Children who start school later gain advantage, new study shows (?)

The paper underlying this report does not yet appear to be online but the Centre seems very Leftist so the research is unlikely to be very rigorous.

Even the report below does however reveal a lack of rigour.  It is apparently based on the nonsensical "all men are equal" dogma.  No attempt is made to take account of student IQ. High IQ students have often been shown to thrive when enrolled early and the usual squawk about their social fitness has been shown to be a snark.  Smart kids are in general better socially as well as academically

So the study tells us nothing certain.  There were presumably a number of low IQ students in the sample who would benefit from a late start.  So the finding of an overall benefit from a late start could be entirely a product of the low IQ element in the sample.  How students of around average IQ fare is simply not addressed


Children who are held back and start school later than their peers gain an advantage that is still felt up to six decades later, a new study shows.

They are more self-confident, resilient, competitive and trusting, which tends to be associated with economic success.

The analysis of 1007 adults aged between 24 and 60 illustrates the “potential adverse effect of school entry rules,” lead author Lionel Page from the University of Technology, Sydney said.

“Our findings indicate that school entry rules influence the formation of behavioural traits, creating long-lasting disparities between individuals born on different sides of the cut-off date,” he said.

School starting ages vary between Australian states. In Victoria, children starting school must turn five by April 30 in the year they start school, whereas in Queensland and Western Australia the cut-off is June 30. In South Australia,, they must be five by May 1 and in Tasmania they must be five by January 1.

Dr Page said the study’s findings suggested the relative age at school had an impact on people’s success in adulthood.

“We find that participants who were relatively old in school exhibit higher self-confidence about their performance at an effort task compared to those who were relatively young,” he said.

“Moreover, they declare being more tolerant to risk in a range of real-life situations and trusting of other people in social interactions.

“Taken together, this set of results offers important insights on the long-term effects of relative age at school on behavioural traits.”

The new study was published by the Life Course Centre, a joint research project between the federal government and the University of Queensland, the University of Sydney, the University of Melbourne and the University of Western Australia.

It involved adults from Queensland, Tasmania, Victoria and Western Australia.

The findings come as a UNSW study found a quarter of students are held back so they start school when turning six, not when they turn five.

SOURCE  





‘Offensive and wrong’: Proud Baby Boomers hit back

I commented on this issue yesterday

How sad it is to see yet another economist joining the “bash-the-Baby-Boomer” bandwagon.

Yesterday, news.com.au published a piece declaring Baby Boomers to be the “luxury generation”, who have “a sweet ride on a gravy train consisting of franking credits and loopholes in superannuation and pension rules”.

There has to be smarter and kinder way to find policies that will take our country forward into continuing economic prosperity without playing the old class warfare or generational warfare cards that so easily divide us.

Many Baby Boomers have long argued for a more balanced tax system but so far none of the political class have had the wit or the courage to make the changes necessary so that everyone from students to nursing home residents would receive a fairer go.

And speaking of fairness, franking credits are frequently raised, as they were in yesterday’s piece, as an example of an unfair policy that largely benefits retirees. But it’s not as simple as that - most simply, franking credits exist to stop tax being paid twice. If a company has already paid tax on its profits, why should its shareholders have to pay again?

Negative gearing is another policy touted to favour older people - but that ignores the fact that negative gearing and investors have driven the surge in Australia’s property market, boosting our economy in the process.

As economists and academics seek to influence the debate about the growing cost of our ageing population they would do well to steer clear of the sort of inflammatory rhetoric that caused such controversy when “smashed avocados on toast” stole the headlines.

For those of us who have worked full-time for more than 40 years and dutifully paid our taxes while raising families, educating children, creating wealth and – by the way – generating decades of sustained economic growth and national good fortune, the idea that we should be tagged the “luxury generation” is offensive and wrong.

If retirees decide to spend some of their hard-earned superannuation savings or a windfall from downsizing on an overseas trip, they should not be vilified by people who feel there is no golden future for them and who would happily sentence their parents’ generation to a life of poverty.

Many older Australians may not have enjoyed overseas trips as they raised their families, paid their mortgages, taxes and super contributions. It would be interesting to see how many overseas holidays have been taken by 25- to 45-year-olds compared with their Baby Boomer parents at the same age.

