Publications

New Zealand Schools: Ngā Kura o Aotearoa (2009)

Publication Details

This report of the Minister of Education on the compulsory schools sector in New Zealand pertains to 2009 (also known as the Schools Sector Report). Other editions are available on the New Zealand Schools publication home page.

Author(s): Ministry of Education

Date Published: September 2010

Please consider the environment before printing the contents of this report. This report is available as a download (please refer to the 'Downloads/Links' inset box, top right). This inset box also has links to related publications and information that may be of interest. Please consider the environment before printing the contents of this report.

Chapter 3: Indicators and evidence

3.1 Foundation skills

The transition into school has a significant influence on children’s achievement well into secondary school, particularly for learners from communities with few resources.31 Teachers can support this transition by linking school expectations and learning with children’s prior experiences.32

Mastering literacy competencies early is essential to enable students to learn effectively across the curriculum. The first years of primary school are a particularly critical time for children to master the foundations of reading and writing.

A strong foundation in mathematics enables children to continue to learn new and advanced knowledge in mathematics and gain the learning required for NCEA and further qualifications.

Schools are required to strive for learning success for those with special needs by ensuring that they are identified as early as possible and receive appropriate support. Māori and Pasifika children tend to be referred to special education early intervention services later than European/Pākehā children.

Literacy: Reading and writing

By international standards, on average New Zealand performs well in reading literacy at both primary and secondary levels, but at all levels of schooling there are significant differences in average literacy achievement for different ethnic groups.

Like most countries, the average reading achievement of girls is significantly higher than that of boys

Why is this important?

Reading and writing are fundamental to learning and effective participation in society and the workforce. Reading is essential for student achievement across the curriculum.

In 2009 ERO found that about 70 percent of teachers in the 212 schools reviewed used effective reading and writing teaching practices in year 1 and 2 classes.33 However, nearly one-third of teachers did not. A 2008 ERO report34 found that while most schools identified children at risk of not achieving in literacy, nearly half the 135 schools had not evaluated whether or not their programmes actually resulted in improved outcomes for these students.

The early years of primary school are a particularly critical time for children to master the foundations of reading and writing. Teachers of year 1 and 2 children have a vital role in ensuring children gain the reading and writing competencies and knowledge they require for further education success across the curriculum.

How are we going?

Literacy in primary schooling

In 2009 the Ministry began developing the National Standards in reading and writing for English-medium settings.35 The Māori-medium National Standards, Ngā Whanaketanga Rumaki Māori,36 include oral language as well as reading and writing, and are based on Te Marautanga o Aotearoa.37

The New Zealand Curriculum38 includes teaching and learning of te reo Māori in English-medium settings. A new publication, Te Aho Arataki Marau mō te Ako i Te Reo Māori – Kura Auraki39 provides guidelines for teaching te reo Māori in English-medium schools in years 1–13.

Te Reo Matatini: The Māori-medium Literacy Strategy40 was released in 2007 to ensure students in Māori-medium education develop the literacy, knowledge and skills they need to succeed.

Current levels and trends
ERO evaluation reports

In 2009 ERO collected evidence from 212 primary schools about teaching and learning practices in year 1 and 2 classes in reading and writing.41 It found that about 70 percent of teachers used effective teaching practices. However, nearly one-third of teachers did not. These teachers:

... had little or no sense of how critical it was for children to develop confidence and independence in early reading and writing. These teachers had minimal understanding of effective reading and writing teaching, set inappropriately low expectations and did not seek opportunities to extend their own confidence in using a wider range of teaching practices.

The 2008 ERO report Schools’ Provision for Students at Risk of Not Achieving42 found that most schools identified children at risk of not achieving in reading and writing. However, it also found that nearly half the 135 schools it reviewed had not evaluated whether or not their programmes actually resulted in improved outcomes for these students.

National Educational Monitoring Project

The NEMP reading assessment in 200843 showed that there was no significant improvement for either year 4 or year 8 students between 2004 and 2008.

The NEMP survey found that reading was the fourth most popular school subject for year 4 students. Over 80 percent were positive about reading at school and in their own time.

Reading Recovery

Reading Recovery is a national intervention that aims to prevent literacy difficulties before they begin to affect a child’s educational progress. It provides intensive individual reading tuition for children struggling with reading and writing after one year at school.

In 2009 two-thirds (67 percent) of all state and state integrated schools offered Reading Recovery (comparable with 66 percent in 2008 and 67 percent in 2007). As a result, Reading Recovery was accessible to 77 percent of the total population of six-year-olds (relatively unchanged from 76 percent in both 2008 and in 2007).44

Resource Teachers: Literacy

Resource Teachers: Literacy (RT:Lits) work within a cluster group of schools with students in years 1 to 8 who are at risk of literacy underachievement and with their classroom teachers. In 2009 RT:Lits provided support for 3,708 students. Trends to 2008 show the number of boys supported by RT:Lits outnumbered girls by more than two to one. Half (50 percent) of all students were European/Pākehā, one-third (37 percent) were Māori, 8 percent were Pasifika and 2 percent were Asian. Overall, two out of three students successfully completed their programmes by the end of the year.45

Schooling improvement

Schooling improvement projects focus on clusters of schools with high Māori and Pasifika rolls, to raise the academic achievement of students and sustain the progress.

At the end of 2009 the Huntly-Ngaruawahia cluster’s (1,000 students) meanreading stanine score was 5.2, up from 4.6 in March 2009, and an increase from 4.1 in 2003. The average reading stanine for Māori students was 4.7, up from 4.1 in March 2009. The number of Māori students achieving at stanine 4 and above increased to 79 percent at the end of 2009, which was higher than the national norm of 77 percent and an improvement from 61 percent in 2003.

At the end of 2009, the Paeroa cluster had 83 percent of all students achieving literacy results at stanine 4 and above, compared with 67 percent in 2003, and higher than the national norm of 77 percent.

Literacy Professional Development Project

The results from the Literacy Professional Development Project (LPDP)46 show that focused, whole-school professional development can help classroom teachers be far more effective in their literacy instruction.

The LPDP has been running for six years and has involved 323 schools and 3,906 teachers. The 2008–2009 results47 again showed significant shifts in student achievement (reading and writing), particularly for Māori and Pasifika students and the 20 percent of students with the least literacy skills and knowledge.

The rate of progress for all groups of students was much greater than the expected progress without the programme. Students most at risk of underachieving had a greater rate of progress than the cohort as a whole, achieving three times the expected rate of progress for reading and six times the expected rate of progress for writing. This rapid progress was sustained for two years.

At least 92 percent of students with the lowest 20 percent of writing scores and 71 percent of students with the lowest 20 percent of reading scores achieved rates of progress that were more than double those expected for their year level.

International differences

The Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) identifies reading literacy at primary school (year 5) every four years.48 In PIRLS 2005/2006, New Zealand (at 532) scored significantly above the PIRLS scale mean. There was no significant change in the New Zealand mean from 2001 to 2005/2006. New Zealand’s standing relative to the 25 other countries with comparable data from both cycles did, however, move down from 11th in 2001 to 14th in 2005/2006. This change was largely due to significant improvements in achievement by three countries – Singapore, Hong Kong-China and the Russian Federation.

Figure 3.1.1: Distribution of PIRLS Reading Literacy Scores for New Zealand (2001 and 2005–2006)

Figure 3.1.1: Distribution of PIRLS Reading Literacy Scores for New Zealand (2001 and 2005–2006)

Ethnic group differences

Proportionately more Māori and Pasifika students participate in Reading Recovery than Asian students and European/Pākehā students. In 2009 as in previous years, Māori students and Pasifika students who successfully completed Reading Recovery made greater gains in reading and writing than European/Pākehā students. However, access to Reading Recovery was slightly lower for Māori (71 percent) and Pasifika (74 percent) students than for other students (77 percent). This is because some schools with high proportions of Māori and Pasifika students do not tend to offer Reading Recovery as much as other, higher decile schools.

In the 2008 NEMP reading and speaking assessment, European/Pākehā students scored higher on average than Māori students, but the differences in reading have lessened a little over the last eight years. At year 4 and year 8 levels, Pasifika students scored lower than European/Pākehā students in both reading and speaking. This difference has decreased a little for year 4 students over the past eight years, but the differences for year 8 students are quite large and not decreasing.

Year 8 European/Pākehā students were markedly more enthusiastic about reading than year 8 Māori students.

Compared with students for whom the predominant language spoken at home was not English, students for whom the predominant language at home was English scored higher at both year levels on tasks involving reading and speaking in English.

Ka Hikitia – Managing for Success has key goals to increase the effectiveness of literacy teaching and learning for Māori students in the early years of school. To measure progress in achieving this goal, Ka Hikitia – Managing for Success specifies a target to increase the PIRLS mean reading scores for Māori year 5 students by 7 percent by 2011.

The Pasifika Education Plan 2009–2012 has as a target to set targets for an annual increase in the number of Pasifika students meeting National Standards in schools, once a baseline has been established.

Gender differences

The NEMP reading and speaking assessments showed that girls in both year 4 and year 8 typically performed a little better than boys on both reading and speaking tasks, but with a huge overlap in performance. They were also markedly more enthusiastic about reading and speaking than boys. This is typical internationally. For example, the PIRLS 2005/2006 results showed significant difference between the mean scores for boys and girls, with girls  scoring 24 points higher, on average, than boys. However, the difference for New Zealand was the fifth largest to be observed across all countries.

 Socio-economic differences

In 2009 students in higher decile schools entered Reading Recovery with higher reading scores than those from lower decile schools. Among students who successfully completed Reading Recovery, students in lower decile schools tended to make more progress than those from higher decile schools, largely because their initial scores were lower.

Literacy in secondary schooling

The New Zealand Curriculum and Te Marautanga o Aotearoa provide a basis for literacy teaching and learning in secondary schools.

To achieve a NCEA Level 1 qualification, all students must complete courses that fulfil specific literacy and numeracy requirements.

Current levels and trends
National indicators

In 2009, 78 percent of candidates met the literacy requirements for NCEA Level 1, continuing a trend of small improvements since 2004 (71 percent).

Figure 3.1.2: Students Who Met the Literacy and Numeracy Requirements for NCEA Level 1 by the End of Year 11 (2004–2009)

Figure 3.1.2: Students Who Met the Literacy and Numeracy Requirements for NCEA Level 1 by the End of Year 11 (2004–2009)

International differences

The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) study has assessed 15-year-old students’ reading literacy on three-yearly intervals since 2000.

In PISA 200649 New Zealand’s 15-year-old students performed very strongly. On average, only two of the other 29 OECD countries (Korea and Finland) achieved a significantly better result than New Zealand (Hong Kong-China also achieved a significantly higher score).

New Zealand’s mean performance of 521 was significantly better than 50 of the 56 participating countries, including Australia (513), the United Kingdom (495) and the 21 other OECD countries.

In 2000–2006 there was no significant change in New Zealand’s average 15-year-old student performance in reading literacy.

Ethnic group differences

The proportion of Māori students in Māori-medium settings achieving the literacy requirements for NCEA level 1 in either English or te reo Māori is higher than that of Māori students in English-medium settings. In 2009, 96 percent of Māori students in Māori-medium settings achieved the literacy requirements, compared with 75 percent of Māori candidates in English-medium settings, and 86 percent of non-Māori students. This has been relatively consistent since 2006, when 95 percent of candidates in Māori-medium settings met the NCEA level 1 literacy requirements compared with 71 percent of Māori candidates in English-medium settings.

The proportion of Māori students in English-medium settings achieving the literacy requirements for NCEA level 1 is significantly lower than most other ethnic groups. The proportion of Pasifika students is also relatively low.

