This paper reports on a service-learning public journalism project in which postgraduate journalism students explore ways to engage with and report on diverse communities. Media scholars have argued that news media, and local newspapers in particular, must re-engage with their communities. Likewise, journalism studies scholars have urged educators to give journalism students greater opportunities to reflect on their work by getting out among journalism’s critics, often consumers or citizens concerned about content and the preparation of future journalists. The challenge for journalism educators is to prepare students for working in partnership with communities while also developing their ability to operate reflectively and critically within the expectations of the news media industry and wider society. The aim of this project has been to help students find ways to both listen and lead in a community, and also reflect on the challenges and critiques of community journalism practices. The project began in 2013 with stories about residents’ recovery following the devastating 2011 Canterbury earthquakes, and aimed to create stories that could contribute to community connection and engagement, and thereby resilience and recovery. The idea was inspired by research about post-disaster renewal that indicated that communities with strong social capital and social networks were more resilient and recovered more quickly and strongly. The project’s longer-term aim has been to explore community journalism practices that give greater power to citizens and communities by prioritising listening and processes of engagement. Over several months, students network with a community group to identify subjects with whom they will co-create a story, and then complete a story on which they must seek the feedback of their subject. Community leaders have described the project as a key example of how to do things “with people not to people”, and an outstanding contribution to the community-led component of Canterbury’s recovery. Analysis of student reflections, which are a key part of each year’s project, reveals the process of engaging with communities has helped students to map community dynamics, think more critically about source relationships, editorial choices and objectivity norms, and to develop a perspective on the diverse ways they can go about their journalism in the future. Each year, students partner with different groups and organisations, addressing different themes each time the project runs. For 2016, the programme proposes to develop the project in a new way, by not just exploring a community’s stories but also exploring its media needs and it aims to work with Christchurch’s new migrant Filipino community to develop the groundwork for a community media and/or communication platform, which Filipino community leaders say is a pressing need. For this iteration, journalism students will be set further research tasks aimed at deepening their ‘public listening’: they will conduct a survey of community members’ media use and needs as well as qualitative research interviews. It is hoped that the data collected will strengthen students’ understanding of their own journalism practice, as well as form the basis for work on developing media tools for minority groups who are generally poorly represented in mainstream media. In 2015, the journalism programme surveyed its community partners and held follow-up interviews with 13 of 18 story subjects to elicit further feedback on its news content and thereby deepen understanding of different community viewpoints. The survey and interview data revealed the project affected story subjects in a number of positive and interesting ways. Subjects said they appreciated the way student reporters took their time to build relationships and understand the context of the community groups with which they were involved, and contrasted this with their experience of professional journalists who had held pre-conceived assumptions about stories and/or rushed into interviews. As a direct consequence of the students’ approach, participants said they better trusted the student journalists to portray them accurately and fairly. Most were also encouraged by the positive recognition stories brought and several said the engagement process had helped their personal development, all of which had spin-offs for their community efforts. The presentation night that wraps up each year’s project, where community groups, story subjects and students come together to network and share the final stories, was cited as a significant positive aspect of the project and a great opportunity for community partners to connect with others doing similar work. Community feedback will be sought in future projects to inform and improve successive iterations.
The University of Canterbury and student's association still need a further $5m to reopen the UCSA building badly damaged in the 2011 earthquake.
A photograph of four UCSA Exec members hosting a barbecue on Ilam Fields in September 2016.
A video of a presentation by Tariq Habibyar, PhD student at the University of Canterbury, at the 2016 Seismics in the City Conference.
A recorded conversation about the arts in Christchurch, facilitated by Rosalee Jenkin (UC CEISMIC) and featuring Sophie Davis (UC Masters student and co-director of North Projects), Lara Strongman (Senior Curator at Christchurch Art Gallery), Gaby Montejo (visual art practitioner and teacher) and Wongi Wilson (street artist and professional graffiti artist). The podcast is the first in a series of conversations hosted by UC CEISMIC about Christchurch, five years on from the February 22 earthquake.
