Publications

Resource Teachers: Literacy Annual Report 2007

Publication Details

This report presents data on students who received support from Resource Teachers: Literacy (RT:Lits) during 2007. In general, the results for 2007 were consistent with the trends observed in previous years.

Author(s): Megan Lee, Research Division [Ministry of Education]

Date Published: May 2009

Executive Summary

The key findings for the Resource Teachers: Literacy Annual Report are as follows:

  • RT:Lits provided support for 4,126 students in 2007. Slightly less than half (44%) of these students received direct regular tutoring, either on an individual basis (29%), in small-groups (12%) or both individually and in small-groups (2%). The remaining 56 percent received indirect in-class support.
  • Although RT:Lits predominantly assisted students with reading literacy, a reasonable proportion received assistance with written literacy (especially for directly supported students) and a small number received support for oral language. Students who received individual (direct) tuition were more likely to receive assistance in multiple areas of literacy than students who received indirect in-class support and small-group (direct) tuition.
  • Two out of three students receiving RT:Lit support during 2007 were boys. Over half (57%) were NZ European, one-third (35%) were Māori, 7 percent were Pasifika and 3 percent were Asian. The majority of students who received direct support were aged between 7 and 10 years, whereas students who received indirect support were spread more evenly across the 5 to 12 years age range.
  • Two out of three students assisted by RT:Lits in 2007 had completed their programme of support by the end of the year. A further one-quarter (24%) of directly supported students and one-third (30%) of indirectly supported students required further assistance from an RT:Lit in 2008. A small proportion of students received an incomplete programme (13% for directly supported students, of which 5% were referred on for further specialist assistance, and 5% for indirectly supported students).
  • For both directly and indirectly supported students, girls were more likely than boys to have completed their period of support in 2007. Boys were more likely than girls to have their support continued in 2008.
  • As a proportion of students who received direct support, NZ European, Māori and Pasifika students were more likely to have completed their programme of support than Asian students (although care must be taken when interpreting this result due to the low number of Asian students). Additionally, non-ESOL students and those with no prior literacy assistance were more likely to have completed their programme of support than ESOL students and those who had prior experience with Reading Recovery or other literacy programmes.
  • For students who received indirect support, Asian, Pasifika and Māori students were more likely to have completed their programme of support than NZ European students (who were more likely to be continued through to 2008). Also for those who received indirect support, a drop in the proportion of students who completed their period of support was observed across the mid-range ages (7 to 9 years). This was coupled with a rise in the proportion who were continued through to 2008.
  • There was evidence of a shift in age-based reading levels for students who completed regular (direct) tutoring. On entry, two-thirds (67%) of these students were reading at levels below 7 years (age-based reading levels). Upon exit however, less than one-third (29%) were reading at these levels.

Section 1: Introduction

Background

Resource Teachers of Literacy (RT:Lits) work across a number of state and state-integrated schools in New Zealand. The key function of these specialist teachers is to support and assist staff within schools to meet the needs of students in their primary years of schooling (years 1 to 8) who may be experiencing difficulties in acquiring literacy. RT:Lits support students in a range of literacy areas including reading literacy, written literacy and oral language. RT:Lits function in two ways: primarily they provide advice, modelling and guidance for classroom teachers of students who are experiencing literacy difficulties (thus supporting these students indirectly); they also work directly with students, providing them with intensive tutoring either individually or in small-group settings.

There are 109 RT:Lits positions throughout the country. RT:Lits are based at their employing school and work across a number of schools within a cluster. RT:Lits may work in a cluster with, and be based at the same school as, other RT:Lits. In 2007, the largest number of schools any one RT:Lit worked in was 23 schools, while the average number of schools was 8.

Since the inception of the RT:Lit service, RT:Lits have provided data to the Ministry of Education on an annual basis1. While it is acknowledged that RT:Lits will carry out a range of functions in their role, the primary purpose of the current report is to identify the nature of the support RT:Lits provided to students in 2007, to understand who the students are that received this support and to explore student outcomes and progress as a result of the RT:Lits’ intervention.

The current report is based on data from 108 RT:Lits who submitted annual returns for 2007. Although comparisons can be made between the current data and previous years in relation to trends or percentages, it should be noted that because not all RT:Lits have been able to submit all their returns, care must be taken when comparing absolute numbers of students.

Methodology

The RT:Lits submitted their completed returns to the Research Division, Ministry of Education by the end of 2007. As with previous years, RT:Lits recorded data about students they supported on three separate forms:

Part A: 2007 Cluster Overview
– These forms gathered summary information for each cluster about students on the RT:Lits’ rolls during 2007. Details were collected for students who were formally referred to the Cluster Management Committee in 2007, students who were on the roll at the end of 2006 and who had incomplete programmes and students who were on a priority waiting list at the end of 2006.

Part B: 2007 Individual or Small-group Tuition Report – These forms were completed for each student that the RT:Lit worked with directly via regular tutoring, either on an individual basis and/or as part of a small-group. This form gathered data on these students’ demographic characteristics (age, gender, ethnicity) and literacy background, the nature of the literacy assistance provided by the RT:Lit, the students’ outcome on the programme at the end of the year and the progress made in terms of reading levels on entry to, and discharge from the programme.

Part C: 2007 Indirect In-class Support for Students Report – These forms gathered information about students on the RT:Lit roll who were supported indirectly in their classroom setting. For these students, the RT:Lits provided support to classroom teachers in the form of advice, modelling and guidance to supplement these teachers first practice. Demographic information was collected for these students, including age, gender, ethnicity, the nature of the literacy assistance provided by the RT:Lit and the students’ outcome on the programme at the end of the year.

The structure of the current report differs slightly from previous years, with the student being the framework for the analysis, rather than the nature of the support provided. The current report comprises the following sections:

  • RT:Lit support in 2007 – This section investigates the nature of support provided to students.
  • Students who received RT:Lit support – This section presents information about students’ demographic and educational factors.
  • Student outcomes from RT:Lit support – This section investigates students’ progress and outcomes as a result of RT:Lit intervention.


Section 2: RT:Lit support in 2007

RT:Lits support students in two ways; by providing regular tutoring to students directly, either on an individual basis or in small-group settings, or indirectly, by observing and coaching students’ teachers (thus improving these teachers’ first practice in the classroom).

It is acknowledged that in cases where RT:Lits observe, coach and advise classroom teachers, other students aside from those on the RT:Lit roll will benefit. This noted, data were only collected for students who appeared on the RT:Lit roll and were the focus of the RT:Lits support. It is also acknowledged that in many cases, RT:Lits provide advice and guidance to classroom teachers of students who receive direct tuition.

