experts in assessing children’s learning but the government believes too many are not up to scratch. Unfortunately this is not matched with resources for implementing National Standards. The $26 million announced this week for teacher development, along with a similar sum announced last year, are to support poorly performing schools identified by National Standards results. As this information will not be available until 2012 it is hard to see how the money will be allocated. In the meantime, apart from some on-line resources, most schools are receiving no support.
A grave concern of teachers is that data showing how their school performs will eventually be available for the media to construct league tables. The concern springs not from fear of accountability but from the real damage league tables do to student achievement.
The threat in league tables stems from the tendency of National Standards to become minimum standards. Schools under pressure to look good in the league table will devote their resources to lifting the greatest number of children up to the bar. This means they will concentrate on children just below the Standard, to the neglect of those above or well below. So both the bright and the most needy children suffer, with the ironic result that National Standards produces the very mediocrity and inequity it aims to eradicate.
This has been the experience in Britain and the USA. Both countries are now scrambling to extricate themselves from the disasters of high-stakes assessment. Anne Tolley claims we will not reproduce their mistakes because we have not opted for a single national test, but the danger lies not in how children are tested but in the use of the data to create league tables.
Teachers are frustrated by the Minister’s determination to make our education system appear broken. Mrs Tolley creates the impression that National Standards fill a gaping void. This is far from the truth. Teachers already know who is not achieving and are working effectively to support those children, often in the most trying conditions.
Mrs Tolley justifies her policies by repeating that 20% of students are failing. What she means is that currently 20% of students fail to achieve literacy and numeracy standards at University Entrance level (NCEA level 2). This figure has been dropping for some time and those groups at greatest risk of failure, Maori and Pasifika students, are already the focus of a range of interventions.
Education in New Zealand is world class, our teachers are professional and open to change. If the government agreed to trial National Standards and to legislate against league tables the opposition would largely vanish. Is that too much to ask?
Peter Verstappen
6th February 2010
Wednesday, February 03, 2010
Fronting up to our grandchildren
23rd January 2010
January’s post brings a flurry of requests to renew annual subscriptions, mostly for environmental causes that we support in small ways.
But January’s news carries a raft of stories from the environmental frontline that are frankly despairing. Here are a few.
In Sweden authorities have revived wolf hunting. Wolf numbers have risen and 21 will be allowed to be slaughtered this season. The total number of wolves in Sweden is just 217.
Wildlife organisations across Asia are struggling to protect the remaining 3,000 tigers alive in the wild. Of the nine sub-species of tiger, three are officially extinct and a fourth probably so, leaving remnant populations of just a few hundred of each of the remaining five sub-species.
Four of the world’s eight white rhinos were flown from a zoo in the Czech Republic to a wildlife park in Kenya, in a last-ditch effort to stimulate breeding.
These and other stories lend a gallows humour to the UN’s designation of 2010 as the International Year of Biodiversity.
Scientists have identified two episodes of mass species extinction since life began on earth – one of these included the sudden disappearance of the dinosaurs. The causes of these events remain speculative, from rampant viruses to cataclysmic climate change as the result of volcanic activity or large meteorite impact.
Today we find ourselves in the midst of a third mass species extinction, but the cause of this one is obvious. It is human activity.
The market economy, which has miraculously transformed human existence, has been catastrophic for almost every other life form on the planet. Thousands of species of plants and animals have already vanished or will do so very soon, with consequences for the survivors that we cannot imagine.
Some species become extinct because they attract market value. A tiger is currently worth $US50,000, an irresistible sum for a poacher, and the market’s response to scarcity almost guarantees its extinction. Can you imagine the value of the final tiger?
Other species vanish because they command nil, or marginal, market value. Tropical rainforests, the planet’s nurseries for species survival, are rapidly disappearing because their sustainability is worth less than using the land to grow hamburger patties and soy beans.
New Zealand’s loss of species has also largely been the result of habitat destruction or the introduction of predators. Although we no longer knock down large areas of native forest we continue to plunder our least spoiled domains (developing dairy farms in the McKenzie Basin) and constantly ratchet up the pressure on already heavily-exploited environments, like Canterbury’s waterways and wetlands. Ominously, we learn nothing from either our own mistakes or the disasters of others.