A video of a presentation by Garry Williams during the fourth plenary of the 2016 People in Disasters Conference. Williams is the Programme Manager of the Ministry of Education's Greater Christchurch Education Renewal Programme. The presentation is titled, "Education Renewal: A section response to the February 2011 Christchurch earthquake".The abstract for this presentation reads as follows: The Canterbury earthquakes caused a disaster recovery situation unparalleled in New Zealand's history. In addition to widespread damage to residential dwellings and destruction of Christchurch's central business district, the earthquakes damaged more than 200 schools from Hurunui in the north, to the Mackenzie District in the east, and Timaru in the south. The impact on education provision was substantial, with the majority of early childhood centres, schools and tertiary providers experiencing damage or subsequent, with the majority of early childhood centres, schools and tertiary providers experiencing damage or subsequent operational issues caused by the ensuing migration of people. Following the February earthquake, over 12,000 students had left the school they had been attending and enrolled elsewhere - often at a school outside the region. Shortened school days and compression of teaching into short periods meant shift-sharing students engaged in the curriculum being delivered in more diverse ways. School principals and staff reported increased fatigue and stress and changes in student behaviours, often related to repeated exposure to and ongoing reminders of the trauma of the earthquakes. While there has been a shift from direct, trauma-related presentations to the indirect effects of psychological adversity and daily life stresses, international experiences tells us that psychological recovery generally lags behind the immediate physical recovery and rebuilding. The Ministries of Health and Education and the Canterbury District Health Board have developed and implemented a joint action plan to address specifically the emerging mental health issues for youth in Canterbury. However, the impact of vulnerable and stressed adults on children's behaviour contributes to the overall impact of ongoing wellbeing issues on the educational outcomes for the community. There is substantial evidence supporting the need to focus on adults' resilience so they can support children and youth. Much of the Ministry's work around supporting children under stress is through supporting the adults responsible for teaching them and leading their schools. The education renewal programme exists to assist education communities to rebuild and look toward renewal. The response to the earthquakes provides a significant opportunity to better meet the needs and aspirations of children and youth people. All the parents want to see their children eager to learn, achieving success, and gaining knowledge and skills that will, in time, enable them to become confident, adaptable, economically independent adults. But this is not always the case, hence our approach to education renewal seeks to address inequities and improve outcome, while prioritising actions that will have a positive impact on learners in greatest need of assistance.
A review of the week's news including... An immigration lawyer says 'paying for jobs' is so rampant in New Zealand there needs to be a fresh look at powers available to officials, criminals are using sex to blackmail Indian male students, Auckland lays out its plan to spend 83 billion dollars on transport, the electrified section of the main trunk line between Auckland and Wellington could be mothballed, frustrated advocates are calling for better reporting of suicides committed by current and former members of the military, doctors say making voluntary euthanasia legal would involve many complex and difficult decisions and New Zealand should avoid it, the Morning Report Wellington mayoral candidates debate, a Maori fisheries body wants the Maori Party to abandon its support for the Government if plans for a Kermadec ocean sanctuary go ahead unchanged, Maori representation becomes a virtual no-go area for those vying for public office in New Plymouth, Colin Craig denies ever sending his former press secretary explicit text messages, the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child raises concerns about the naming of the new children's ministry, MPs hear emotional pleas from the family of soldiers killed in action and buried in Malaysia for the government to bring their remains home, Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band will perform in Christchurch on the eve of the sixth anniversary of the Canterbury earthquakes this summer and Prince Charles praises New Zealand soldiers who fought at the Somme at a centennary ceremony in Northern France.