The following section presents information about the support provided to students by the RT:Lits during 2007. Both the type of support (i.e. direct or indirect in-class support) and the nature of the literacy assistance (i.e. reading, writing or oral) are discussed.

Type of support provided by RT:Lits in 2007

As shown in Table 1, a total of 4,126 students received support from RT:Lits during 2007. Of these students, slightly less than half (n=1,796, 44%) received direct support while slightly more than half (n=2,330, 56%) received indirect in-class support.

Of the 1,796 students who received direct support, the majority (n=1,213, equivalent to 29% of the total sample of students) received individual tuition only. A notable proportion (n=491, equivalent to 12% of the total sample) received small-group tuition only and a small number of students (n=86, equivalent to 2% of the total sample) received both individual and small-group tuition.

Compared with data from 2006, there was a slight increase in the percentage of students who received indirect support (from 49% in 2006) and a slight decrease in the percentage of students who received direct support (from 51% in 2006). There was very little shift in the relative percentage of students who received individual and/or small-group tuition.

Table 1: Type of RT:Lit support provided for students
1    For these students, a classroom monitoring programme (supported by the RT:Lit) would be planned to follow in 2008.
2
    Classroom teachers providing monitoring to these students were supported by the RT:Lit.
3
    Some students may have been supported both indirectly and directly throughout the year. As RT:Lits were asked to submit forms that related to the main focus for the student, the actual number of students who received direct support, in addition to those who received indirect support may differ to the figure reported here.
4
    Total is the sum of students who received indirect support (2,330) and direct support (1,796).
 
N
%
Direct support
1,796
43.5
Individual tuition:
  • Individual tuition only 1
  • Individual tuition followed by monitoring provided by classroom teacher 2


921
292


22.3
7.1
Small-group tuition:
  • Small-group tuition only 1
  • Small-group tuition followed by a monitoring programme provided by classroom teacher 2
 

432
59
 

10.5
1.4
Both individual and small-group tuition:
  • Individual and small-group tuition only 1
  • Individual and small-group tuition followed by a monitoring programme provided by classroom teacher 2
 

67
19
 

1.6
0.5
Missing Data
6
0.1
Indirect in-class support 3
2,330
56.5
Total 4
4,126
100.0


The nature of literacy assistance students received

As mentioned above, RT:Lits support students in a range of literacy areas including reading literacy, written literacy and oral language. Table 2 presents information about the areas of literacy that students received assistance with in 2007. Almost all directly supported students (90%) and indirectly supported students (93%) received assistance with reading literacy (regardless of whether assistance was provided in other areas of literacy). There was no change in these figures compared with the data from 2006 (91% and 93% for directly and indirectly supported students respectively).

As in previous years, the tendency for most students in 2007 to have received reading literacy assistance may not simply be indicative of a greater level of need in this area. Instead, this finding may be attributable to the fact that there are much stronger mechanisms for RT:Lits to assess reading levels and progress, compared with for written literacy and oral language.

Also as shown in Table 2, students who were supported directly were more likely than students supported indirectly, to have multiple literacy needs. This is evidenced in the fact that while both groups had similarly high percentages of students receiving reading literacy support, there was a greater proportion of directly supported students who received assistance with written literacy (68% overall, compared with 23% for indirectly supported students) and/or oral language (13% overall, compared with 2% for indirectly supported students).

Table 2: Nature of the literacy assistance RT:Lits provided, by support type
1    Total column includes data from 6 students with missing information about whether they received individual or small-group tuition.
2
    Percentages based on the total number of students assisted by RT:Lits for each support type. As students could receive more than one form of assistance, percentages do not sum to 100%.
Nature of literacy support
Direct support
Total direct support 1 (n=1,796)
Indirect support (n=2,330)
Individual only (n=1,213)
Small-group only (n=491)
Both individual & small-group (n=86)
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
Reading literacy
1,172
96.6
356
72.5
86
100.0
1,618
90.1
2,164
92.9
Written literacy
940
77.5
209
42.6
71
82.6
1,224
68.2
526
22.6
Oral language
201
16.6
30
6.1
10
11.6
241
13.4
52
2.2
Missing data
2
0.2
0
0.0
0
0.0
2
0.1
52
2.2

 

Figures 1a to 1d present the different combinations of literacy assistance students received in 2007. Overall, the patterns of results presented in the figures are consistent with those reported in previous years.

As shown in Figure 1a, a notable proportion (75%) of students who were directly supported on an individual basis only, received assistance in multiple areas of literacy. More than half (59%) received both reading and written literacy assistance, and 16 percent received assistance in all three areas.

Figure 1a: Combinations of literacy assistance for students who received DIRECT (individual) support only1

Image of Figure 1a: Combinations of literacy assistance for students who received DIRECT (individual) support only.

1 Based on data from 1,213 students who received individual, direct support only. Excludes data from 2 students with missing information about the type of support they received.

In contrast, students who were directly supported via small-group tuition only, were more likely to have received assistance with just one area of literacy. That is, half (54%) received assistance with reading literacy assistance only and one-quarter (26%) received assistance with written literacy only.

Figure 1b: Combinations of literacy assistance for students who received DIRECT (small-group) support only1

Image of Figure 1b: Combinations of literacy assistance for students who received direct (small-group) support only.

1 Based on data from 491 students who received individual, direct support only.

 

Students who received both individual and small-group tuition were also likely to have received assistance with multiple areas of literacy. Almost three-quarters (71%) received both reading and written literacy assistance and 12 percent received assistance in all three areas. The combination of two methods of support provided to these students (i.e. both individual and small-group tuition) is consistent with their need for support in multiple areas of literacy.

Figure 1c: Combinations of literacy assistance for students who received DIRECT (both individual and small-group) support1

Image of Figure 1c: Combinations of literacy assistance for students who received DIRECT (both individual and small-group) support.

1 Based on data from 86 students who received both individual and small-group, direct support.

Indirectly supported students were the most likely of all students supported by RT:Lits in 2007, to have received assistance in one area of literacy. Three-quarters received assistance with reading literacy only (74%). Additionally, these students were as likely as those who received individual tuition via small-group settings, to have received assistance with both reading and written literacy (17%).

Figure 1d: Combinations of literacy assistance for students who received INDIRECT support1

Image of Figure 1d: Combinations of literacy assistance for students who received INDIRECT support.