Failing to meet the literacy requirements prevents students from achieving NCEA level 1 and limits their opportunities for further study.

In 2009, 71 percent of Pasifika candidates, 78 percent of Asian candidates and 83 percent of European/Pākehā candidates met the literacy requirements.

The results for Māori and Pasifika students are improving, with 65 percent of Māori candidates and 62 percent of Pasifika candidates having achieved the NCEA level 1 literacy requirements in 2006.

Ka Hikitia – Managing for Successhas key goals to increase the effectiveness of teaching and learning for Māori students in years 9 and 10, and to increase the responsibility of secondary schools to ensure Māori students are present, engaged and achieving. Ka Hikitia – Managing for Success sets a target to improve the proportion of year 11 Māori students achieving the reading literacy and numeracy criteria for NCEA Level 1 from 59 percent in 2006 to be equal to or better than the proportion of non-Māori by 2012.

Figure 3.1.3: Year 11 Students Meeting NCEA Level 1 Literacy and Numeracy Requirements, by Ethnicity (2004–2009)

Figure 3.1.3: Year 11 Students Meeting NCEA Level 1 Literacy and Numeracy Requirements, by Ethnicity (2004–2009)

For the school sector the Pasifika Education Plan 2009–2012 focuses primarily on accelerating literacy and numeracy achievement and gaining secondary-level qualifications. It sets a target to increase the proportion of Pasifika school leavers achieving NCEA Level 1 literacy and numeracy requirements from 84 percent in 2008 to 93 percent by 2012.

Gender differences

In 2009, 74 percent of male students and 82 percent of female students achieved the literacy requirements for NCEA Level 1. There has been a slow but steady increase in literacy for both genders since 2004, as the graph below indicates.

Socio-economic differences

The proportion of students from low decile schools achieving NCEA level 1 literacy requirements in 2009 continued to increase, and increased more markedly for this group than for students in middle or higher decile schools.

Figure 3.1.4: Year 11 Students Meeting the NCEA Level 1 Literacy Requirements, by Gender (2004–2009)

Figure 3.1.4: Year 11 Students Meeting the NCEA Level 1 Literacy Requirements, by Gender (2004–2009)

Figure 3.1.5: Students Achieving NCEA Level 1 Literacy and Numeracy Requirements by the End of Year 11, by Decile Group (2004–2009)

Figure 3.1.5: Students Achieving NCEA Level 1 Literacy and Numeracy Requirements by the End of Year 11, by Decile Group (2004–2009)

 Where to find out more

Vist Education Counts to view indicators:

Mathematics

New Zealand students perform well by international standards in mathematical literacy at the senior secondary level. However, there are groups of students in New Zealand with relatively low performance on average and mathematics performance by primary school students has not improved in the last five years.

Why is this important?

Mathematical knowledge is essential for successful participation in daily life, work and wider society. Numbers saturate the modern world, so people need numeracy skills and the ability to use mathematics in everyday life. Mathematics also equips people with effective strategies for investigating, interpreting, explaining and making sense of information.

Mathematical attainment at senior secondary level helps students prepare for successful participation in tertiary education. It helps them contribute to, and participate in, a changing labour market and an increasingly knowledge-based society.

How are we going?

Current levels and trends
Mathematics in primary schooling

As in previous NEMP mathematics assessments the 2009 results50 showed that mathematics continues to be a very popular subject, with at least 85 percent of students at each of year 4 and year 8 indicating they were positive about doing mathematics at school.

The 2009 NEMP report on mathematics shows that students make strong gains in mathematics between year 4 and year 8, reflecting the specific teaching in mathematics that takes place over this period. The gains in mathematics between years 4 and 8 are higher than those made in most other subjects over the equivalent period, according to NEMP assessments.

However, overall there was no real change in mathematics performance at either the year 4 or year 8 levels in the 12 years since the first NEMP assessment in this subject in 1997.

Where student performance on tasks in 2009 improved compared with previous assessments, the gains were mainly small. On other tasks performance has dipped. For example, student performance on certain measurement estimation tasks continued to be quite weak. There was also a decline at the year 8 level in students’ performance on complex multiplication tasks.

Of concern are the considerable disparities between Māori and European/Pākehā and Pasifika and European/Pākehā that have persisted without improvement since 2001, the first year in which comparisons were available.

Mathematics in secondary schooling

Mathematics from year 9 to year 11 is part of the core curriculum, so most students participate. In years 12 and 13 participation in mathematics remains high; 79 percent of year 12 students and 58 percent of year 13 students took at least one maths subject in 2009. In 2009, 85 percent of students achieved the numeracy requirements for NCEA Level 1 by the end of year 11.

Ethnic group differences

Māori and Pasifika students are still not experiencing success in mathematics at the same level as other groups.
 In the 2009 NEMP assessments, European/Pākehā children averaged moderately to substantially higher than Māori students, and substantially higher than Pasifika students.

In 2009, 78 percent of Māori students achieved the numeracy requirements for NCEA Level 1. However, only 66 percent of Māori students achieved the literacy and numeracy requirements for Level 1 by the end of year 11, compared with 79 percent of non-Māori. Only 53 percent of Māori students actually achieved NCEA Level 1 by the end of year 11.

A target for Ka Hikitia – Managing for Success is to improve the proportion of year 11 Māori students achieving the reading literacy and numeracy criteria for NCEA Level 1 from 59 percent in 2006 to be equal to or better than the proportion of non-Māori by 2012.

Asian students were more likely than other candidates to attain NCEA Level 1 mathematics with 85 percent achieving in 2009. Fifty-nine percent of Māori and 60 percent of Pasifika year 11 students achieved
  Level 1 mathematics in 2009. There was little variation in both attainment and participation rates at this level in the last three years, for all ethnic groups.

The Pasifika Education Plan 2009–201251 seeks to ensure Pasifika young people demonstrate improved progress and achievement in literacy and numeracy in NCEA Levels 1, 2 and 3.

Figure 3.1.6: Year 11 Student Attainment in Mathematics at NCEA Level 1 or Above, by Ethnicity (2006–2009)

Figure 3.1.6: Year 11 Student Attainment in Mathematics at NCEA Level 1 or Above, by Ethnicity (2006–2009)

Gender differences

In the 2009 NEMP assessments, year 4 boys averaged slightly higher than girls. At year 8, the results were about the same for girls and boys, with boys only very slightly ahead. However, in previous years, girls were very slightly ahead.

Participation in mathematics for year 11 and 12 students was similar for both boys and girls. Girls were slightly ahead in attainment in both years but to a greater extent in year 12, where 45 percent girls achieved Level 2 or above compared with 41 percent of boys.

In 2009, 58 percent of year 13 students participated in at least one maths subject. At this level students choose from calculus, statistics or general mathematics. Statistics is generally the preferred option. More boys participate in mathematics at this level than girls, but girls are more likely to achieve Level 3 calculus and statistics than boys. In 2009, 73 percent of girls achieved 14 credits in Level 3 calculus compared with 67 percent of boys.

Figure 3.1.7: Year 13 Student Participation in Calculus and Statistics, by Gender (2004–2009)

Figure 3.1.7: Year 13 Student Participation in Calculus and Statistics, by Gender (2004–2009)

Where to find out more

Vist Education Counts to view indicators:

3.2 Student outcomes

The choice of subjects at secondary school can open up or close off future opportunities for young people. For example, to enter degree-level tertiary education, students under 25 must achieve NCEA Level 3 with subjects that meet the requirements for entering university.

A 2009 report52 found that students who choose or are directed into applied versions of core subjects or unit standards courses can find that this pathway ‘fizzles out’ with no higher-level study options. The report suggested that some of the reasons for these choices are the nature of the timetabling and other restrictions in some secondary schools. In other cases school staff guide students into decisions. Māori and Pasifika students are more likely than most to choose courses or be directed by teachers, deans, or guidance counsellors into courses that do not lead to higher-level study options.

Information from schools was often inadequate to enable parents, families and whānau to feel confident about making informed decisions.

Over a quarter (28 percent) of both parents and students want more guidance in making decisions about subjects in years 9 and 10 before it is too late.53

A report54 on education and employment linkages in New Zealand highlighted that people need to make decisions about learning and careers throughout their lives. However, school career advisers have a focus on providing information for one-off decisions rather than lifelong strategies and development that help young people make sound decisions subsequent to the ones they make on leaving school.

Completion of senior secondary education is associated with a range of economic and social benefits both in New Zealand and across the OECD. Students who enrol in tertiary education straight from school have higher retention and completion rates, and are more likely to go on to higher levels of study than students who return to education later in life.55 Successfully completing a tertiary education qualification early in adult life also provides better employment opportunities, income and associated benefits. Diploma- or degree-level qualifications provide the greatest benefits.56 This is why the Government is focusing on increasing the proportion of students achieving higher-level qualifications before they are 25.57

School leavers58

The qualifications a student has gained through school play a significant role in the ease with which they can pursue further study or employment.

People with higher levels of qualification are more likely to participate in the labour market, face lower risks of unemployment, have greater access to further training and receive higher earnings on average.

Overall, since 2004, a greater proportion of leavers have attained NCEA Level 3 or University Entrance, and a smaller proportion has left school with attainment below NCEA Level 1.

Why is this important?

The success of an education system is manifested in, among other things, the success of individuals in finding sustainable employment and the income that can be made from the skills and knowledge that the individual brings to their job.

School-level qualifications provide an indicator of  a level of literacy and skill. School leavers who do not  complete any qualifications are, on average, more likely to have difficulty finding sustained and skilled employment.

How are we going?

School leavers in 2009
Current levels and trends

The cohort of 2009 school leavers was identified using ENROL.59 For the first time school leaver data contained students who left school from an alternative education site or were thought by schools to be transferring between schools, but did not enrol at another New Zealand school by 1 March in the following year.

The Ministry estimates that an additional 2,065 school leavers were included in 2009 who would not have been counted as school leavers in March roll returns prior to 2009. Table 3.2.1 contains the school leaver results for the full 2009 cohort.60


Table 3.2.1: Highest Attainment of School Leavers (2009)
Highest Attainment of School Leavers European /PākehāMāoriPasifikaAsianMELAA61OtherAll Ethnic Groups
%%%%%%%
University Entrance or Level 3 qualification or higher6249202565484544
Halfway to a Level 3 qualification91017911910
Level 2 qualification6317181810151417
Halfway to a Level 2 qualification711134878
Level 1 qualification6742245
Halfway to a Level 1 qualification6451292556
Less than halfway to a Level 1 qualification 4962535
Little or no formal attainment414857126
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

School leavers with NCEA Level 2 or a higher qualification

A formal school qualification at Level 265 or above is a benchmark that young adults need to complete to have a basic prerequisite for higher education and training, and many entry-level jobs.

Current levels and trends

In 2009, 73 percent of school leavers attained at least NCEA Level 2, compared with 71 percent in 2008 and 66 percent in 2007. Over 63 percent of leavers with NCEA Level 2 or above also achieved a University Entrance standard.

Ethnic group differences

Using total response, Asian students had the highest proportion of school leavers attaining at least NCEA Level 2 in 2009 (85 percent), followed by European/Pākehā (75 percent). There was a substantial gap between the proportion of Pasifika (60 percent) and Māori (48 percent) school leavers attaining at least NCEA Level 2.

When looking at trends it is necessary to use prioritised ethnicity and a more restricted definition of school leavers.66 Relatively high rates of improvement can be seen for Pasifika and Māori since 2003, compared with other ethnic groups. This implies that the disparities between ethnic groups are reducing.