The Canterbury Earthquakes of 2010 and 2011 and subsequent re-organisation and rebuilding of schools in the region is initiating a rapid transitioning from traditional classrooms and individual teaching to flexible learning spaces (FLS’s) and co-teaching. This transition is driven by the Ministry of Education property division who have specific guidelines for designing new schools, re-builds and the five and ten year property plan requirements. Boards of Trustees, school leaders and teachers are faced with the challenge of reconceptualising teaching and learning from private autonomous learning environments to co-teaching in Flexible Learning Spaces provisioned for 50 to 180 children and two to six teachers in a single space. This process involves risks and opportunities especially for teachers and children. This research project investigates the key components necessary to create effective co-teaching relationships and environments. It explores the lessons learnt from the 1970’s open plan era and the views of 40 experienced practitioners and leaders with two or more years’ experience working in collaborative teaching and learning environments in sixteen New Zealand and Australian schools. The research also considers teacher collaboration and co-teaching as evidenced in literature. The findings lead to the identification of eight key components required to create effective collaborative teaching and learning environments which are discussed using three themes of student centeredness, effective pedagogy and collaboration. Six key recommendations are provided to support the effective co-teaching in a flexible learning space: 1. Situate learners at the centre 2. Develop shared understanding about effective pedagogy in a FLS 3. Develop skills of collaboration 4. Implement specific co-teaching strategies 5. Analyse the impact of co-teaching strategies 6. Strategically prepare for change and the future
ANDREW LITTLE to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in the Minister for Building and Housing given the falling rate of homeownership, especially among young people?
RON MARK to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?
MATT DOOCEY to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement that “There are more jobs, and people are being better paid”; if so, why?
Dr MEGAN WOODS to the Minister supporting Greater Christchurch Regeneration: Does he agree with the Prime Minister, who said with regard to the Canterbury earthquakes, “on behalf of the Government, let me be clear that no one will be left to walk this journey alone”; if so, does he think all relevant information prepared by his Government has been made available to Cantabrians to assist them in navigating post-earthquake decisions?
METIRIA TUREI to the Prime Minister: Ka tū a ia i runga i te mana o āna kaupapa here Kāwanatanga katoa, nē?
Translation: Does he stand by all his Government’s policies?
Dr JIAN YANG to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has she made about expanding 21st century learning options for parents and whanau?
CHRIS HIPKINS to the Minister of Education: How will her Communities of Online Learning (CoOL) proposal differ from online charter schools in the United States, given a study partially funded by a private pro-charter foundation found students attending those schools lost an average of about 72 days of learning in reading, and 180 days of learning in maths during the course of a 180-day school year?
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY to the Minister for the Environment: Will he commit to a regulatory regime that includes swimmable rivers in light of the comment from a Havelock North café owner who said that, “we’d trade all the compensation in the world if it would spur the Government into tidying up or cleaning up the waterways”?
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY to the Minister of Immigration: How many of the 209,000 work visas issued last year were for occupations on one of the Essential Skills in Demand lists?
JONO NAYLOR to the Minister of Police: What is the Police doing to assist potential victims of family violence?
STUART NASH to the Minister of Police: Does she believe that the Police have enough resources to implement their part of the Prime Minister’s 2009 promise to use the full force of the Government’s arsenal to “confront the P problem” given that P is cheaper, and as easy as it was to get in 2008?
PAUL FOSTER-BELL to the Minister for Primary Industries: What recent reports has he received on growth in wine exports?
In September 2010 and February 2011 the Canterbury region of New Zealand was struck by two powerful earthquakes, registering magnitude 7.1 and 6.3 respectively on the Richter scale. The second earthquake was centred 10 kilometres south-east of the centre of Christchurch (the region’s capital and New Zealand’s third most populous urban area, with approximately 360,000 residents) at a depth of five kilometres. 