So, Rich of Observationz, how richly ironic - if you don't mind my saying so - that when we publish a story about academic achievement in schools, people like you jump at the chance to parade your own ignorance. Clearly, reading the article is too much to ask (poor schooling there, Rich?), but couldn't you even have looked at the pictures? You see that girl on the right, on our cover? She goes to a decile 1 school in Otahuhu. Where they're getting results you would expect of a decile 7-8 school. We named that school the best in Auckland. Second was a decile 7 school; third, a decile 3 school; fourth, decile 4... Why? Because unlike all the league tables that look just at the bald results, we analyse the data to reveal how well each school is increasing its students' chances of achieving. Our feature isn't about where "whitebread people should send their kids". It's about the enormous range between schools that are raising up their students academically, and those that letting them down. It shows that you'll find that range within all the decile groups, and it suggests very clearly that while "decile" might be an indicator of likely results in general, It is a very unreliable guide for parents wanting to know how well any given school will serve their kids. And yes, as Russell says, I was very pleased to publish his piece in our Schools issue. As I was to publish Amberleigh Jack's terrifically brave and compelling story about her experiences with eating disorders (and other illnesses) and psychiatric care. There are no contradictions here: Metro is a magazine for a complicated, stimulating city. We probably have some readers who feel smug about their privilege, and yes, speaking personally I do find that unpleasant. But at least it's an honest expression of who they are. What's your smugness based on, Rich? Have you made a conscious decision to be stupid?