1 Based on data from 2,330 students who received indirect support.

Differences in the combinations of literacy assistance provided to students who received direct and indirect support may reflect the extent to which RT:Lits respond to students’ complexity of needs when considering the nature of the support that should be given. Alternatively, it may be that different forms of support provide different opportunities. For example, it may be difficult to introduce additional literacy support for a student within a group context. This may account for the tendency for students supported in small-group or classroom settings (as in the case of indirect support) to have received assistance in one area of literacy only.

Liaison with others in relation to students on RT:Lit roll for DIRECT support

In 2007, a number of RT:Lits reported having liaised with specialist personnel regarding students on their roll2. Overall, RT:Lits liaised with Resource Teachers: Learning and Behaviour (RTLB) regarding 21% of students on their roll. Special education needs coordinators or teachers were approached with regard to 18% of students and Reading Recovery teachers with regard to 16% of students. One-third (31%) of RT:Lits had not liaised with any other specialist personnel regarding students on their roll.

Table 3: Specialist personnel RT:Lits liaised with regarding students who received DIRECT support
1 Percentages do not sum to 100% as RT:Lits could have liaised with more than one of the listed specialist personnel regarding a student. Percentages are based on the total number of students who received direct support (1,796).
Type of specialist personnel
N
% 1
RT:LB
377
21.0
Reading Recovery teachers
292
16.3
Speech-Language Therapists
72
4.0
ESOL specialists
46
2.6
Literacy Advisers
45
2.5
Other - Special education needs coordinator/teacher
322
17.9
Other - Literacy leader (within school)
155
8.6
No liaison with any other personnel
552
30.7




Section 3: Students who received RT:Lit support

The following section presents demographic information about the students who received RT:Lit support in 2007 (including gender, ethnicity and age). Educational factors such as reading age, experience with prior literacy assistance and students’ first language are also discussed.

Demographic characteristics

Gender

In 2007, boys out numbered girls by more than 2 to 1 in RT:Lit support. Almost three-quarters (72%, n=1,299) of students who received direct support were boys, while two-thirds (64%, n=1,501) of students who received indirect support were boys. These figures are similar to those reported in 2006, where 65% of indirectly supported students, and 70% of directly supported students were boys.

In addition, Table 4 shows that:

  • Boys were more likely to have received direct support (46%, compared to 38% for girls) and were more likely to have received that direct support solely through individual tuition (32%) compared to girls (24%).
  • Girls on the other hand, were more likely to have received indirect in-class support (62% compared to 54% of boys).
Table 4: Type of RT:Lit support provided, by gender
1 Total includes data from 34 indirectly supported students and 1 directly supported student with missing gender information.
Type of support
Boys
Girls
Total 1
N
%
N
%
N
%
Direct RT:Lit support
1,299
46.4
496
38.4
1,796
43.5
Individual tuition
900
32.1
313
24.2
1,213
29.4
Small-group tuition
335
12.0
156
12.1
491
11.9
Both individual and small-group tuition
60
2.1
26
2.0
86
2.1
Missing Data
4
0.1
1
0.1
6
0.1
Indirect in-class support
1,501
53.6
795
61.6
2,330
56.5
Total
2,800
100.0
1,291
100.0
4,126
100.0

 

Although there were very few gender differences in the combinations of literacy assistance students received, Table 5 shows that:

  • Girls were slightly more likely to have received assistance with reading literacy only. This tendency was more pronounced among students who received direct support (i.e. 35% of directly supported girls received reading literacy assistance only, compared with 28% for boys) than it was for students who received indirect support (76% for girls and 72% for boys).
  • Boys were slightly more likely to have received a combination of reading and written literacy assistance. This pattern was again, more pronounced among students who received direct support (i.e. 50% of directly supported boys received reading and written literacy assistance, compared with 40% for girls) than it was for students who received indirect support (19% for boys and 14% for girls).
Table 5: Combinations of literacy assistance, by gender
1 Excludes data from 34 students with missing gender information
2
Excludes data from 1 student with missing gender information.
Nature of literacy support
Total direct support 2
Total indirect support 1
Boys
Girls
Boys
Girls
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
Reading literacy only
366
28.2
174
35.1
1,087
72.4
609
76.6
Written literacy only
118
9.1
47
9.5
70
4.7
31
3.9
Oral language only
6
0.5
2
0.4
3
0.2
6
0.8
Both reading and written literacy
646
49.7
200
40.3
283
18.9
115
14.5
Both reading literacy and oral language
14
1.1
7
1.4
17
1.1
5
0.6
Both written literacy and oral language
2
0.2
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
Reading and written literacy and oral language
144
11.1
66
13.3
12
0.8
9
1.1
Missing data
3
0.2
0
0.0
29
1.9
20
2.5
Total
1,299
100.0
496
100.0
1,501
100.0
795
100.0

Ethnicity

This section discusses the type of RT:Lit support provided to students, across five ethnic groups: NZ European, Māori, Pasifika, Asian and Other3. As a proportion of all students who received RT:Lit support in 2007, half (52%) were NZ European, one-third (35%) were Māori, seven percent were Pasifika and a small proportion (3%) were Asian4. There were no major differences in the proportion of students from each ethnic group, compared with the 2006 data.

Table 6 also shows that Pasifika students were more likely than students of all other ethnicities, to have received direct RT:Lit support (54% for Pasifika students, compared with 42% for NZ European, 44% for Māori and 46% for Asian students). As such, Pasifika students were less likely than all other students, to have received indirect in-class support.

Pasifika and Asian students were more likely than students of other ethnicities to have received individual tuition (42% for Pasifika and 34% for Asian students, compared with 29% for NZ European and 28% for Māori students).

Table 6: Combinations of literacy assistance, by ethnicity 
Type of support
NZ Māori
Pasifika
Asian
NZ European
Other
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
Direct RT:Lit support
631
43.6
166
54.2
48
46.2
904
41.8
47
44.8
Individual tuition
405
28.0
129
42.2
35
33.7
618
28.5
26
24.8
Small-group tuition
193
13.3
30
9.8
13
12.5
242
11.2
13
12.4
Both individual and small-group tuition
30
2.1
7
2.3
0
0.0
41
1.9
8
7.6
Missing Data
3
0.2
0
0.0
0
0.0
3
0.1
0
0.0
Indirect in-class support
815
56.4
140
45.8
56
53.8
1,261
58.2
58
55.2
Total
1,446
100.0
306
100.0
104
100.0
2,165
100.0
105
100.0

 

Tables 7a and 7b below present the combinations of literacy assistance received by students across the five ethnic groups.