185 people were killed, making it the second deadliest natural disaster in New Zealand’s history. (66 people were killed in the collapse of one building alone, the six-storey Canterbury Television building.) The earthquake occurred during the lunch hour, increasing the number of people killed on footpaths and in buses and cars by falling debris. In addition to the loss of life, the earthquake caused catastrophic damage to both land and buildings in Christchurch, particularly in the central business district. Many commercial and residential buildings collapsed in the tremors; others were damaged through soil liquefaction and surface flooding. Over 1,000 buildings in the central business district were eventually demolished because of safety concerns, and an estimated 70,000 people had to leave the city after the earthquakes because their homes were uninhabitable. The New Zealand Government declared a state of national emergency, which stayed in force for ten weeks. In 2014 the Government estimated that the rebuild process would cost NZ$40 billion (approximately US$27.3 billion, a cost equivalent to 17% of New Zealand’s annual GDP). Economists now estimate it could take the New Zealand economy between 50 and 100 years to recover. The earthquakes generated tens of thousands of insurance claims, both against private home insurance companies and against the New Zealand Earthquake Commission, a government-owned statutory body which provides primary natural disaster insurance to residential property owners in New Zealand. These ranged from claims for hundreds of millions of dollars concerning the local port and university to much smaller claims in respect of the thousands of residential homes damaged. Many of these insurance claims resulted in civil proceedings, caused by disputes about policy cover, the extent of the damage and the cost and/or methodology of repairs, as well as failures in communication and delays caused by the overwhelming number of claims. Disputes were complicated by the fact that the Earthquake Commission provides primary insurance cover up to a monetary cap, with any additional costs to be met by the property owner’s private insurer. Litigation funders and non-lawyer claims advocates who took a percentage of any insurance proceeds also soon became involved. These two factors increased the number of parties involved in any given claim and introduced further obstacles to resolution. Resolving these disputes both efficiently and fairly was (and remains) central to the rebuild process. This created an unprecedented challenge for the justice system in Christchurch (and New Zealand), exacerbated by the fact that the Christchurch High Court building was itself damaged in the earthquakes, with the Court having to relocate to temporary premises. (The High Court hears civil claims exceeding NZ$200,000 in value (approximately US$140,000) or those involving particularly complex issues. Most of the claims fell into this category.) This paper will examine the response of the Christchurch High Court to this extraordinary situation as a case study in innovative judging practices and from a jurisprudential perspective. In 2011, following the earthquakes, the High Court made a commitment that earthquake-related civil claims would be dealt with as swiftly as the Court's resources permitted. In May 2012, it commenced a special “Earthquake List” to manage these cases. The list (which is ongoing) seeks to streamline the trial process, resolve quickly claims with precedent value or involving acute personal hardship or large numbers of people, facilitate settlement and generally work proactively and innovatively with local lawyers, technical experts and other stakeholders. For example, the Court maintains a public list (in spreadsheet format, available online) with details of all active cases before the Court, listing the parties and their lawyers, summarising the facts and identifying the legal issues raised. It identifies cases in which issues of general importance have been or will be decided, with the expressed purpose being to assist earthquake litigants and those contemplating litigation and to facilitate communication among parties and lawyers. This paper will posit the Earthquake List as an attempt to implement innovative judging techniques to provide efficient yet just legal processes, and which can be examined from a variety of jurisprudential perspectives. One of these is as a case study in the well-established debate about the dialogic relationship between public decisions and private settlement in the rule of law. Drawing on the work of scholars such as Hazel Genn, Owen Fiss, David Luban, Carrie Menkel-Meadow and Judith Resnik, it will explore the tension between the need to develop the law through the doctrine of precedent and the need to resolve civil disputes fairly, affordably and expeditiously. It will also be informed by the presenter’s personal experience of the interplay between reported decisions and private settlement in post-earthquake Christchurch through her work mediating insurance disputes. From a methodological perspective, this research project itself gives rise to issues suitable for discussion at the Law and Society Annual Meeting. These include the challenges in empirical study of judges, working with data collected by the courts and statistical analysis of the legal process in reference to settlement. September 2015 marked the five-year anniversary of the first Christchurch earthquake. There remains widespread dissatisfaction amongst Christchurch residents with the ongoing delays in resolving claims, particularly insurers, and the rebuild process. There will continue to be challenges in Christchurch for years to come, both from as-yet unresolved claims but also because of the possibility of a new wave of claims arising from poor quality repairs. Thus, a final purpose of presenting this paper at the 2016 Meeting is to gain the benefit of other scholarly perspectives and experiences of innovative judging best practice, with a view to strengthening and improving the judicial processes in Christchurch. This Annual Meeting of the Law and Society Association in New Orleans is a particularly appropriate forum for this paper, given the recent ten year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina and the plenary session theme of “Natural and Unnatural Disasters – human crises and law’s response.” The presenter has a personal connection with this theme, as she was a Fulbright scholar from New Zealand at New York University in 2005/2006 and participated in the student volunteer cleanup effort in New Orleans following Katrina. http://www.lawandsociety.org/NewOrleans2016/docs/2016_Program.pdf