The gap between the proportion of Māori and non-Māori school leavers with NCEA Level 2 or above is also closing. In 2003 non-Māori school leavers were twice as likely to obtain NCEA Level 2 or above as Māori school leavers (29 percent for Māori school leavers and 58 percent for non-Māori school leavers). In 2009 results increased for both groups to 53 percent for Māori school leavers and 77 percent for non-Māori school leavers.

Similarly, the gap between the proportion of Pasifika and non-Pasifika school leavers with NCEA Level 2 or above is closing. In 2003 Non-Pasifika school leavers were 26 percent more likely to obtain NCEA Level 2 or above than Pasifika school leavers, compared with 12 percent more likely in 2009.

Figure 3.2.1: School Leavers with NCEA Level 2 or a Higher Qualification, by Ethnic Group (2004–2009)

Figure 3.2.1: School Leavers with NCEA Level 2 or a Higher Qualification, by Ethnic Group (2004–2009)

Ka Hikitia – Managing for Success sets a target67 to increase the proportion of Māori school leavers with NCEA Level 2 or above from 37 percent in 2006 to 55 percent by 2012. Achievement of this target is tracked annually and the target is on track to be met by 2012.

A target68 in the Pasifika Education Plan 2009–2012   is to increase the proportion of Pasifika students leaving school with at least NCEA Level 2 or equivalent, from 63 percent in 2008 to 75 percent by the end of 2012.

As noted, and as can be seen in Figure 3.2.3, the gap between the proportion of Pasifika and the proportion of non-Pasifika students leaving school with NCEA Level 2 or above decreased over the last year. In 2009, 66 percent of Pasifika school leavers and 74 percent of non-Pasifika school leavers had NCEA Level 2 or above (compared with 63 percent and 72 percent respectively in 2008).

It is forecast that the target of 75 percent of Pasifika school leavers attaining at least NCEA Level 2 by 2012 will be met.

Gender differences

Girls performed better than boys, with 74 percent attaining at least NCEA Level 2 in 2009 compared with 66 percent of boys.

Socio-economic differences

In 2009, 86 percent of students from schools in the highest deciles (deciles 9 and 10) left school with at least NCEA Level 2. This was 35 percentage points higher than schools in the lowest two deciles  (51 percent). This gap has narrowed since 2006 when students from schools in deciles 9 and 10 were almost twice as likely to leave school with at least NCEA Level 2, compared with students from schools in the lowest deciles.

School leavers achieving University Entrance standard

Students leaving school having achieved University Entrance requirements and/or attaining NCEA Level 3 or above are considered to have successfully completed their final year of schooling.

Current levels and trends

In 2009, 46 percent of school leavers achieved at least a University Entrance standard,69 an increase of 14 percentage points from 2004 (32 percent).

One of the aims of the Tertiary Education Strategy 2010–2015 is to increase the number of under-25-year-olds achieving degree-level qualifications, particularly those from Māori and Pasifika ethnic groups. Achieving this goal depends upon school leavers gaining University Entrance requirements and eligible students choosing to progress to tertiary study and completing their qualifications.

A recent study70 found that 70 percent of school leavers with at least NCEA Level 3 chose to transition directly to bachelors-level study. A further 13 percent of these leavers chose to study below bachelors-level. The remaining students did not make a direct transition to tertiary study in New Zealand.

Ethnic group differences

In 2009 using total response, Asian students had the highest proportion of school leavers achieving a University Entrance standard (65 percent), compared with European/Pākehā (49 percent), Pasifika (25 percent) and Māori (20 percent).

To look at trends over time it is necessary to use prioritised ethnicities and a more restricted definition of school leavers.71

Figure 3.2.2: School Leavers Achieving a University Entrance Standard, by Prioritised Ethnic Group (2004–2009)

Figure 3.2.2: School Leavers Achieving a University Entrance Standard, by Prioritised Ethnic Group (2004%u20132009)

The proportion of Māori school leavers achieving a University Entrance standard increased by 11 percentage points between 2004 and 2009 (12 percent in 2004 to 23 percent in 2009). This is compared with an improvement of 14 percentage points for non-Māori school leavers (37 percent in 2004 compared with 51 percent in 2009).72

Ka Hikitia – Managing for Success sets a target to increase the proportion of Māori school leavers qualified to attend university from 15 percent in 2006 to 30 percent by 2012. It is forecast that the target of 30 percent of Māori school leavers attaining at University Entrance standard by 2012 will be met.

A target in the Pasifika Education Plan 2009–2012 is to increase the proportion of Pasifika students leaving school with a University Entrance standard from 23 percent in 2008 to 30 percent by the end of 2012.

Since 2004 the proportion of Pasifika school leavers achieving a University Entrance standard improved by 14 percentage points (from 14 percent in 2004 to 28 percent in 2009). Non-Pasifika school leavers also had a 14 percentage point improvement over the same period (from 34 percent in 2004 to 48 percent in 2009).

The gap between the proportion of Pasifika and the proportion of non-Pasifika students leaving school having achieved a University Entrance standard has stayed relatively even.

It is forecast that the target of 30 percent of Pasifika school leavers achieving a University Entrance standard by 2012 will be met.

Gender differences

Girls performed better than boys, with 50 percent of 2009 female school leavers achieving a University Entrance standard compared with 37 percent of 2009 male school leavers.

Socio-economic differences

In 2009 students from schools in the highest deciles (deciles 9 and 10) are 3.0 times more likely to leave school having achieved a University Entrance standard than students from schools in deciles 1 or 2.

Where to find out more

Vist Education Counts:

National Qualifications Framework attainment at senior secondary level

It has been five years since all NCEA/National Qualifications Framework (NQF) levels were implemented in schools. Attainment rates for year 11 students continue to slowly increase for the population as a whole but at a faster rate for Māori and Pasifika.

Why is this important?

The majority of senior secondary students work towards qualifications on the NQF. For 98 percent of these students, this will be an NCEA qualification.

How are we going?

Participation in NCEA
Current levels and trends

Participation rates in NCEA in years 11–13 have remained stable since 2007. Student participation73 in NCEA in 2009 was 94 percent for year 11 students, 96 percent for year 12 and 93 percent for year 13.

In 2009, 64 percent of year 11 students achieved an NCEA qualification. The rate of attainment at Level 1 or above has increased steadily since 2004 when 55 percent of year 11 students achieved Level 1. Sixty-six percent of year 12 students achieved an NCEA qualification at Level 2 or above, a slight increase since 2007. Fifty-three percent of year 13 students achieved an NCEA qualification at Level 3 or above. This achievement rate is unchanged since 2007.

Students who are not participating in NCEA or NQF certificates may be participating in other examinations such as Cambridge. These students are not discussed here but their outcomes are included in the school leaver section.

Ethnic group differences

The proportion of Māori and Pasifika students achieving an NCEA qualification has increased steadily since 2004, at all levels. In 2009, 48 percent of year 11 Māori and Pasifika achieved a Level 1 qualification or above, compared with 33 and 30 percent (respectively) in 2004.

The achievement rate for European/Pākehā and Asian students increased initially from 2004 and then stabilised from 2007 onwards. In 2009, 72 percent of European/Pākehā and 69 percent of Asian students achieved a Level 1 qualification or above (see Figure 3.2.3).

Figure 3.2.3: Year 11 Students Achieving NCEA Qualification at Typical Level or Above, by Ethnic Group (2006–2009)

Figure 3.2.3: Year 11 Students Achieving NCEA Qualification at Typical Level or Above, by Ethnic Group (2006–2009)

Figure 3.2.4: Year 12 Students Achieving an NCEA Qualification at Typical Level or Above, by Ethnic Group (2006–2009)

Figure 3.2.4: Year 12 Students Achieving an NCEA Qualification at Typical Level or Above, by Ethnic Group (2006–2009)

Achievement for year 12 students has followed similar trends to year 11 students across the ethnic groups. The achievement rate for Māori students for a qualification at Level 2 or above increased from 37 percent in 2004 to 53 percent in 2009. For Pasifika, the increase was from 34 percent in 2004 to 49 percent in 2009 (see Figure 3.2.4).

Student achievement in year 13 has not changed significantly since 2007 for most ethnic groups. However, Pasifika students have shown steady growth in Level 3 qualification rates from 2004 to 2009, with 31 percent achieving Level 3 in 2009 compared with 19 percent in 2004.

A goal for Māori Language Educationfrom Ka Hikitia – Managing for Success is:

All students must have access to quality Māori-medium education options across the education sector if they so choose. This requires both quality provision and a strong network of providers.74

Candidates in Māori-medium schools75 are more likely to achieve a typical or above qualification in all year levels compared with Māori in English-medium schools (see Figure 3.2.5).76

Figure 3.2.5: Typical Level Attainment for Year 11–13 Candidates in Māori-medium Schools and Māori and Non-Māori at English-medium Schools (2007–2009)

Figure 3.2.5: Typical Level Attainment for Year 11–13 Candidates in Māori-medium Schools and Māori and Non-Māori at English-medium Schools (2007–2009)

International students make up approximately 4 percent77 of all students enrolled in senior secondary schooling. International students are less likely to participate in NCEA/NQF compared with domestic students. Participation rates in NCEA varied from 82 percent of year 11 to 64 percent of year 13 international students in 2009.

In 2009, 40 percent of year 11 international candidates78 achieved an NCEA Level 1 qualification or above, 44 percent of year 12 candidates achieved a Level 2 qualification or above and 46 percent of year 13 candidates achieved a Level 3 qualification or above.

Gender differences

There are significant differences between gender groups, with no indication that the gap is closing (see Figure 3.2.6).

In 2009, 59 percent of male students achieved a Level 1 qualification or above compared with 68 percent of female students. In year 12, 61 percent of males and 70 percent of females achieved a Level 2 qualification or above. The difference in achievement rates by gender is greater for year 13 students, with 44 percent of males and 60 percent of female students achieving a Level 3 qualification or above.

Figure 3.2.6: Senior Secondary Students Achieving an NCEA Qualification, by Gender (2006–2009)

Figure 3.2.6: Senior Secondary Students Achieving an NCEA Qualification, by Gender (2006–2009)

Socio-economic differences

The school decile rating is a measure of socio-economic factors and a rating is attributed to every state or state integrated school. The proportion of students in year 11 achieving a Level 1 qualification or above has stabilised for high decile schools (77 percent from 2007 to 2009). There is a similar trend for medium decile schools (65 percent in 2009). In low decile schools the proportion of students to achieve a qualification continues to increase slightly each year (51 percent in 2009) (see Figure 3.2.7).

Figure 3.2.7: Year 11 Students Achieving an NCEA Qualification, by Decile Group (2004–2009)

Figure 3.2.7: Year 11 Students Achieving an NCEA Qualification, by Decile Group (2004–2009)

Certificate endorsement

Certificate endorsement for NCEA Levels 1, 2 and 3 was introduced in 2007 to increase the incentive for more able students to achieve to their maximum potential. A 2009 survey by the New Zealand Council for Educational Research (NZCER) on NCEA79 confirmed that endorsements had a positive effect on student motivation. Principals and teachers agreed that endorsements motivated students to work harder and high achievers to do their best.

In the years since the introduction of endorsements, the proportion of students awarded either a merit or excellence has not varied by more than one percentage point at any level.

In 2009, 17 percent of year 11 students were awarded qualifications with a merit and 5 percent with an excellence (for Level 1 or above), and 42 percent of students achieved a qualification without any endorsement.

Asian students were most likely to be awarded a merit or excellence endorsement at Level 1, with 24 percent and 12 percent of students (respectively) gaining these endorsements in 2009 (see Figure 3.2.8).