Table 7a shows that as a proportion of students who received direct support:

  • Fifty percent of Pasifika students received assistance with a combination of reading literacy, written literacy and oral language. This figure was notably higher than the proportion of NZ European students (5%), Māori students (10%) and Asian students5 (21%) who received assistance in all three literacy areas.
  • NZ European and Māori students were more likely than Asian and Pasifika students to have received assistance with:
    • Both reading and written literacy (50% for NZ European and 47% for Māori students, compared with 30% for Pasifika and 38% for Asian students).
    • Reading literacy only (31% for NZ European and 35% for Māori students, compared with 11% for Pasifika and 23% for Asian students).
Table 7a: Combinations of literacy assistance for DIRECTLY supported students, by ethnicity
Nature of literacy support
NZ Māori
Pasifika
Asian
NZ European
Other
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
Reading literacy only
223
35.3
19
11.4
11
22.9
278
30.8
9
19.1
Written literacy only
45
7.1
3
1.8
5
10.4
112
12.4
0
0.0
Oral language only
3
0.5
3
1.8
0
0.0
2
0.2
0
0.0
Both reading and written literacy
296
46.9
50
30.1
18
37.5
452
50.0
31
66.0
Both reading literacy and oral language
3
0.5
8
4.8
4
8.3
6
0.7
0
0.0
Both written literacy and oral language
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
2
0.2
0
0.0
Reading and written literacy and oral language
61
9.7
83
50.0
10
20.8
49
5.4
7
14.9
Missing data
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
3
0.3
0
0.0
Total
631
100.0
166
100.0
48
100.0
904
100.0
47
100.0

Table 7b shows that as a proportion of students who received indirect support:

  • A large majority of Asian students6 (95%) and Pasifika students (85%) received assistance with reading literacy only. Proportionately fewer Māori students (78%) and NZ European students (69%) received assistance with reading literacy only.
  • Almost a quarter (23%) of NZ European students received assistance with both reading and written literacy. Proportionately fewer Māori (11%), Pasifika (9%) and Asian students (5%) received assistance in both these areas. 
Table 7b: Combinations of literacy assistance for INDIRECTLY supported students, by ethnicity
Nature of literacy support
NZ Māori
Pasifika
Asian
NZ European
Other
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
Reading literacy only
633
77.7
119
85.0
53
94.6
874
69.3
42
72.4
Written literacy only
47
5.8
1
0.7
0
0.0
57
4.5
0
0.0
Oral language only
3
0.4
2
1.4
0
0.0
4
0.3
0
0.0
Both reading and written literacy
86
10.6
13
9.3
3
5.4
288
22.8
10
17.2
Both reading literacy and oral language
8
1.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
12
1.0
2
3.4
Both written literacy and oral language
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
Reading and written literacy and oral language
9
1.1
4
2.9
0
0.0
8
0.6
0
0.0
Missing data
29
3.6
1
0.7
0
0.0
18
1.4
4
6.9
Total
815
100.0
140
100.0
56
100.0
1,261
100.0
58
100.0


Age

RT:Lits provide support to students in their primary years of schooling. Figure 2 below presents the distribution of students’ chronological ages at their point of entry into RT:Lit support, for those who received direct support (dashed line) and those who received indirect support (solid line).

Indirectly supported students were fairly evenly spread in terms of their age upon entry to RT:Lit support. For students who received direct support however, there was a peak in the proportion of students who entered the programme between the ages of 7 and 9 years. Almost three-quarters (71%) of directly supported students were aged 7 to 9 years upon entry, compared with half (52%) of indirectly supported students. The age distributions for indirectly and directly supported students are consistent with those presented in the 2006 report.

Figure 2: Chronological ages for students at entry to RT:Lit support1

Image of Figure 2: Chronological ages for students at entry to RT:Lit support.

1 Figure does not include data from 46 indirectly supported students and 5 directly supported students who had missing age information.


Gender by age at admission

Similar to previous years, the age at which students entered RT:Lit support did not differ greatly between boys and girls (see appendix Table 1). In 2007, the average age for boys receiving indirect support was 8.1 years (compared with 7.9 years for girls) and the average age for boys receiving direct support was 8.2 years (compared with 8.3 years for girls).

Education factors for students who received direct RT:Lit support

The following section presents information about aspects of students’ education background prior to commencing RT:Lit support. It should be noted that the following section only includes information relating to students who received direct support.

Reading age at admission to RT:Lit support

Figure 3 compares the chronological ages (solid line) and reading ages (dashed line) for directly supported students upon entry to RT:Lit support. Figure 3 shows that although most (91%) of these students were aged 7 years or more upon entry to RT:Lit support, only one-quarter (23%) had age-based reading levels equivalent to 7 years of age or higher.

Figure 3: Chronological age and reading age for DIRECTLY supported students upon entry to 2007 RT: Lit support1

Image of Figure 3: Chronological age and reading age for DIRECTLY supported students upon entry to 2007 RT: Lit support.

1 Figure 3 includes data from 1,718 directly supported students who had both chronological and reading age information.


Prior literacy assistance

Table 8 presents information about whether students who received direct RT:Lit support in 2007 had previously been in Reading Recovery (which is a literacy intervention aimed at reducing reading and writing delay for six-year-old students) or had prior experience with other literacy programmes.

Approximately one in three (36%) directly supported students had previously been in Reading Recovery (consistent with 32% in 2006) while slightly more than one in three (39%) had been involved with other literacy programmes (compared with 18% in 2006). Almost one in six (16%) had prior experience with both Reading Recovery and other literacy programmes.

Although proportionately more students were recorded as having prior experience with ‘other’ literacy programmes in 2007 (39%, from 18% in 2006), the types of programmes and methods by which the literacy assistance was delivered were similar to those mentioned in 2006 (e.g. HPP – Hei Awhiawhi Tamariki ki te Panui Pukapuka, Rainbow Reading, teacher aide, RTLB, speech therapist).

One in five (21%) directly supported students had no experience with any other literacy programmes prior to commencing RT:Lit support. The percentage of students whose background was not known, or not stated was lower than previous years, but still relatively high at 14%.

Table 8: DIRECTLY supported students’ background with prior literacy support
Prior support
N
%
Reading Recovery only
358
19.9
Other literacy programme only
425
23.7
Both Reading Recovery and other literacy programme
280
15.6
No prior background with Reading Recovery or other literacy programme
376
20.9
Previous background unknown
258
14.4
Missing data
99
5.5
Total
1,796
100.0

Prior literacy assistance – Reading Recovery outcomes

Figure 4 shows that as a proportion of the 638 students who had been in Reading Recovery prior to RT:Lit support, more than half (57%) had been referred on from Reading Recovery for specialist help or long-term reading support. A further one-quarter (26%) had successfully discontinued their series of Reading Recovery lessons prior to receiving RT:Lit support. Compared with the results from 2006, these figures reflect a rise in the percentage of students who had been referred on (from 49% in 2006) and a fall in the percentage of students who had successfully discontinued Reading Recovery (34% in 2006).