The environmental causes I support are all worthwhile, and sometimes extraordinary. Sadly the scale of the disaster forces tough choices and most organisations opt for saving iconic species, knowing the public will dig deeper for the kiwi than for a native fish or frog. I notice a growing acceptance that it is too late to save much of the world’s wildlife in its natural habitat. In a few short years the ‘wild’ will have vanished, so efforts turn to creating sanctuaries, tiny arks of hope for small remnant populations. New Zealand has some remarkable sanctuaries, like Codfish Island in Foveaux Strait, a predator-free bolthole for kakapo.
But the cost and commitment of managing sanctuaries is enormous. Zealandia, a 225ha reserve in Wellington, costs $2million a year, much of this to maintain the 8.6km predator-proof fence. Zealandia has a 500 year plan to restore the sanctuary to a state that existed ‘the day before humans arrived.’ This means finding $2million a year forever.
Locally I support Te Ara Kakariki – Greenway Canterbury – an initiative to develop a patchwork of native bush across the plains, enabling the revival of bird and insect populations.
Each January I renew my commitment and my subscriptions, not with much hope that we can avoid environmental disaster, but so I have at least some reply to my grandchildren when they ask ‘what did you do to keep the world intact for us?’
What will you say to your grandchildren?
23rd January 2010
January’s post brings a flurry of requests to renew annual subscriptions, mostly for environmental causes that we support in small ways.
But January’s news carries a raft of stories from the environmental frontline that are frankly despairing. Here are a few.
In Sweden authorities have revived wolf hunting. Wolf numbers have risen and 21 will be allowed to be slaughtered this season. The total number of wolves in Sweden is just 217.
Wildlife organisations across Asia are struggling to protect the remaining 3,000 tigers alive in the wild. Of the nine sub-species of tiger, three are officially extinct and a fourth probably so, leaving remnant populations of just a few hundred of each of the remaining five sub-species.
Four of the world’s eight white rhinos were flown from a zoo in the Czech Republic to a wildlife park in Kenya, in a last-ditch effort to stimulate breeding.
These and other stories lend a gallows humour to the UN’s designation of 2010 as the International Year of Biodiversity.
Scientists have identified two episodes of mass species extinction since life began on earth – one of these included the sudden disappearance of the dinosaurs. The causes of these events remain speculative, from rampant viruses to cataclysmic climate change as the result of volcanic activity or large meteorite impact.
Today we find ourselves in the midst of a third mass species extinction, but the cause of this one is obvious. It is human activity.
The market economy, which has miraculously transformed human existence, has been catastrophic for almost every other life form on the planet. Thousands of species of plants and animals have already vanished or will do so very soon, with consequences for the survivors that we cannot imagine.
Some species become extinct because they attract market value. A tiger is currently worth $US50,000, an irresistible sum for a poacher, and the market’s response to scarcity almost guarantees its extinction. Can you imagine the value of the final tiger?
Other species vanish because they command nil, or marginal, market value. Tropical rainforests, the planet’s nurseries for species survival, are rapidly disappearing because their sustainability is worth less than using the land to grow hamburger patties and soy beans.
New Zealand’s loss of species has also largely been the result of habitat destruction or the introduction of predators. Although we no longer knock down large areas of native forest we continue to plunder our least spoiled domains (developing dairy farms in the McKenzie Basin) and constantly ratchet up the pressure on already heavily-exploited environments, like Canterbury’s waterways and wetlands. Ominously, we learn nothing from either our own mistakes or the disasters of others.
The environmental causes I support are all worthwhile, and sometimes extraordinary. Sadly the scale of the disaster forces tough choices and most organisations opt for saving iconic species, knowing the public will dig deeper for the kiwi than for a native fish or frog. I notice a growing acceptance that it is too late to save much of the world’s wildlife in its natural habitat. In a few short years the ‘wild’ will have vanished, so efforts turn to creating sanctuaries, tiny arks of hope for small remnant populations. New Zealand has some remarkable sanctuaries, like Codfish Island in Foveaux Strait, a predator-free bolthole for kakapo.
But the cost and commitment of managing sanctuaries is enormous. Zealandia, a 225ha reserve in Wellington, costs $2million a year, much of this to maintain the 8.6km predator-proof fence. Zealandia has a 500 year plan to restore the sanctuary to a state that existed ‘the day before humans arrived.’ This means finding $2million a year forever.
Locally I support Te Ara Kakariki – Greenway Canterbury – an initiative to develop a patchwork of native bush across the plains, enabling the revival of bird and insect populations.
Each January I renew my commitment and my subscriptions, not with much hope that we can avoid environmental disaster, but so I have at least some reply to my grandchildren when they ask ‘what did you do to keep the world intact for us?’
What will you say to your grandchildren?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)