Figure 3.2.8: Year 11 Students Awarded an Endorsement, by Ethnic Group (2007–2009)

Figure 3.2.8: Year 11 Students Awarded an Endorsement, by Ethnic Group (2007–2009)

Where to find out more

Vist Education Counts:

Vist NZQA:

3.3 Student participation and engagement with learning

Competent Learners @ 1680 found that both high- and low-achieving students had the same average attitudinal scores at age five, regardless of their level of competence. However, this changes for some students as they progress through primary school.

Students who become disengaged from school often begin to do so before the age of 12.81 Disengagement accelerates at secondary school, particularly for Māori and Pasifika boys.82 Students can experience a significant decrease in positive attitudes to subjects and engagement in learning from year 8 to 10, and their rate of achievement falls accordingly.83

The primary to secondary school transition has a much greater impact on students’ learning than the move from year 9 to year 10.84 The biggest ‘danger period’ for students to experience negative attitudes seems to be during the second half of year 9, not in the first few weeks following the transition.

There was considerable agreement among principals, teachers and students that to teach students in years 7 to 10, teachers require specialist knowledge, pedagogical skills and personal attributes.85 To support student engagement, teachers need to provide varied, interesting and ‘fun’ learning opportunities which relate to real life. Students appreciate clear explanations and instructions, and regular constructive feedback to help support them with areas of weakness.

Strong classroom management skills were also identified as key for teaching years 7–10. Teachers need to create a stable classroom environment and set clear boundaries for behaviour. They need to form positive relationships with their students, show a sense of humour and be patient and empathetic. Students emphasised the importance of teachers treating students fairly and consistently.

Although Pasifika students generally report good levels of engagement with school, their achievement levels do not reflect this.86 In 2009 ERO87 identified a need for teachers to understand that students being ‘on task’ in the classroom does not necessarily mean that they are actually engaged effectively in learning. Few schools in this study undertook initiatives that focused solely on increasing the engagement of their Pasifka students. Approximately one-third of schools had no systematic way of evaluating the effectiveness of initiatives they had undertaken. Most of these schools did not have baseline data or specific data about their Pasifika students.88

For those students who become disengaged, the source of their disengagement generally included boredom and being in a learning environment where it was difficult to learn (ie it was noisy or there were relationship issues with teacher(s) and/or other students).89

Māori language in education

The proportion of primary and secondary students engaged in Māori language education has declined annually since a peak in 2003 when the rate stood at 21.9 percent. In 2009 19.9 percent of students were engaged in Māori language education.

Compared with 2008 rates, 2009 enrolments increased at the secondary level by 3.4 percent (851 students), but decreased at the primary level by 11.7 percent (16,642 students).

Why is this important?

Māori language in education is a defining feature of New Zealand’s education system. Teaching and learning te reo Māori across all education settings affirms its value to all students. Students learn te reo Māori by participating either in Māori language classes in English-medium schools or Māori-medium education where they learn in immersion (Māori language only) or bilingual (Māori and English) settings.

Māori-medium education providers operate within a specific cultural framework and, in some cases, culture and language specific to a particular iwi. They are driven by their communities and play a key role in realising community aspirations and supporting the understanding and development of Māori language, culture and knowledge.

In the last 30 years, the Māori-medium sector has grown extensively, increasing the number of te reo Māori speakers and providing Māori learners with the opportunity to speak te reo Māori and more fully participate and succeed in te ao Māori, both in Aotearoa New Zealand and internationally.

New Zealand is the only country in the world to have national curricula in two languages that are not direct translations of one another. Te Marautanga o Aotearoa provides a curriculum for Māori-medium settings that is developed by Māori for Māori. The New Zealand Curriculum emphasises the importance of the Māori language and culture for all students, and has developed guidelines for teaching and learning te reo Māori in English-medium schools.

How are we going?

All students must be able to access quality  Māori-medium education options if they wish. This requires both quality provision and a strong network of providers.

 Trends in the number of students learning te reo Māori and learning through te reo Māori

To have successful outcomes in immersion or bilingual education a student needs to participate in bilingual or immersion education for at least four years and ideally six to eight years.90

Overall the proportion of all students (primary and secondary) engaged in Māori language education decreased between 2003 and 2008. In 2003, 21.9 percent of students were engaged in Māori language education (learning Māori language or being taught in Māori-medium education). This dropped to 19.7 percent in 2008 but increased to 19.9 percent in 2009.

Since 2003 enrolments have increased at the secondary school level (years 9–13) by 3.4 percent (851 students) but decreased in the primary school level (years 1–8) by 11.7 percent (16,642 students).

In addition to those involved in Māori-medium education at secondary level, 9,387 Māori students were learning te reo Māori for three or more hours per week in 2009. This is 8.2 percent of all Māori students in 2009, up from 7.8 percent in 2008.

Figure 3.3.1: Māori Students at Secondary Level Taking Te Reo as a Subject for at Least Three Hours per Week (2001–2009)

Figure 3.3.1: Māori Students at Secondary Level Taking Te Reo as a Subject for at Least Three Hours per Week (2001–2009)

The total number of students participating in te reo Māori in English-medium settings for at least three hours per week increased from July 2008 by 1,970 (10.3 percent) to 21,128 students in July 2009. There was a slight increase (0.5 percent) to 102,015 students learning te reo Māori for less than three hours per week.

The proportion of year 11 students studying te reo Māori and te reo Rangatira increased from 6.1 percent in July 2008 to 6.4 percent in July 2009.

Enrolments in Māori-medium education

Some school settings, where students are taught in te reo Māori, use te reo Māori most or all of the time (Māori-medium levels 1 and 2). Others use it less and are called bilingual classes (Māori-medium levels 3 and 4). The total number of students in Māori-medium education has stayed fairly constant since 2001 (see Table 3.3.1).


Table 3.3.1: Students in Māori-medium Education, by Level of Learning (2001–2009)
Level  of Learning 200120022003200420052006200720082009
Level  1: 81–100%111551164012209125801275512235119911177411634
Level  2: 51–80%530551244658536051195187542451575161
Level  3: 31–50%583655316024534557615450515447954649
Level  4(a): up to 30%556955716191629452796469592670076727
Māori-medium 27865 27866 29082 29579 28914 29341 28495 28733 28171

The number of students in bilingual Māori-medium education has decreased but the number in kura kaupapa Māori and wharekura has increased steadily since 2001. There were 6,267 students in kura kaupapa Māori and kura teina in 2009, an increase of 9.3 percent since 2002 when 5,428 students were enrolled. Over the same period, the total Māori school student population grew by 9.5 percent.

The number of kura kaupapa Māori and kura teina increased from 13 in 1992 to 88 in 2009: 70 kura kaupapa Māori, three kura teina (established under Section 155 of the Education Act 1989) and 15 designated character schools (established under Section 156).

Achievement in Māori-medium settings

As in English-medium schooling, there are differences in the performance of students in Māori-medium schooling. Although the relatively small number of students makes it difficult to draw conclusions, the data consistently shows that students in Māori-medium schooling achieve better in NCEA than Māori students attending English-medium schools.

NCEA candidates at Māori-medium schools are on average more likely to meet both the literacy and numeracy requirements (in te reo Māori and/or English) for NCEA Level 1 by the end of year 11 than Māori students in English-medium schools (in English).

Year 11–13 candidates at Māori-medium schools are on average more likely to gain a typical level or higher NCEA qualification than Māori students at English-medium schools.

The proportion of students from Māori-medium schools who leave school qualified to attend university is much higher than that of Māori students from English-medium schools, and comparable with the proportion of non-Māori in English-medium schools.

Ka Hikitia – Managing for Success

Ka Hikitia – Managing for Success sets out targets to monitor the achievement of goals for Māori Language in Education:

  • Increase the proportion of school leavers from Māori-immersion and bilingual schools with University Entrance or above from 39.4 percent in 2006 to be equal to or better than the proportion of non-Māori English-medium students by 2012.
  • Increase the proportion of all year 11 students studying te reo Rangatira as a proportion of all year 11 students studying te reo (te reo Māori plus te reo Rangatira) from 7.4 percent in 2006 to 10 percent by 2012.
  • Keep the current participation rate of all (primary and secondary) students engaged in Māori language education at 21 percent.

Figure 3.3.2: School Leavers from Māori-immersion and Bilingual Schools Qualified to Attend University (2002–2009)

Figure 3.3.2: School Leavers from Māori-immersion and Bilingual Schools Qualified to Attend University (2002–2009)

Definitions

Kura  kaupapa MāoriKura established under Section 155 of the Education Act  1989, as a kura supported by Te Rūnanganui o Ngā Kura  Kaupapa Māori o Aotearoa with the learning programmes based  on Te Aho Matua – Māori philosophies.
Kura  MāoriKura established under Section 156 of the Education Act  1989, as a special character school delivering Māori-medium education.
Kura  teinaNot fully an independent school established under Section  155 of the Education Act 1989, development/establishment stage, aligned to a  kura Tuakana (a kura kaupapa Māori that acts as a mentor with primary  responsibility for the kura teina).
Māori  language educationAll education that teaches Māori  language skills and delivers education in and through te reo Māori.
Māori-mediumTeaching that includes use of te reo Māori. Learners are  taught curriculum subjects in both
   te reo Māori and English or in te reo Māori only. Māori-medium includes all  level one and two schools and classes. Level one and two classes teach  through the medium of Māori from 51 to 100 percent of the time.
WharekuraSecondary level kura.

 Where to find out more

Vist Education Counts:

Retention of students in secondary schooling

As a result of the Ministry strengthening its early leaving application and approval process, the rate of early leaving exemptions for 15-year-olds has dropped by 85 percent since 2006. Māori students and male students have considerably higher early leaving exemption rates than their counterparts.

An estimated 81 percent of students remained at school to their 17th birthday in 2009. Retention rates have been gradually increasing since 2006. However, substantial differences still exist between girls and boys, and Māori and non-Māori students.

Why is this important?

In order for students to realise their potential and achieve the learning necessary for full participation in society, schools have the responsibility for ensure that students stay at school, remain interested and engaged in learning and are supported to succeed at school.

A 2006 study found that over half (56 percent) of early school leavers said that prior to leaving they had fallen behind in their school work because of truancy, sickness or moving house and school.91

Completing senior secondary education is associated with a range of economic and social benefits both in New Zealand and across the OECD. Generally, the longer students stay at secondary school the more likely they are to move into tertiary education once they leave school.92

Students who leave school before completing senior secondary education on average have greater levels of unemployment and lower incomes. Young people who leave school without qualifications may also face difficulties in terms of lifelong learning, or returning to formal study in later years.

How are we going?

Retention of students
Current levels and trends

In 2007 an estimated 77 percent of students stayed at school to their 17th birthday. In 2009 this rate improved to 81 percent.

Figure 3.3.5: Estimated Proportion of Students Who Were Retained at Individual Schools to Age 17, by School Decile (2009)

Figure 3.3.5: Estimated Proportion of Students Who Were Retained at Individual Schools to Age 17, by School Decile (2009)

Competent Learners @ 1493 found that one-third of the 14-year-olds studied did not find school engaging, with one in five wanting to leave school as soon as possible. Competent Learners @ 16 suggests that students who became disengaged from school tended to do so before age 12, with their lack of engagement escalating in adolescence and secondary school.94 Disengagement from school is evident in truancy, stand-down, suspension and expulsion rates, which increase rapidly from age 11.95 Students’ attitudes towards reading, writing and mathematics get less positive as they move through the middle years of schooling.96

A 2008 report97 found that where students were becoming disengaged this was because:

  • work was not at an appropriate level of difficulty
  • students were finding subject content irrelevant or uninteresting
  • classroom environments made it hard to learn (too noisy or disruptive)
  • they experienced poor relationships with teachers or other students.
Ethnic group differences

A disproportionate number of students who experience disengagement from school are Māori students. While the retention rate for Māori is slowly increasing, many Māori students become disengaged with schooling quite early on. In many cases, this is strongly linked to poor relationships with teachers and low achievement.