Students in RT:Lit support who had prior experience with Reading Recovery were less likely to have been successfully discontinued from Reading Recovery, in comparison to the total population of students who participate in Reading Recovery annually7. This finding does raise questions about what happens to students in the classroom once they exit Reading Recovery. Even though some students reach the reading levels required for them to discontinue Reading Recovery, these results indicate that there may still be a need for further literacy support in their later years.

Figure 4: Reading Recovery outcomes for students with prior involvement in this intervention1

Image of Figure 4: Reading Recovery outcomes for students with prior involvement in this intervention.

1 Based on data from 638 students who had previous experience with Reading Recovery.


English speakers of other languages

Of those students who received direct support in 2007, one in 10 (n=171, 10%) did not have English as their first language. The majority of these students were either of Pasifika (n=108) or Asian (n=28) ethnicities.

As shown in Figure 5, the combinations of literacy assistance students received differed depending on whether they were English speakers of other languages (ESOL) or whether English was their first language (non-ESOL). Of note:

  • ESOL students were much more likely to have received assistance in all three literacy areas (49%) compared with non-ESOL students (8%).
  • Non-ESOL students, were more likely to have received assistance in one or two areas of literacy. For example, 32 percent of non-ESOL students received reading literacy assistance only (compared with 12% for ESOL students) and 49% of non-ESOL received both reading and written literacy assistance (compared with 31% for ESOL students). 

Figure 5: Nature of literacy support for ESOL and non-ESOL students1

Image of Figure 5: Nature of literacy support for ESOL and non-ESOL students.

1 Excludes data from 14 students with missing information about their first language and data for 2 students with missing information about the type of literacy support they received.





Section 4: Student outcomes from RT:Lit support

The following section reports on the end-of-year outcomes for all students who received RT:Lit support during 2007.

Student outcomes by support type

Approximately two out of three students on the RT:Lit roll during 2007 completed their programme of regular tutoring or indirect support (60% for directly supported students and 61% for indirectly supported students). These figures were consistent with those reported in 2006 (64% for directly supported students and 63% for indirectly supported students).

Table 9: Student RT:Lit outcomes at the end of 2007, by support type
1    Total column includes data from 6 students with missing information about whether they received individual or small-group tuition.
Student outcome
Direct support
Total direct support 1
Total indirect support
Individual only
Small-group only
Both individual & small-group
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
Completed regular tutoring or indirect support (discharged)
657
54.2
363
73.9
58
67.4
1,079
60.1
1,415
60.7
  • Likely to be on a monitoring programme in 2008 (classroom teacher supported by RT:Lit)
258
21.3
74
15.1
25
29.1
358
19.9
-
-
  • Monitoring by the classroom teacher (with RT:Lit support) completed
399
32.9
289
58.9
33
38.4
721
40.1
-
-
Received an incomplete programme
187
15.4
33
6.7
4
4.7
224
12.5
106
4.5
  • Student required further specialist assistance and was/will be referred on
66
5.4
12
2.4
2
2.3
80
4.5
-
-
  • Student moved out of the area serviced by the RT:Lit
61
5.0
15
3.1
0
0.0
76
4.2
-
-
  • Other reasons
60
4.9
6
1.2
2
2.3
68
3.8
-
-
Student will require further support in 2008
335
27.6
71
14.5
23
26.7
430
23.9
697
29.9
Transferred to direct support
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
69
3.0
Other
26
2.1
16
3.3
1
1.2
43
2.4
25
1.1
Missing data
8
0.7
8
1.6
0
0.0
20
1.1
18
0.8
Total
1,213
100.0
491
100.0
86
100.0
1,796
100.0
2,330
100.0

Table 9 (previous page) also shows that for students who received direct support:

  • Two out of three who had completed regular tutoring had also completed a monitoring programme run by their classroom teacher. RT:Lits have an active role in supporting classroom teachers during this monitoring period.
  • Students who were tutored in small-groups were more likely to have completed regular tutoring (74%) than students who received individual tuition (54%). The proportion of students who received both individual and small-group tuition and had completed their RT:Lit support sat in the middle at 68 percent.
  • Of note, students who were tutored in small-groups completed their regular tutoring in considerably fewer sessions (29.2 sessions on average) than students who received individual tutoring (51.0 sessions on average) and students who received both individual and small-group tuition (64.9 sessions on average). This greater number of sessions for individually tutored students may be reflective of a greater level of need present among these students.

Slightly less than one-third of indirectly supported students (30%) and one-quarter of directly supported students (24%) required further RT:Lit assistance and as such, were due to continue this support in 2008. These figures were slightly higher than the percentage of indirectly supported students (21%) and directly supported students (19%) who required a continuation of RT:Lit support in 2006.

A small number of students in 2007 received an incomplete programme of RT:Lit support. This was often because they moved out of the area serviced by the RT:Lit or they were referred on for specialist support. Other reasons included students having moved on to secondary school or being discontinued due to behavioural issues.

Students who received direct support were more likely to have received an incomplete programme (13%) than students who received indirect support (5%). Furthermore, students who received individual tuition were more likely to have received an incomplete programme, and were more likely to have been referred on for specialist support than students who received small-group tuition. This latter finding may reflect a greater level of need present among students who are selected for individual tuition and the extent to which these needs can actually be addressed by RT:Lit intervention.

The percentage of indirectly supported students who received an incomplete programme was consistent with that recorded in 2006 (also 5%) while a slight decrease was noted in the percentage of directly supported students with incomplete programmes (16% in 2006).

Student outcomes by demographic characteristics

The following section presents student outcomes from RT:Lit support, by demographic characteristics (gender, ethnicity and age) and educational factors.

Gender

Consistent with the pattern of results observed in previous years, Table 10 shows that, in 2007, girls were more likely than boys to have completed RT:Lit support. This pattern of results was apparent both for students who received direct support (68% for girls, compared to 57% for boys) and for students who received indirect support (65% for girls, compared to 59% for boys).

On the other hand, boys were more likely than girls to continue RT:Lit support in 2008. This pattern of results was true for both indirectly supported students (31% for boys, compared with 27% for girls) and directly supported students (26% for boys, compared with 18% for girls).