Here are some of the things that Baby Boomers didn’t have early on, that have made life much better for all Australians since then:

* Free tertiary education, until 1973: The first wave of Baby Boomers – born between 1946 and 1955 – had to either pay for it themselves with no student loans or else win scholarships that were only available to the few. And there were only a handful of universities, so there were far fewer places.

* Medicare, until Bob Hawke introduced it in 1984.

* Compulsory superannuation – until the Hawke-Keating government introduced it in 1991.

* Easy access to subsidised childcare at regulated childcare centres.

* Flexible working conditions.

* Paid (and unpaid) maternity/parental leave.

* First homebuyer government grants (or, for the most part, the “bank of mum and dad”).

* Anti-discrimination legislation until racial discrimination was outlawed in 1975 and other laws followed on.

* The power to say “no” to military conscription between 1964 and December 1972.

The nation does have an ageing population crisis and successive governments have been warned about it for decades, but what have they done? Answer, very little.

Bob Hawke and Paul Keating gazed into the demographic crystal ball and saw compulsory superannuation as a key component of the solution.

Now we are faced with academics and economists arguing against increasing super to 12 per cent while applying heavier taxes to the national nest egg. If they succeed then the very problem they are concerned about will worsen exponentially.

One way to ease the burden is to keep older Australians in the workforce, but that would involve a total rethink of the ageist policies adopted by both the private and public sectors that openly discriminate against older worker despite the law.

Some enlightened sectors of the economy have come up with ways to keep older workers and their wisdom and experience on the payroll, but sadly most haven’t. Age discrimination is rife.

One of the most bizarre attacks against Boomers involves the family home. It is rare to hear anyone complaining about inheriting a property, whether valuable or quite modest, that was paid for by the sweat and tears of their parents.

SOURCE  







Uncaring Australian army top brass

Maybe just another bureaucracy but if he had been female you would never have been able to shut them up about it.  They are very politically "correct" these days and real heroism such as we saw from Ben are old hat or even contemptible in that mindset

The country's most decorated soldier, Victoria Cross recipient Ben Roberts-Smith, has lashed out at the nation's defence chiefs for failing to publicly back him as his reputation and military record suffered sustained attacks over allegations he committed war crimes during his service in Afghanistan.

Mr Roberts-Smith said be had recently been contacted by .the Australian Defence Force to conduct a "welfare check", seven years after he left the army and nearly two years after he first appeared in a series of media reports accusing him of war crimes.

The call came just days after he publicly criticised the leadership of the ADF for failing to look after soldiers after they left the military.

Mr Roberts-Smith confirmed he had been contacted by the ADF, telling The Weekend Australian: "While I appreciate the sentiment of a welfare check, it does highlight the issue at hand — it is a reactive step that occurred after my public comments."

Mr Roberts-Smith said the ADF culture "has always been this reactive self-protection from the senior leadership" and criticised the lack of support offered to transitioning Diggers, who were statistically at a higher risk of suicide after they left the military.

Mr Roberts-Smith is locked in a personal battle to clear his reputation after being accused of war crimes in a series of stories by Nine Media. He is also being investigated by the Australian Federal Police over a possible war crime committed in the Afghan village of Daman in 2012.

Mr Roberts-Smith vehemently denies any wrongdoing and is suing Fairfax Media, now owned by Nine, over the stories. He said he was loathe to compare his own troubles with those of struggling former soldiers, who he said were at greater risk. But he noted that at no point had his former bosses offered any public comment of support; despite the allegations against him being unproven.

"Given the public scrutiny I've faced and the false accusations made against me, I would have assumed the Defence Force, which created my profile and placed me on a pedestal in the public arena, would have made some public comment about my good character and service given that at no stage have I ever been approached by law enforcement," Mr Roberts-Smith said.

Mr Roberts-Smith clarified he was. not calling for Defence chiefs to be sacked after being quoted on Friday morning saying he "absolutely" believed new leadership was needed at the top of the ADF.

National president of the RSL Greg Melick said there was no need for ADF leadership to step down because of their treatment of veterans. Mr Melick said if this was the view of Mr Roberts-Smith, then "I don't agree with him".

From the "Weekend Australian" of 16/11/19






Leaked emails show ABC journalists conspiring on Global Warming

Leaked emails have shown ABC journalists and producers conspiring together behind closed doors to push an ideological line on Global warming.