In 2009 Māori students had the lowest estimated proportion of students remaining at school to age 17, at 66 percent. This compares with an estimated retention rate of 85 percent for Pasifika students and 83 percent for European/Pākehā students.

Early leaving exemptions
Current levels and trends

The rates of early leaving exemption applications received and those approved changed very little between 2000 and 2006. In 2006, 70 per 1,000 15-year-old students applied for an early leaving exemption, with 65 per 1,000 being granted one.

Figure 3.3.6: Early Leaving Exemption Application Approval and Decline Rates (2000–2009)

Figure 3.3.6: Early Leaving Exemption Application Approval and Decline Rates (2000–2009)

Figure 3.3.7: Early Leaver Exemption Rates per 1,000, by Ethnic Group (2000–2009)

Figure 3.3.7: Early Leaver Exemption Rates per 1,000, by Ethnic Group (2000–2009)

In May 2007 the Ministry strengthened its early leaving application and approval process. The aim was to reduce the number of early leaving exemptions and to ensure that schools worked harder to engage students in meaningful learning. The process involved:

  • imposing a stricter interpretation of the early leaving legislative criteria, which sets a very high threshold for early leaving eligibility
  • ensuring direct contact between parents and Ministry staff at the first stage in the early leaving process, to actively dissuade early leaving and to support schools in finding ways to keep their students engaged in learning
  • encouraging schools to promote alternatives to early leaving, such as a combination of school- and work-based learning.

Between 2006 and 2009, the early leaving exemption rate dropped by 85 percent. In 2006, 4,238 students applied for early leaving exemptions compared with 679 students in 2009. The early leaving exemption rate in 2009 was 10 per 1,000 15-year-old students.

Ethnic group differences

The relative decline in early leaving exemption rates between 2006 and 2009 was similar for both Māori and European/Pākehā students (86 percent and  84 percent respectively). For Pasifika students the rate dropped slightly more (90 percent). There were no Asian students among early leavers in 2009.

Māori students still have disproportionately high rates of early leaving exemptions compared with other ethnic groups. In 2009 the early leaving exemption rate for Māori students (21 per 1,000 15-year-old students) was almost four times higher than the rate for Pasifika (6 per 1,000 15-year-old students), and nearly three times as high as that for European/Pākehā (8 per 1,000 15-year-old students).

Gender differences

In 2009, 70 percent of all early leavers were male. The female rate was 6 per 1,000 15-year-old students while the male rate was 13 per 1,000 15 year-old students.

Socio-economic differences

In 2009 the early leaving exemption rate for students at schools in the lowest deciles (deciles 1 and 2) was nearly ten times higher than the rate for students in the highest decile schools (deciles 9 and 10).

Figure 3.3.8: Early Leaving Exemption Rates, by Ethnic Group and School Decile (2009)

Figure 3.3.8: Early Leaving Exemption Rates, by Ethnic Group and School Decile (2009)

Regional differences

In 2009 the West Coast region had the highest rate of early leaving exemptions (75 per 1,000 15-year-old students), followed by Marlborough (36 per 1,000 15-year-olds) and Nelson (33 per 1,000 15-year-olds). Otago and Southland regions had the lowest rates, with less than five early leaving exemptions per 1,000 15-year-olds.

Where to find out more

Vist Education Counts:

Attendance in schools

Attendance at school is important for achievement in education. Non-attendance means that students do not have either the opportunities to learn or continuity of learning. If schools and families do not address non-attendance effectively, it may affect the ability of students to participate fully in work, society and wider life contexts.

The estimated national absence rate in 2009 was 11.6 percent. Unjustified absences accounted for 4.2 percent. Unjustified absence rates were higher for students in secondary school years. Māori and Pasifika students had approximately double the rate of unjustified absence compared with European/Pākehā and Asian students.

Why is this important?

Attendance at school is a first step to ensuring student achievement. The Education Act 1989, the Attendance Regulations 1951 and the NAGs require that parents enrol their children at school and ensure they attend school whenever it is open for instruction unless there is a good reason for them to be absent. Parents/Caregivers of children between the ages of six and 16 can be prosecuted if their child is away from school without good reason.

High levels of unjustified absence are of concern because every day a student is not at school is a day they are not learning what they will need to achieve their potential.98 Over time patterns of non-attendance can limit a student’s educational success, and regular absence significantly lessens a student’s chance of gaining worthwhile qualifications.99 The more time young people spend out of school, the more likely they are to engage in negative behaviours. Unjustified absence is a strong predictor of detrimental outcomes across a range of social and economic measures, including violence, teenage delinquency, long-term unemployment and early parenting.100 Persistent truants also have higher rates of illegal drug use, underage drinking and smoking.101 It is important, therefore, to recognise gaps in attendance early on and help students to re-engage in learning as soon as possible.

How are we going?

Many schools are using resources to improve the way in which they analyse and use student attendance data. In 2009 at least 600 schools used the electronic attendance register (eAR) in their Student Management System to record attendance. Two hundred schools used Early Notification (EN) text messaging to provide parents with real-time information on their children’s attendance and achievement.

The Government approved $4 million dollars in additional funding to address truancy in secondary schools in 2010. Of this funding, $2.81 million will go towards building schools’ IT capability to improve their ability to detect and manage truancy, including training in use of eAR and EN.

The Ministry regularly carries out surveys on attendance in New Zealand schools. The most recent survey involved a random sample of 653 schools, which provided data from one week (8–12 June) in term two, 2009.102 In addition, 467 schools using eAR provided data for all of term two (27 April 2009 to 3 July 2009). The ten-week data was used to show how absence rates vary over the school term.

National absence rates
Current levels and trends

In 2009 the estimated national absence rate was 11.6 percent (based on the random sample of schools in one week of the school term). This means that for every 1000 students on average 116 are absent for all or part of every day. This rate is not significantly different from 2006 (11.5 percent)103 and 2004 (10.9 percent).104 The total unjustified absence rate was 4.2 percent in 2009, similar to the 2006 survey (4.1 percent).

Unjustified absences, where there was no written or phone explanation received for the absence, was the most common absence code from the eAR data (6 percent). In addition, 1 percent of codes were ‘explained absences’ but the school did not accept that the absence was justified. Medical reasons and short-term illness accounted for 5 percent. All other absence codes accounted for less than 1 percent of classes where absence is coded.

Age (current year level)

Absence rates, particularly the rate for total unjustified absence, increase rapidly during secondary school. The rate of total unjustified absence for students in years 1–8 was low, at approximately 2 percent for both genders in all years. In years 9–13, however, the total unjustified absence rates increased from 5.1 percent in year 9 to 13.9 percent in year 13 for females and from 5.3 percent to 13.7 percent for males. The current findings are similar to the absence rates in previous national surveys.

Figure 3.3.9: Mean Daily Absence Rates, by Gender and Current Year Level (2009)

Figure 3.3.9: Mean Daily Absence Rates, by Gender and Current Year Level (2009)

The Youth’07 survey105 on student opinion found that the rate of student self-reported truancy increased rapidly from 16.3 percent for students aged 13 or less to 34.2 percent for those aged 17 years and above.

Ethnic group differences

Māori and Pasifika students generally have higher absence rates than European/Pākehā and Asian students. In 2009 total unjustified absence rates were 6.5 percent for Māori students and 6.6 percent for Pasifika students (compared with 7.0 percent and 6.2 percent respectively in 2006). The total unjustified absence rates for European/Pākehā students (3.0 percent) and Asian students (2.9 percent) were also similar to 2006 rates.

One of the targets of Ka Hikitia – Managing for Success is to reduce the unjustified absence rate of Māori students in years 9 and 10. In 2009 the rate for Māori students in years 9 and 10 was 9.3 percent compared with 11.8 percent in the 2006 survey.

The justified absence rate increased slightly for Pasifika students (7.2 percent in 2009 compared with 5.9 percent in 2006).

Socio-economic differences

Low-decile schools draw their students from communities with the fewest socio-economic resources. In 2009 decile 1 schools had the highest rate of total unjustified absence (7.5 percent in 2009, compared with the national estimate of 4.2 percent). By comparison, decile 9 and decile 10 schools had relatively low total unjustified absence rates at 1.4 percent and 2.0 percent respectively.

The justified absence rates were similar across all deciles. However, decile 10 schools had a slightly lower justified absence rate (6.1 percent) than lower decile schools, for example 8.3 percent for decile 2 and decile 4 schools, and 7.7 percent for decile 1 schools.

Regional differences

Total absence rates ranged from 8.3 percent in the Otago region to 14.9 percent in the Gisborne region. In 2009 the Northland, Auckland, Waikato, Bay of Plenty, Gisborne, Taranaki and Wellington regions had high total unjustified absence rates compared with the national average (4.2 percent).

Compared with 2006, most North Island regions had higher rates of absence. Rates were lower in the 2009 survey in Hawke’s Bay, Taranaki, Tasman/Nelson/Malborough/West Coast, Canterbury and Southland.106

Absence over term two

In 2009 overall absence rates increased during term two. For primary-aged students (years 1–6), and intermediate-aged students (years 7 and 8) there was very little variation in absence rates between year levels. Approximately 8 percent of year 1–8 students were absent in week one, compared with approximately  17 percent in week ten. In secondary schools (years 9–13), there was a greater variation in overall absence rates between week one and week ten. For example, for year 9 students, 9 percent were absent in week one, compared with 21 percent in week ten. Year 13 students had the highest absence rates overall, with 17 percent absent in week one, compared with 33 percent in week ten.

Frequent truants

Students who miss more than ten days of a school term miss at least 20 percent of teaching time in that term. It can be seen in Table 3.3.2 that the proportion of students absent for more than ten days in term two, 2009 increased with year level. During term two, 2009, 13 percent of year 1–6 students were absent for at least 20 percent of term time, compared with 32 percent of year 11–13 students.107

Table 3.3.2: Students Abesent for More than ten Days of Term 2, 2009, by Year level
   Year  levels Total  absence Rate (%)
1–613
7–814
9–1020
11–1332

Where to find out more

Vist Education Counts:

Stand-downs and suspensions from school108

Stand-down rates in 2009 fell for the third consecutive year. Male students were almost two-and-a-half times more likely to receive a stand-down than their female counterparts. Schools continued to stand-down more Māori students than students from any other ethnic group.

In 2009 suspensions increased for the first time since 2005.

Why is this important?

Stand-downs and suspensions impact on a student’s opportunity to learn and interrupt the continuity of learning.

Stand-downs and suspensions are also associated with a wide range of concerning youth behaviours, including drug and alcohol abuse and violence, which disrupt the learning of the individuals concerned and are disruptive and unsafe for peers in the school community.

How are we going?

Stand-downs from school
Current levels and trends

The age-standardised stand-down rate has decreased by 10 percent from 2006 to 28 students per 1,000 in 2009. This reverses a trend that saw 26 students per 1,000 stood down in 2000 increase to 31 students per 1,000 in 2006.

There were 20,146 stand-down cases in 2009, which were received by 15,848 different students. Statistically this equates to 2 percent of the student population receiving stand-downs and 79 percent of stand-downs being single instances.

In 2009 there were no stand-downs at 49 percent of all state and state integrated schools. When looking at just secondary schools, the peak age for stand-downs, the picture changes considerably. There were no stand-downs at only 6 percent of all secondary schools.