Table 10: Student RT:Lit outcomes, by type of support and gender
1    Excludes data from 1 student with missing gender information.
2    Excludes data from 34 students with missing gender information. 
Student outcome
Direct support 1
Indirect support 2
Boys
Girls
Boys
Girls
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
Completed regular tutoring or indirect support (discharged)
744
57.3
335
67.5
886
59.0
518
65.2
Received an incomplete programme
170
13.1
54
10.9
68
4.5
33
4.2
Student will require support (indirect support or regular tutoring programme provided by the RT: Lit) in 2008
339
26.1
91
18.3
472
31.4
213
26.8
Transferred to direct support
-
-
-
-
44
2.9
22
2.8
Other
32
2.5
11
2.2
19
1.3
6
0.8
Missing data
14
1.1
5
1.0
12
0.8
3
0.4
Total
1,299
100.0
496
100.0
1,501
100.0
795
100.0

Ethnicity

Tables 11a and Table 11b present student outcomes from RT:Lit support across the five ethnic groups. Consistent with the findings presented in the 2006 report, Table 11a shows that as a proportion of students who received direct support:

  • NZ European (62%), Māori (60%) and Pasifika (58%) students were more likely than Asian students8 (50%) to have completed their programme of RT:Lit support in 2007. Asian students were more likely to have their regular tutoring continued into 2008 (33%, compared to 28% for Pasifika, 23% for NZ European and 23% for Māori students).
  • Māori students were slightly more likely to have received an incomplete programme (14%), compared with NZ European (12%), Asian (8%) and Pasifika (8%) students.
Table 11a:    Student outcomes for those who received DIRECT support, by ethnicity
Student outcome
NZ Māori
Pasifika
Asian
NZ European
Other
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
Completed regular tutoring (discharged)
380
60.2
97
58.4
24
50.0
558
61.7
20
42.6
Received an incomplete programme
90
14.3
13
7.8
4
8.3
105
11.6
12
25.5
Student will require regular tutoring from RT: Lit in 2008
142
22.5
47
28.3
16
33.3
211
23.3
14
29.8
Other
14
2.2
8
4.8
3
6.3
18
2.0
0
0.0
Missing data
5
0.8
1
0.6
1
2.1
12
1.3
1
2.1
Total
631
100.0
166
100.0
48
100.0
904
100.0
47
100.0

 

In contrast, Table 11b shows that as a proportion of students who received indirect support:

  • A majority of Asian students9 (86%) completed their programme of RT:Lit support in 2007. Proportionately fewer Pasifika students (66%), Māori students (64%) and NZ European students (58%) had completed their period of indirect support.
  • NZ European students were slightly more likely than students of all other ethnicities, to have their RT:Lit support continued into 2008 (32%, compared to 28% for Māori, 28% for Pasifika and 9% for Asian students).
Table 11b:    Student outcomes for those who received INDIRECT support, by ethnicity
Student outcome
NZ Māori
Pasifika
Asian
NZ European
Other
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
Completed indirect support (discharged)
520
63.8
93
66.4
48
85.7
735
58.3
19
32.8
Received an incomplete programme
44
5.4
2
1.4
2
3.6
50
4.0
8
13.8
Student will require regular tutoring from RT: Lit in 2008
225
27.6
39
27.9
5
8.9
406
32.2
22
37.9
Transferred to direct support
18
2.2
5
3.6
1
1.8
39
3.1
6
10.3
Other
3
0.4
1
0.7
0
0.0
21
1.7
0
0.0
Missing data
5
0.6
0
0.0
0
0.0
10
0.8
3
5.2
Total
815
100.0
140
100.0
56
100.0
1,261
100.0
58
100.0

Age

Tables 12a and 12b present student outcomes from RT:Lit support by age upon entry to the programme. Also consistent with the pattern of results presented in the 2006 report, Table 12a shows that for students who received direct support:

  • The proportion of students who completed their programme of RT:Lit support steadily increased from the youngest age groups up to the age of 10 years (e.g. 57% and 56% of students aged 6 and 7 completed regular tutoring, compared to 71% for students aged 10 years). The percentage of completed students then dropped to 60 percent and 61 percent for students aged 11 and 12 years respectively.
  • The proportion of students with incomplete programmes was higher among the younger age groups (e.g. 16% for students aged 6 years) and older age groups (e.g. 17% for students aged 12 years and more) than it was among students in the mid-range ages (e.g. 12% for each of the 7 to 10 age groups).

Note that many students aged 12 years or older may not have completed RT:Lit support because they moved to secondary school before they were discharged from the programme. This may account for the relatively large proportion of students in this age group listed as having an ‘other’ outcome status and the relatively low proportion of students who were to continue support in 2008.

Table 12a: Students receiving DIRECT support, their outcome of RT:Lit support by age at entry1
1    Excludes data from 5 students with missing age information and data from 20 students with missing outcome information.
Student outcome
5 yrs or less
6 yrs
7 yrs
8 yrs
9 yrs
10 yrs
11 yrs
12 yrs or more
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
Completed regular tutoring
7
35.0
83
57.2
268
55.7
284
60.4
208
66.5
129
70.5
50
60.2
46
60.5
Received an incomplete programme
3
15.0
23
15.9
56
11.6
56
11.9
38
12.1
22
12.0
13
15.7
13
17.1
Student will require further support in 2008
8
40.0
37
25.5
147
30.6
125
26.6
64
20.4
28
15.3
16
19.3
4
5.3
Other
2
10.0
2
1.4
10
2.1
5
1.1
3
1.0
4
2.2
4
4.8
13
17.1
Total
20
100.0
145
100.0
481
100.0
470
100.0
313
100.0
183
100.0
83
100.0
76
100.0

 

In contrast, Table 12b shows that for students who received indirect support:

  • The proportion of students who completed their programme of RT:Lit support dropped from 79 percent for those aged 5 years and under, to 51 percent for those aged 7 years.
  • From age 7 onwards, the proportion of completed students increased steadily to 66 percent for students aged 11 years and 80 percent for students aged 12 and above.
  • Students in the 7 to 9 years age group were more likely than students of other ages to require  further support in 2008 or to have been transferred to direct RT:Lit support.
Table 12b:    Students receiving INDIRECT support, their outcome from RT:Lit support by age at entry1
1    Excludes data from 44 students with missing age information and data from 18 students with missing outcome information.
Student outcome
5 yrs or less
6 yrs
7 yrs
8 yrs
9 yrs
10 yrs
11 yrs
12 yrs or more
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
Completed indirect support
175
79.2
205
66.8
237
51.2
227
55.2
190
57.9
138
63.0
128
66.0
100
80.0
Received an incomplete programme
5
2.3
15
4.9
22
4.8
10
2.4
17
5.2
9
4.1
9
4.6
8
6.4
Student will require further support in 2008
37
16.7
79
25.7
174
37.6
150
36.5
110
33.5
68
31.1
54
27.8
15
12.0
Transferred to direct support
0
0.0
5
1.6
23
5.0
21
5.1
8
2.4
3
1.4
2
1.0
2
1.6
Other
4
1.8
3
1.0
7
1.5
3
0.7
3
0.9
1
0.5
1
0.5
0
0.0
Total
221
100.0
307
100.0
463
100.0
411
100.0
328
100.0
219
100.0
194
100.0
125
100.0


Education factors

Table 13 presents student outcomes from RT:Lit support by prior literacy assistance. Note that this information was only collected for students who received direct support.