The first leaked email was sent on Sunday to journalists at the taxpayer funded public broadcaster by Melbourne executive producer Barbara Heggen. Heggen wrote that she was inquiring after “interest in an ABC-staff climate crisis advisory group”. The purpose of this new group was to “gather together the brains trust of the ABC staffers to develop ways to report on and inform Australians about the climate crisis using a solutions journalism approach”  and “to report back to ABC management our ideas and strategies for responding to the climate crisis both internally and externally”.

For those unaware, Ms Heggen is the woman responsible for such sterling journalism as this article discussing the possibility of fleeing to Tasmania to escape climate change and this radio segment talking about whether or not Australians should stop having children to save the planet.

The “Solutions journalism approach” she advocates is a theory of journalism developed in the late 90s which suggested that journalists shouldn’t simply report the facts but should suggest “solutions” to social problems. How this fits in with the obligations of the ABC charter is of course an interesting question.

Barbara’s friends and colleagues were excited at the prospect of what would effectively be an internal lobby group inside the ABC pushing for even more extreme alarmism and bias than currently. The ABC’s national rural reporter, Dominique Schwartz replied: “I’m keen. I have just been looking into how other media organisations are dealing with coverage of climate change.”

Investigative reporter Stephen Long agreed: “Also keen to discuss this. You should be aware also that [Editorial Policies] is having a look at this issue.” To get an insight into Stephen’s view on the matter one only needs to peruse the over two dozen articles he’s written slamming the proposed Adani coal mine, plus his other articles spruiking the benefits of renewables and downplaying the threat of blackouts caused by them.

ABC PM Presenter Linda Mottram also agreed: “We must report established science, the evidence, and not myth.” Presumably when Ms Mottram is speaking of reporting “evidence” instead of “myth” she’s referring to stories such as the one from earlier this month where the ABC breathlessly announced that 11,000 scientists were “declaring a climate emergency. The ABC of course neglected to mention during this “evidence” based reporting that many of the signatures were obviously false and that one of the signatories was a Professor “Mickey Mouse”.

I guess if they want to improve their “evidence” based reporting they can always give Tim Flannery another bag full of money to film yet another series. Maybe this time he can expand on his belief in a Gaia-like earth spirit.

The ABC receives over a billion dollars a year of taxpayer funds. If its journalists weren’t publicly funded then these leaked emails showing them conspiring to slant coverage behind closed doors would be annoying; but as an organisation funded by involuntary contributions of taxpayers it’s enraging.

The ABC will never reform unless it is under the threat of complete defunding. The time to start threatening that defunding is now.

SOURCE  






‘Inside’ the ABC’s climate group

Alas, the latest ABC staff-initiated brainchild is no more. As revealed on Monday through emails obtained by The Australian, senior journalists at Aunty had discussed establishing an “ABC-Staff climate crisis advisory group” to “report back to ABC management our ideas and strategies for responding to the climate crisis both internally and externally”.

ABC producer and presenter Barbara Heggen had made the proposal, suggesting a “solutions journalism approach”. ABC Melbourne journalist Karen Percy described it as “a fabulous idea,” national rural and regional correspondent Dominique Schwartz said she was “keen”. Senior journalist Linda Mottram said it was a “great idea”, also speaking of the “need (for) constant reminders that we must report established science, the evidence, and not myth”. Incidentally, Mottram’s ABC bio notes “Most recently she has taken a strong interest in editorial training at the ABC”.

The Institute of Public Affairs director of policy Gideon Rozner summed it up best. “Because if there’s a gap in ABC coverage, it’s climate change,” he quipped. As noted by The Australian’s media editor, Leo Shanahan, ABC policies require that “editorial decisions are not improperly influenced by political, sectional, commercial or personal interests”.

Yesterday ABC chairwoman Ita Buttrose put the kybosh on these journalists come crisis activists, stating “it was one of those ideas that is not going to happen.”

SOURCE  

 Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.).    For a daily critique of Leftist activities,  see DISSECTING LEFTISM.  To keep up with attacks on free speech see Tongue Tied. Also, don't forget your daily roundup  of pro-environment but anti-Greenie  news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH .  Email me  here