Ethnic group differences

Schools are standing-down more Māori students than any other ethnic group. In 2009 the age-standardised stand-down rate for Māori students (53 students per 1,000) was 1.5 times higher than for Pasifika (35 students per 1,000), and 2.6 times as high as for European/Pākehā (20 students per 1,000). The stand-down rate for Asian students was the lowest in New Zealand.

Figure 3.3.12: Age-standardised Stand-down Rates, by Ethnic Group (2000–2009)

Figure 3.3.12: Age-standardised Stand-down Rates, by Ethnic Group (2000–2009)

Gender differences

Male students receive stand-downs far more frequently than female students. In 2009 the age-standardised stand-down rate for males was 2.4 times higher than the female rate.

Age differences

The majority of stand-downs (62 percent) occurred for students aged 13–15. The peak was age 14, which had a rate of 84 students per 1,000 stand-downs. The following analysis uses age-standardised rates.

Figure 3.3.13: Age-standardised Stand-down Rates, by Ethnic Group and School Decile (2009)

Figure 3.3.13: Age-standardised Stand-down Rates, by Ethnic Group and School Decile (2009)

Socio-economic differences

Students from decile 1 and 2 schools are almost four times more likely to be stood-down from school than students in decile 9 and 10 schools.

When considering age-standardised stand-down rates by decile, the general pattern for the different ethnic groups largely remains. Age-standardised stand-down rates are highest for Māori and Pasifika students in each decile, with the exception of decile 1 and 2 schools, where the European/Pākehā rate is higher than that of Pasifika.

Regional differences

The Tasman region had the lowest stand-down rate (14 per 1,000 students). The West Coast had the highest rate at 52 stand-downs per 1,000 students, followed by Northland (40 per 1,000 students) and Manawatu-Wanganui (39 per 1,000 students). These three regions also had the highest rates of suspensions.

Suspensions from school
Current levels and trends

The incidence of suspensions has decreased by 16 percent over the last ten years, from an age-standardised rate of 8 students per 1,000 in 2000, to 7 students per 1,000 in 2009. This includes a 12 percent reduction from 2006 to 2008.

There were 4,755 suspension cases in 2009, which were received by 4,295 different students. Statistically this equates to less than 1 percent of the student population receiving suspensions and 90 percent of suspensions being single instances.

In 2009 there were no suspensions at 73 percent of all state and state integrated schools. At secondary school age, which includes the peak period for suspensions, only 8 percent of schools had no suspensions.

In 2009 boards of trustees decided to lift 44 percent of suspensions handed out. Ten out of 11 of these were lifted with conditions placed on the student. The decision was made to extend the suspension 20 percent of the time, or to hand down an exclusion or expulsion 32 percent and 4 percent of the time respectively.

Ethnic group differences

Schools are suspending far more Māori students than students from other ethnic groups. In 2009 the age-standardised suspension rate for Māori (15 students per 1,000) was 1.8 times higher than for Pasifika (8 students per 1,000) and 3.6 times as high as for European/Pākehā (4 students per 1,000). The suspension rate for Asian students was the lowest in New Zealand.

Figure 3.3.14: Age-standardised Suspension Rates, by Ethnic Group (2000–2009)

Figure 3.3.14: Age-standardised Suspension Rates, by Ethnic Group (2000–2009)

Figure 3.3.15: Age-standardised Suspension Rates, by Ethnic Group and School Decile (2009)

Figure 3.3.15: Age-standardised Suspension Rates, by Ethnic Group and School Decile (2009)

Gender differences

Male students receive suspensions far more frequently than female students. In 2009 the male age-standardised suspension rate was 2.6 times that of females.

Age differences

The majority of suspensions occurred for students aged 13–15, accounting for 70 percent of all suspensions. The peak age was 14 years, which had a suspension rate of 23 students per 1,000 in 2009.

Socio-economic differences

Students from schools in the lowest decile (deciles 1 and 2) are 3.1 times more likely to be suspended than students in deciles 9 and 10.

When considering age-standardised suspension rates by decile, the general pattern for the different ethnic groups largely remains. Age-standardised suspension rates are highest for Māori and Pasifika students in each decile, except in decile 1 and 2 schools, where the European/Pākehā rate is higher than that of Pasifika.

Regional differences

At 4.3 suspensions per 1,000 students, the Nelson region had the lowest suspension rate, and the only one under 5.0 per 1,000 students. The West Coast had the highest suspension rate (10 per 1,000 students). Manawatu–Wanganui and Northland, at 10 and 9 per 1,000 students respectively, are the only other regions with a suspension rate above 9 per 1,000 students. These three regions also have the highest rates of stand-downs.

Where to find out more

Vist Education Counts:

3.4 Parents, Families and whānau

Effective partnerships between parents and schools can improve the well-being, behaviour and achievement of children into adulthood.109

In a 2008 report,110 ERO found that nearly three-quarters of schools’ reviews included recommendations for improving engagement, particularly with parents, families and whānau of children from non-European/Pākehā backgrounds. Parents, families and whānau have extensive experience and knowledge that they can contribute to a learning partnership with teachers. Similarly, teachers have extensive knowledge that they can share with families and whānau.

A key part of improving the educational success of Māori and Pasifika students is acknowledging, valuing and incorporating their culture and identities into the classroom and teaching programmes.
  Ka Hikitia – Managing for Success identifies that the key to realising Māori education potential is ako, reciprocal teaching and learning relationships.

The most effective forms of parent involvement seem to be those that engage parents in working directly with their children on learning activities at home.111

In the 2009 consultation on the National Standards112 most parents had preferences for the way they received information about their children’s progress and the next steps in their learning, including face-to-face discussions and written report. Pasifika parents were the group most interested in having timely information about their children’s progress, and ideas or resources they could use at home.

The Pasifika Education Plan 2009–2012 has a goal to increase the quality of teaching and school leadership by increasing responsiveness to Pasifika learners and families.

A 2009 ERO pilot study113 of Pasifika student achievement in Auckland schools found that good quality teaching strategies and strong partnerships with parents and communities were the most influential factors contributing to improved Pasifika student engagement and achievement.

While ERO concluded from its 2009 pilot study that attendance at school is not a problem for Pasifika students, students are often not actually engaging in learning in ways that ensure effective learning outcomes. ERO found that of those schools that did have strategies in place to target Pasifika student engagement, the most effective initiatives included:

  • forming school clusters that reviewed teaching in bilingual education
  • adopting measures to encourage students to share their learning orally by sharing ideas with their peers and parents
  • encouraging cultural performance groups and participation in multicultural festivals.

Why is this important?

The School Leadership and Student Outcomes: Identifying What Works and Why Best Evidence Synthesis (Educational Leadership BES)114 shows that by connecting a student’s school work with their family, cultural and community experiences, knowledge and skills can have a strong positive effect on educational outcomes.

The most effective forms of parent involvement seem to be those in which parents work directly with their children on learning activities at home.115 The earlier in a child’s life that this learning-focused relationship begins, and the more involved parents continue to be in their children’s learning, the more powerful the effects. However, parents must support learning in the home in positive ways that are consistent with what is known about effective learning.

The Educational Leadership BES116 and the Community and Family Influences BES117 show that school and family connections that are centred on teaching and learning can dramatically improve student achievement. Joint interventions between parents and teachers that help support learning at home made the biggest difference to student outcomes (overall effect size=1.81).

Figure 3.4.1 illustrates different types of school-home partnerships and the varying effect sizes they have on student achievement.

Figure 3.4.1: School-home Partnerships and Their Effect Sizes

Figure 3.4.1: School-home Partnerships and Their Effect Sizes

How are we going?

Current levels and trends

In its 2008 report, ERO found that nearly three-quarters of school reviews included recommendations for improving engagement, particularly with parents, families and whānau of children from non-European/Pākehā backgrounds.

Ethnic group differences

Ka Hikitia – Managing for Success recognises the importance of family and whānau partnerships in education.

The 2008 ERO report118 found that by improving engagement and promoting active participation by Māori parents, whānau, iwi and communities, schools could establish more effective learning conditions for Māori students.

The Pasifika Education Plan 2009–2012 acknowledges there is a need to increase parent, family and community engagement in education and that Pasifika representation on boards of trustees is one mechanism for participation.

In the recent consultation on the National Standards in literacy and mathematics, Pasifika parents were the group most interested in having timely information about their children’s progress, and in ideas or resources they could use at home.119

The Ministry of Education home-school partnership literacy programme,120 initially targeting Pasifika families, is a joint intervention to improve relationships between school and home and to help parents act as ‘first teachers’. In this programme, parents learn about school literacy practices and teachers learn about Pasifika home literacy practices from parents. Findings showed that parents in the programme established good relationships with schools and changed the way they supported their children at home. Eighty percent of schools reported that this parental involvement had a positive impact on their students’ learning.

A 2009 study121 found that the majority of Pasifika parents considered home-school partnerships to be important. Pasifika parents had specific ideas to contribute that might help raise achievement of their students. An ERO evaluation122 of Pasifika student achievement in Auckland schools found that good quality teaching strategies and strong partnerships with parents and communities were the most influential factors contributing to improved Pasifika student engagement and achievement.

Where to find out more

Vist Education Counts:

3.5 Quality teaching and education providers

Quality teaching and effective professional leadership are central to schools achieving education success for all. High quality teaching depends on excellent initial training, a school culture of inquiry and ongoing learning, and effective in-service professional learning and development (PLD).

In its 2009 report123 on implementing The New Zealand Curriculum, ERO identified the key factors of effective teaching, which are:

  • an evidence-based approach to teaching and learning
  • creating a supportive learning environment
  • making connections to students’ prior learning and experience.

ERO found that in 61 percent of schools, all or most teachers used an evidence-based approach to teaching and learning, and only 7 percent of schools had no teachers using evidence. Almost all teachers (97 percent) created a supportive learning environment, and in 84 percent of schools all or most teachers made connections to students’ prior learning and experience.

The main source of information about student achievement and progress is gathered by teachers as an integral part of teaching and learning. Schools use a range of assessment practices to:

  • gather information that will enable the progress and achievement of students to be evaluated in relation to the national curriculum
  • develop and implement teaching and learning strategies that are responsive to students and groups of students who are not experiencing successful learning outcomes.

Teaching

The ratio of teachers to students in state schools has grown since 2000. The number of FTTEs increased by 5.7 percent between 2005 and 2009.

The loss rate over the same period, teachers leaving the teaching profession, has been stable: 9.5 percent for May 2008–2009, compared with 10.5 percent for May 2004–2005.

Why is this important?

While teachers’ influence on students’ learning success is moderated by a number of factors, such as students’ prior learning, it is clear that in schools teaching has the greatest influence on achievement.124

The demand for and supply of teachers is an important foundation of quality. Schools need to have sufficient teachers for the mix of students at different year levels. In the schooling sector as a whole there is a need to ensure that teaching remains a valued profession so that effective teachers can be attracted and retained within schools.

How are we going?

Number of teachers

Funding for teacher places in state and state integrated schools is largely determined by the number of students, and the year level of those students.

In 2009 there were 47,095 FTTEs in state and state integrated schools. Since 2005 there has been a slow but steady increase (5.7 percent over the period) in the number of positions.

Just over half of these positions (53 percent) were in primary schools, 40 percent in secondary and the remaining 7 percent in composite schools. Since 2004 the growth in primary schools (5.6 percent) has been lower than secondary (8.5 percent) and composite schools (18.2 percent).

The majority of the teaching workforce are women, and the proportion continues to increase. In 2009, 71 percent of teachers were women (up from 70 percent in 2004). The proportion of female teachers has grown from 81 percent to 82 percent in primary schools and from 56 percent to 57 percent in secondary schools.

Teacher losses
What do teacher losses tell us?