Students with no prior literacy assistance were more likely to have completed their period of regular RT:Lit tutoring than students who had received some form of prior literacy support. That is, 65 percent of students with no prior support completed RT:Lit tutoring in 2007, compared with 54 percent for students who had previously been in Reading Recovery, 57 percent for students who had experience with ‘other’ literacy programmes and 51 percent who had experience with both.

Students who had previously been in both Reading Recovery and ‘other’ literacy programmes were more likely to require further RT:Lit support in 2008 (33%, compared with 20% for students who had no prior literacy assistance).

These results differ slightly from the data presented in the 2006 report, which found no clear relationship between student outcomes from RT:Lit support and prior literacy assistance. In considering this, the current findings should not be used to make suggestions or inferences about the efficacy of other types of literacy interventions. Instead, the tendency for students with prior literacy assistance to have lower levels of completion may be reflective of a greater level of need present amongst these students. This greater level of need may also help to explain why overall, students who received RT:Lit support were less likely to have been successfully discontinued from Reading Recovery compared with the overall population of students who participate in Reading Recovery annually.

Table 13:    Student outcomes, by prior literacy support1
1    Excludes data from 357 students whose previous experience with literacy support was either missing or unknown.
Student outcome (from RT:Lit support)
Reading Recovery only
Other literacy programme only
Both Reading Recovery and other literacy programme
No prior literacy support
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
Completed regular tutoring (discharged)
199
55.6
259
60.9
143
51.1
243
64.6
Received an incomplete programme
53
14.8
47
11.1
38
13.6
43
11.4
Student will require further support in 2008
95
26.5
105
24.7
92
32.9
74
19.7
Other
7
2.0
11
2.6
3
1.1
12
3.2
Unknown outcome
4
1.1
3
0.7
4
1.4
4
1.1
Total
358
100.0
425
100.0
280
100.0
376
100.0
 

Consistent with the findings presented in 2006, Table 14 shows that the majority (69%) of students who had been successfully discontinued from Reading Recovery had completed their regular RT:Lit support in 2007. Proportionately fewer students who were referred on from Reading Recovery for specialist help or long-term reading support (48%) or who received an incomplete Reading Recovery programme (44%) had completed their programme of RT:Lit support.

Students who did not complete Reading Recovery were more likely to have received an incomplete RT:Lit programme (21%, compared with 16% for those who were referred on and 8% for those who were successfully discontinued from Reading Recovery).

Table 14:    Student outcomes from RT:Lit support and prior Reading Recovery support1
1    Excludes data from 70 students whose outcome from Reading Recovery was not known.
Student outcome (from RT:Lit support)
Successfully discontinued Reading Recovery
Incomplete Reading Recovery programme
Referred on from Reading Recovery
N
%
N
%
N
%
Completed regular tutoring (discharged)
117
69.2
15
44.1
174
47.7
Received an incomplete programme
14
8.3
7
20.6
59
16.2
Student will require further support in 2008
34
20.1
11
32.4
121
33.2
Other
2
1.2
1
2.9
5
1.4
Unknown outcome
2
1.2
0
0.0
6
1.6
Total
169
100.0
34
100.0
365
100.0

Table 15 presents the outcomes from RT:Lit support for ESOL and non-ESOL students. In 2007, non-ESOL students were more likely than ESOL students, to have completed their regular tutoring sessions (62% and 47% respectively). In contrast, ESOL students were more likely than non-ESOL students to require a continuation of RT:Lit support in 2008.

These findings differ from those presented in the 2006 report, which found no difference in the proportion of non-ESOL and ESOL students who had completed programmes of support or had their support continued to the following year.

Table 15:    Student outcomes from RT:Lit support for ESOL and non-ESOL students1
1    Table based on students who received direct RT:Lit support in 2007. Excludes data from 14 students with missing information about their first language.
Student outcome (from RT:Lit support)
ESOL
Non-ESOL
N
%
N
%
Completed regular tutoring (discharged)
81
47.4
990
61.5
Received an incomplete programme
18
10.5
206
12.8
Student will require further support in 2008
60
35.1
366
22.7
Other
10
5.8
33
2.0
Unknown outcome
2
1.2
16
1.0
Total
171
100.0
1,611
100.0


Progress for directly supported students

The following section presents information about the progress made by students who completed regular tutoring in 2007. This section discusses student achievement in terms of reaching age expectations (with regard to literacy) in addition to observed shifts in students’ age-based reading levels.

Completed students’ literacy achievements

RT:Lits were asked to note whether students who had completed their programme of support had reached the chronological age expectations for the literacy area(s) they received support with. Just over one-third (37%) had reached these chronological age expectations. This was similar to 35 percent recorded in 2006.

Students who had completed regular tutoring and subsequent monitoring in the classroom were more likely to have reached chronological age expectations (42%) than those who had not completed the period of classroom monitoring (28%).

In many of the cases where an ‘other’ outcome was listed, RT:Lits alluded to the progress made by these students as a result of their regular tutoring. This progress was stated in both academic terms (e.g. the student was reading within 6 to 12 months of their age group) and in behavioural terms (e.g. the students is more motivated and works independently in class).

Table 16:    Student progress for those who had completed regular tutoring 
Student progress
Regular tutoring and monitoring by classroom teacher with RT:Lit support completed
Regular tutoring complete, monitoring by classroom teacher with RT:Lit support not completed
  Total
N
%
N
%
N
%
Reached chronological age expectations
303
42.0
99
27.7
402
37.3
Other
384
53.3
218
60.9
602
55.8
Missing
34
4.7
41
11.5
75
7.0
Total
721
100.0
358
100.0
1,079
100.0


Shifts in age-based reading levels for students who had completed regular tutoring

Figure 6 compares age-based reading levels for completed students at entry and at exit from RT:Lit support. Overall, the two lines illustrate a shift in these students reading levels across their period of regular tutoring.