Of the 40,094 permanent teachers in May 2008 in state and state integrated schools, 3,810 were not teaching in May 2009, giving a loss rate of 9.5 percent. The teacher loss rate for this year was the lowest rate since 2000.


Table 3.5.1: Teacher Loss Rates, by School Type (May 2004–2005 to May 2008–2009)
 Primary
   %
Secondary
   %
Total
   %
2004–200510.89.710.5
2005–200610.19.69.9
2006–200710.59.910.1
2007–200811.310.210.8
2008–20099.3%9.8%9.5%

The recession means that employment opportunities, both nationally and internationally, have reduced, encouraging teachers to stay in their current role.

Beginning teachers

The number of new teachers in schools depends on the demand for teachers, the number of teacher education graduates available and a school’s preference/need for more experienced teachers.

The first few years of teaching are critical to developing newly qualified teachers into effective teachers and to retaining them in the teaching profession. Assistance for new teachers, including, in particular, mentoring programmes, has a positive impact on teachers and their retention.125

Newly qualified teachers undergo a period of advice and guidance before becoming eligible for full registration. In this period, a teacher is categorised as being ‘provisionally registered’ and is entitled to a structured programme of mentoring, professional development, observation, targeted feedback on their teaching and regular assessments based on the standards for full registration. The nature of this induction plays a significant role in the future success of newly qualified teachers and on their retention. The quality of a teacher’s professional experience in their early years of teaching is a crucial influence on the likelihood of their leaving the teaching profession,126 which, in turn, impacts on teacher quality.


Table 3.5.2: First Year Beginning Teachers in New Zealand Schools on Day One of the New School Year (2002–2009)

Source: Monitoring Teacher Supply, Survey of Staffing in New Zealand Schools at the Beginning of the 2009 School Year, L. Ng and M. Lee, Ministry of Education.

 20022003200420052006200720082009
Total 24542524234823082344227222232029
Primary15631556131912881363141513651308
Secondary89196810291020981857858721


 Figure 3.5.1: Students Enrolled in First Year Teacher Training (2000–2009)

Figure 3.5.1: Students Enrolled in First Year Teacher Training (2000–2009)

At the start of the 2009 school year, 2,029 first year beginning teachers were in state and state integrated schools. Since 2004, this number has slowly but steadily declined. The decrease between 2008 and 2009 was the largest in the past six years. This might in part be related to the drop in teacher losses in the last year, which meant there were fewer positions available for beginning teachers.

Initial teacher education

A fundamental part of effective teaching is the recruitment of people with the right knowledge and skills into teacher education programmes. In 2009, there were 9,880 students in first year pre-service teacher education programmes (see Figure 3.5.1).

Over recent years the number of first year students enrolled in both primary and secondary teacher education declined. However, in the past year this has turned around, with first year enrolments for primary increasing by 10 percent, and secondary by 8 percent.

Professional learning and development

Why is this important?

Quality teaching has a significant influence on a range of student outcomes. While teachers’ influence is moderated by a number of other factors such as students’ prior learning, quality teaching is identified as a key influence on outcomes for diverse learners.127 High quality teaching is dependent on excellent initial training and ongoing in-service professional development.

Internationally, teacher PLD is considered to be a key area of investment and lever for improvement. The teacher PLD BES128 identified the following as requirements for successful professional development and learning:

  • Providing sufficient time for extended opportunities to learn, and using the time effectively.
  • Involving experts who are not part of the school.
  • Engaging teachers in the learning process whether or not they volunteered for professional development.
  • Challenging teaching practices that are not as effective as they need to be.
  • Providing opportunities for teachers to be part of a community of professionals.
  • Ensuring the content of the professional development is consistent with wider policy trends.
  • In school-based initiatives, having leaders actively leading the professional learning opportunities.

Within the school context, leadership practices are also key points of influence in improving the quality of teaching and outcomes for students. The most important leadership practices are promoting and participating with teachers in PLD.129

How are we going?

Current levels and trends

A critical factor in the success of professional learning is the school’s ability to manage it effectively. This includes deciding priorities, selecting appropriate and effective PLD, and supporting and sustaining changes.

In 2009 ERO130 found that the quality of school management of PLD programmes varied widely. Thirty-eight percent of primary schools demonstrated the characteristics of high quality PLD management.

These schools:

  • aligned their PLD with well-informed school priorities
  • had a school culture in which professional learning was fostered and supported by school leaders
  • had self-review systems to monitor and evaluate the impact of their PLD investment on improving the quality of teaching and student outcomes.

PLD was not well managed in 22 percent of primary schools. Professional development in these schools tended to be reactive and was not well linked to school priorities. Schools had poorly developed self-review systems, which made it difficult to identify the effectiveness of their programmes.

The remaining 40 percent of primary schools managed some aspects of their PLD well, but tended to have less effective decision-making and less teacher involvement in and commitment to planned professional development. These schools were also unlikely to have robust systems to monitor and evaluate the effects of PLD on teaching and student outcomes.

Good management of PLD is not necessarily related to a school’s decile, location or available funding for PLD. A key factor appears to be the quality of the principal’s leadership and management of the school’s PLD programme. While small rural schools generally find PLD management challenging, ERO found a number of examples of excellent practice.

In relation to secondary schools, the 2009 ERO report on PLD management found that of the 44 secondary schools evaluated, only 27 percent managed their PLD well.131 PLD at these schools contributed to better teaching and improvements in student achievement.

These schools had:

  • a strong focus on improving student achievement
  • effective school-wide development initiatives
  • well understood strategic frameworks for PLD
  • useful collaboration among staff.

Forty-three percent of schools had significant weaknesses in the way they managed PLD. In only a few instances was there evidence that PLD improved the quality of teaching and student achievement outcomes. This group tended to favour attendance at one-day courses and teacher conferences, usually at the expense of school-wide PLD. The remaining 30 percent of schools managed some aspects of PLD effectively, but overall, their PLD did not consistently make a significant impact on student learning.

When managed well PLD can make a significant difference for the vast majority of students in a school. For example, the 2009 LPDP results showed that focused, whole-school professional development can make a significant difference for 94–98 percent of students.

While the quality of PLD is an important factor in effecting change in school performance, availability can be a significant issue. A 2008 ERO report132 on kura kaupapa Māori found that the professional development needs of teachers in kura were often unmet. In particular, teachers in kura with weak performance appraisal processes often lacked opportunities for appropriate individual professional development. Sometimes this was because the kura failed to identify teachers’ professional needs or did not prioritise PLD. In other cases, kura found that the PLD offered did not meet their needs. ERO found that many of the successful, high-performing kura facilitated professional development from their own sources, as this ensured that it was useful, appropriate and relevant.

The Whakapiki i te Reo Teachers Professional Development Programme is a kura-based programme that aims to raise the Māori language capability of kaiako (teachers) and build kura capability and sustainability in the Māori-medium schooling network.

The Information and Communications Technology Professional Development Programme aims to raise the e-learning capability of teachers and school leaders. The model devolves ownership of the professional development process to schools. This requires groups of schools (clusters) and some large individual secondary schools to collaborate in the design and delivery of PLD to their teachers. These cluster projects are mentored and monitored by a national support services provider. In 2009 there were a total of 75 cluster projects involving 380 schools (over 11,500 teachers). Programme delivery and progress towards goals was effective in 89 percent of the projects.

The three-year Digital Technologies Guidelines Professional Development project aimed to support the teaching of digital technologies, computing, computer science, web design and digital multimedia in years 11–13. New NCEA achievement standards in Digital Technologies (placed within the Technology Learning Area) are being introduced at year 11 in 2010, year 12 in 2012 and year 13 in 2013. The professional development focused on modernising course design and supporting teachers who are often sole-charge in this area in secondary schools. In 2009 the project involved 245 teachers from 153 secondary schools nationwide. It finished on 30 June 2010.

Ethnic group differences
Māori

Ka Hikitia – Managing for Success identifies PLD as a key lever for improving system performance to ensure Māori enjoy education success as Māori. It has several goals that focus on improving the effectiveness of teaching and school leadership, primarily through PLD:

  • Improve teaching and learning of literacy and numeracy for Māori students in their first years of school.
  • Increase the effectiveness of teaching and learning for Māori students in years 9 and 10.
  • Increase effective teaching and learning of, and through, te reo Māori.
  • Support professional leaders to take responsibility for Māori students’ presence, engagement and achievement.

All Ministry funded professional development programmes must focus and report on effectiveness and outcomes for Māori students.

The following programmes took place in 2009:

Te Kotahitanga

Te Kotahitanga is a professional development programme with explicit focus on realising Māori potential in our English-medium secondary schools.

By the end of 2009 Te Kotahitanga was in 49 schools. Approximately 3,000 teachers, facilitators, middle and senior managers, principals, School Support Service advisors, and RTLBs participated.

Te Kotahitanga aims to improve classroom and school practices in order to build culturally responsive contexts for learning. Research shows that the programme has been successful in improving learning outcomes for Māori students.

Te Kotahitanga has two system outcomes and two school outcomes:

System outcomes are:

  • to raise the participation, engagement and achievement of Māori students and increase their attainment of worthwhile qualifications
  • to raise wider system capability so that school leaders, teachers and their communities understand and establish culturally responsive contexts for learning for, and with, Māori students.

School outcomes are:

  • to support teachers to improve Māori student learning and achievement by creating a culturally responsive context for learning which draws on evidence of student performance
  • to enable school leaders and the wider school community to establish school structures and organisations that support teachers in this endeavour.
Te Kauhua

Te Kauhua is a professional learning programme which focuses on increasing effective links with whānau to maximise teachers’ opportunities to learn in ways that contribute to enhanced outcomes for Māori students in English-medium schools.  

In 2009 six schools participated in Te Kauhua and were supported to implement their own professional learning initiatives. Schools received explicit advice and guidance to build school facilitator capability in:

  • the principles of adult learning and teaching
  • collaborative action research methodology
  • data collection, collation and analysis
  • transition strategies
  • whānau engagement approaches.

The project is also designed to capture knowledge and understanding about how future professional learning programmes could most effectively meet the goals noted above.

Ako Panuku

Ako Panuku is a professional development programme that was developed in response to a review of the workload of Māori teachers.133 The review found that Māori teachers in secondary schools often undertake additional formal and informal responsibilities beyond their immediate teaching work. These responsibilities include the support of Māori students generally, and assistance in the cultural life of the department, school and school community.

There are currently 1,300 Māori teachers in secondary schools and wharekura across all learning areas.

In 2009, the inaugural year of the programme, 350 teachers participated in Ako Panuku.

The programme supports Māori teachers in secondary schools and wharekura in a culturally and professionally relevant context in:

  • planning and developing their career pathways
  • enhancing their professional practice through involvement in professional communities and professional learning
  • developing and accessing useful and relevant teaching and management resources that support teachers’ wide-ranging work.
Pasifika

The Pasifika Education Plan 2009–2012has a goal to increase the quality of teaching and school leadership by increasing responsiveness to Pasifika learners and families. 

Pasifika School Community Parent Liaison

The Pasifika School Community Parent Liaison (PSCPL) initiative aims to improve learning outcomes for Pasifika students by supporting schools and teachers in developing, maintaining and strengthening effective teaching practices that work for Pasifika students. This work draws on the existing evidence base to improve Pasifika student learning outcomes.

The 2009 clusters involved in PSCPL comprised two secondary, two intermediate and seven primary schools. Clusters are assessed to identify their needs and supported through a funding agreement with the Ministry for a maximum period of three years.

Each cluster aims to improve learning outcomes for Pasifika students, with a specific focus on literacy. Each cluster, while focusing on achieving the overall project goals above, determines how these will be achieved.