Two-thirds (67%) of all students who completed their period of RT:Lit support were reading at levels below 7 years (based on age-based reading levels) when they entered the programme (dashed line). In contrast, less than two-thirds (29%) of all students who completed regular RT:Lit support were reading at these levels when they exited the programme (solid line).

Figure 6: Overall shift in age-based reading levels1

Image of Figure 6: Overall shift in age-based reading levels.

1 This figure is based on 1,079 directly supported students who completed regular tutoring in 2007. Does not include data from 60 students with missing information about their reading age at exit and data from 54 students with missing information about their chronological age at exit.


Age-based reading levels for students who completed regular tutoring

Figure 7 compares the age-based reading levels upon exit (solid line) and chronological age upon exit (dashed line) for students who completed regular direct RT:Lit tutoring. Overall, there was a tendency for these students to be reading at levels slightly below their chronological age group upon completion of their regular tutoring. This is evidenced by the degree to which these students’ age-based reading levels (solid line) are slightly offset to the left of their chronological ages.

With this in mind, the results presented in Figure 7 show a much greater alignment between these students chronological age and their age-based reading levels upon exit, compared with the picture presented in Figure 3 (pg 23), which highlights the difference that existed between these variables for all directly supported students upon entry10.

Figure 7: Chronological age and reading age at completion of RT: Lit programme1

Image of Figure 7: Chronological age and reading age at completion of RT: Lit programme.

1 This figure is based on 1,079 directly supported students who completed regular tutoring in 2007. Does not include data from 60 students with missing information about their reading age at exit and data from 12 students with missing information about their chronological age at exit.

A more detailed collection of data relating to student achievement and shifts in age-based reading levels is being implemented for future RT:Lit Annual Reports. The data collected during the trial will allow for a more reliable picture of the progress students make in terms of their literacy achievement, as a result of RT:Lit intervention.





Section 5: Conclusions

The primary purpose of the Resource Teachers: Literacy 2007 Annual Report was to identify the nature of the support RT:Lits provided in 2007, identify the students that received this support and to explore student outcomes and progress as a result of the RT:Lits’ intervention. Overall, most of the findings presented in the current report are consistent with trends observed in previous years.

Nature of the support RT:Lits provided

Slightly less than half (44%) of all students supported by RT:Lits in 2007 received direct, regular tutoring, either on an individual basis (29%), as part of a small-group of students (12%) or both individually and in small-groups (2%). Slightly more than half (56%) received indirect in-class support.

Almost all students who received support from RT:Lits in 2007 were assisted with reading literacy. A notable proportion of students received assistance with written literacy (especially directly supported students) while very few received support with oral language.

Students who received RT:Lit support

Overall, boys outnumbered girls in RT:Lit support by two to one. Half (57%) were NZ European, one-third (35%) were Māori, 7 percent were Pasifika and 3 percent were Asian. Many students who received direct support were aged between 7 to 10 years. Students who received indirect support were spread fairly evenly across the 5 to 12 years age range.

Student outcomes and progress as a result of the RT:Lits intervention

At the end of 2007, two out of every three students had completed their programme of RT:Lit support (regardless of whether they received indirect or direct support). A further one-quarter (24%) of directly supported students and one-third (30%) of indirectly supported students required further assistance and were to continue in 2008. A small proportion of students received an incomplete programme (13% for directly supported and 5% for indirectly supported students). These students received incomplete programmes for a number of reasons, including being referred on for further specialist assistance, moving out of the area serviced by the RT:Lit, moving from primary to secondary school and being discontinued due to behavioural issues.

Slight variations were observed in the proportion of students who completed their programme of support across the demographic factors of gender, ethnicity and age. In addition, lower levels of completion were observed for directly supported students who had prior experience with Reading Recovery and other forms of literacy support and for ESOL students.

There was evidence of a shift in age-based reading levels as a result of RT:Lit intervention, for those students who completed regular (direct) tutoring. Upon entry to RT:Lit support, a large proportion of these students had relatively low age-based reading levels (i.e. less than 7 years). Upon exit from the programme however, proportionately fewer students were reading at these lower levels, while proportionately more were reading at older age groups. A more detailed data collection of this information is being undertaken from 2009 which will allow for a more reliable picture of the progress students make as a result of RT:Lit intervention.
 

Appendices

Appendix Table 1: Chronological ages at entry of students by gender
1    Excludes data from 34 students with missing gender information
2
    Excludes data from 1 student with missing gender information. 
Chronological age at entry
Indirect support 1
Direct support 2
Boys
Girls
Boys
Girls
 
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
5 years or less
116
7.7
104
13.1
15
1.2
6
1.2
6 years
186
12.4
121
15.2
106
8.2
39
7.9
7 years
301
20.1
155
19.5
353
27.2
133
26.8
8 years
296
19.7
110
13.8
347
26.7
129
26.0
9 years
221
14.7
109
13.7
232
17.9
85
17.1
10 years
149
9.9
65
8.2
128
9.9
57
11.5
11 years
115
7.7
79
9.9
59
4.5
24
4.8
12 years
79
5.3
32
4.0
48
3.7
19
3.8
13 + years
9
0.6
6
0.8
7
0.5
3
0.6
Missing data
29
1.9
14
1.8
4
0.6
1
0.2
Total
1,501
100.0
795
100.0
1,299
100.0
496
100.0

 

Footnotes

  1. This information has been provided and reported upon annually since 2001, with reports on their precursors, Resource Teachers of Reading, being available prior to 2001.
  2. Note, this data was only collected for students who received direct support.
  3. Using Statistics New Zealand 1996 hierarchy, students were assigned to one ethnic group by prioritising ethnicity in the following order: Māori, Pasifika, Asian, and NZ European.
  4. Note that Pasifika and Asian students came from a range of ethnic backgrounds.
  5. Note that care must be taken when interpreting this result due to the low number of Asian students.
  6. Again, care must be taken when interpreting this result due to the low number of Asian students.
  7. In 2007, 58% of all students in Reading Recovery successfully discontinued their series of lessons. Lee, M (2008). Annual Monitoring of Reading Recovery: The Data for 2007. 
  8. This result should be interpreted with care due to the low number of Asian students.
  9. Again, this result should be interpreted with care due to the low number of Asian students.
  10. This is a broad comparison here, as Figure 3 presents chronological age and age-based reading level information for all students who received direct support. Figure 7 on the other hand, only presents information for directly supported students who completed regular tutoring.

Contact Us

For more publication-related
information, please email the:
Information Officer Mailbox

Search Publications


 Copyright © Education Counts 2014   |   Contact information.officer@minedu.govt.nz for enquiries.