School leadership

School leadership is one of the most frequently identified indicators of school effectiveness and student achievement. It includes work by principals, senior managers, middle managers, teacher leaders and school trustees.

The key message from the Education Leadership BES is:

The more leaders focus their influence, their learning, and their relationships with teachers on the core business of teaching and learning, the greater their influence on student outcomes.134

Why is this important?

School leadership encompasses both educational leadership and school management.

The Educational Leadership BES focused on leadership and practice that lead to improved outcomes for students across English and Māori-medium schools.135 It discussed the types of leadership relevant to education and compared the impact of transformational and pedagogical leadership on student outcomes. This analysis showed the impact of pedagogical leadership that focuses on establishing clear educational goals, planning the curriculum and evaluating teachers and teaching was nearly four times that of leadership that emphasises vision and inspiration (transformational). Generic leadership and business skills were important but not sufficient to ensure positive learning outcomes for students.

The Educational Leadership BES identified the following eight dimensions that have a positive impact on student outcomes. Dimensions 1–5 were derived from direct evidence, and dimensions 6–8 from indirect evidence.

  1. Establishing goals and expectations: leadership makes a difference by establishing clear academic and learning goals.
  2. Resourcing strategically: this involves aligning resource selection to priority teaching goals.
  3. Planning, coordinating and evaluating teaching and the curriculum: an example of this in practice is providing feedback to teachers, based on classroom observations relevant to improving their teaching.
  4. Promoting and participating in teacher learning and development: leaders learn alongside their staff, which enables any required work changes to flow into practice.
  5. Ensuring an orderly and supportive environment: leadership practices ensure that teachers can focus on teaching and students can focus on learning.
  6. Creating educationally powerful connections: creating connections between individuals, organisations and communities to have an explicit focus on student outcomes.
  7. Engaging in constructive problem talk: the ability to name, describe and analyse problems to reveal possibilities for school-based change.
  8. Selecting, developing and using ‘Smart Tools’: tools are ‘smart’ if they promote teacher learning about how they promote student learning.

Dimension 4 had a large, statistically significant effect on student outcomes; dimensions 1 and 3 had moderate and educationally significant effects; and dimensions 2 and 5 had small, indirect effects.

In high-performing schools, leaders gave greater emphasis to setting, communicating, monitoring and reporting school goals, especially those that related to student achievement.

Goal-setting had particular significance for Māori-medium schools, where it was important that goals were linked to the wider purposes of language and cultural regeneration.

How are we going?

Supply and retention

A recent NZCER report on principal vacancies and appointments in 2008 and 2009 found that most schools with vacancies could shortlist four or five applicants.136 Preliminary 2009 survey data showed a median of nine applicants per vacancy.

NZCER’s national survey data indicated that principals are staying longer in their positions. In a 2003 survey, only 37 percent of secondary principals thought they would continue as principal of their school in the next five years. This rose to 59 percent in 2006 and to 65 percent in 2009.

Readiness to implement the new curriculum

Schools’ readiness to give effect to The New Zealand Curriculum from 2010 and Te Marautanga o Aotearoa from 2011 is primarily the responsibility of school leaders.

A 2010 ERO report137 found that many school leaders were well under way to give effect to The New Zealand Curriculum. The key factor typically associated with good progress towards implementation was strategic professional leadership.

In the schools that were giving effect to The New Zealand Curriculum, school leaders included teachers in discussions and decisions about the curriculum from the outset. Effective leadership and school-wide professional development were usually vital in this process. Many schools formed local clusters for this purpose.

School leaders in around 10 percent of schools visited between term three, 2008 and term four, 2009 had yet to develop some aspects of The New Zealand Curriculum. These included:

  • aligning the implementation of The New Zealand Curriculum with school-wide systems
  • deciding which achievement objectives to give priority to in long-term teaching plans
  • formulating how students’ learning stages or pathways would build on earlier learning or experiences
  • determining how existing assessment processes aligned with the school’s curriculum
  • considering how the curriculum principles were to embed in the school’s curriculum.

Some principals had insufficient knowledge of The New Zealand Curriculum, were unmotivated, lacked commitment or thought that they were already doing what was required.

Professional leadership development

Leadership practices in schools are key points of influence in improving the quality of teaching and outcomes for students. The most important leadership practices are promoting and participating with teachers in PLD.138

Effective PLD management depends on the quality of the principal’s leadership and management of the school’s PLD programme.

In 2009 ERO found that good management of PLD was not necessarily related to a school’s decile, location or available funding for PLD. PLD was not managed well in 22 percent of primary schools and in 43 percent of secondary schools.139

In a 2009 report140 ERO found planning for improvement is likely to be enhanced when school leaders and trustees know which aspects of teaching support children to achieve. The quality of monitoring and review is a critical aspect of effective school practice. Effective schools used student achievement data to:

  • set annual goals and targets, and monitor children’s progress against these targets
  • decide which interventions are necessary and where to allocate learning resources
  • decide what PLD is needed to support teaching and learning.

From their evaluation of reading and writing in years 1 and 2 ERO found that 63 percent of schools did not monitor reading achievement well, and only 21 percent of schools had very effective monitoring of reading achievement.

Professional Leadership Plan

The Professional Leadership Plan (PLP) is the framework for the Ministry’s leadership strategy and was developed in partnership with core groups in the school sector and leadership experts. It aims to address the key challenges to school leadership, specifically supply, retention and professional development.

The PLP targets five key areas of leadership: experienced principals, Māori-medium leadership, first-time principals, aspiring principals and middle and senior leaders.

The following are national programmes aimed at each of these groups:

  • The First-time Principals Programme is an induction programme for developing the professional and personal skills and capabilities of new school leaders. It aims to help principals work effectively with their colleagues and communities to further improve teaching and learning in New Zealand’s schools. In 2009, 174 principals started the 18-month programme. Over half of New Zealand’s principals have participated in the programme since it began in 2002, including 98 percent of first-time principals.
  • The Experienced Principals’ Development Programme is a new professional development programme directed at experienced principals. It incorporates some of the findings from the Educational Leadership BES. The programme is delivered by ten providers to 300 principals.
  • The University of Waikato and Te Whare Wānanga o Awanuiārangi were contracted to provide He Kākano to 100 secondary schools across the country in 2010. The programme focuses on growing culturally responsive pedagogical school leadership, leadership that actively takes account of the culture of Māori learners to build relationships that result in achievement success.
  • The June 2009 evaluation of the 2008 National Aspiring Principals Pilot found that overall the programme was good preparation for principal recruitment, but the pilot needed to put a stronger emphasis on the ‘management’ roles for the principal in the programme’s curriculum.
  • Leadership and management advisors employed by School Support Services at six universities provide government-funded PLD support for middle and senior leaders. These providers estimate that they supported approximately 2,220 middle and senior leaders in 2009.141

Where to find out more

Vist Educational Leaders website.

Community representation as school trustees

Representation on boards of trustees is a way for parents and whānau to contribute to decision-making about the education of their children. It also provides an opportunity for parents to share their expertise and build schools’ understanding of the life context and specific requirements of different groups of children.

Boards of trustees of state and state integrated schools must hold elections for parent and staff representatives every three years. Triennial elections were held in 1998, 2001, 2004 and 2007. Membership fluctuates in intervening years due to casual vacancies, by-elections, mid-term elections and annual student representative elections (for year 9 and above).

Community representation has improved since boards began in 1998. The proportion of board members who are Māori has increased by 24 percent since 1998. There has been a 15 percent increase in the proportion of Pasifika school trustees since 1998, but a slight reduction from the peak in 2006.

Why is this important?

School leadership and governance should reflect the nature of the school community if decisions are to be appropriate and effective for students’ education success.

If different groups in a community actively participate in the planning, development and delivery of education services, those services are more likely to be appropriate and effective. Representation on boards of trustees is a way for parents and whānau to contribute to decision-making about the education of their children. It also gives parents an opportunity to share their expertise and build schools’ understanding of the life context and specific requirements of different groups of children.

How are we going?

School trustees who are Māori
Current levels and trends

The following data concerns parent-elected, appointed and coopted representative boards of trustees members. Other members, such as school principals, staff representatives, student representatives and proprietors’ representatives, are not included in this analysis.

In December 2009, 19 percent of board members were Māori, representing no change since 2008. Over the last 11 years, however, the proportion of Māori board members has gradually increased. In 1998, 15 percent were Māori, indicating a 24 percent increase between 1998 and 2009.

The proportion of Māori board members is four percentage points lower than the proportion of Māori students in these schools (23 percent in 2009). This is largely due to demographics: the proportion of the school-age population who are Māori is considerably higher than the proportion of the population aged 25–49 who are Māori.

Figure 3.5.2: Māori Board of Trustees Members (1998–2009)

Figure 3.5.2: Māori Board of Trustees Members (1998–2009)

Gender differences

In 2009 Māori women accounted for 63 percent of all Māori board members. This represents a 3 percent increase in the proportion of female Māori board members from 1998 (61 percent). In comparison, 46 percent of all non-Māori board members in 2009 were women.

Regional differences

The Gisborne region had the highest rate of Māori representation (58 percent), followed by Northland (41 percent) and Bay of Plenty (38 percent). Canterbury and Otago had the lowest rates (6 percent), preceded by Southland (8 percent).

School trustees who are Pasifika
Current levels and trends

While there are Pasifika throughout New Zealand, most are concentrated in four main regions: Auckland, Wellington, Waikato and Canterbury. The four cities with the greatest Pasifika populations are Manukau, Auckland, Waitakere and Porirua.

This concentration means that we need to apply a different type of analysis for representation, based on schools with sufficient Pasifika students on the roll to expect Pasifika representation on the board. This expectation is based both on the relative size of the Pasifika roll and the number of available positions on the board.

Since 2000 the proportion of schools that achieved the criteria for adequate Pasifika representation on boards has not significantly changed. In 2009, 445 schools had a large enough Pasifika roll to expect to have Pasifika representation on boards. Of these, 30 percent had adequate Pasifika representation.

In December 2009, 18 percent of board members in these schools were of Pasifika ethnicity. This represents a 15 percent increase since 1998 (15 percent), but a slight reduction since the peak in 2006 (19 percent). The proportion of Pasifika board members is lower than the proportion of Pasifika students in these schools (32 percent in 2009). This is heavily influenced by demographics: for every school-aged Pasifika child (5–19-years-old) there are 1.17 Pasifika adults aged 25–49. In comparison, there are 1.81 European/Pākehā adults aged 25–49 for every European/Pākehā child.

Figure 3.5.3: Pasifika Board Members in Schools that Had Enough Pasifika Students on Their Roll to Have at Least One Pasifika Board Member (1998–2009)

Figure 3.5.3: Pasifika Board Members in Schools that Had Enough Pasifika Students on Their Roll to Have at Least One Pasifika Board Member (1998–2009)

Gender differences

In 2009, 58 percent of Pasifika board members were female, an increase of 3 percentage points since 1998. In comparison, 51 percent of all non-Pasifika board members in these schools in 2009 were women.

Regional differences

Of the regions that had at least ten schools where sufficient Pasifika students were on the roll to expect Pasifika representation on the board, Waikato had the highest representation (40 percent), followed by Hawke’s Bay (30 percent) and Wellington (35 percent). Auckland (29 percent) and Manawatu–Wanganui (20 percent) had the lowest representation.

Where to find out more

Vist Education Counts:

Footnotes

  1. Bishop, R., Berryman, M., Tiakiwai, S. and Richardson, C. (2003). Te Kotahitanga: The Experiences of Year 9 and 10 Māori Students in Mainstream Classrooms. Report to the Ministry of Education. Wellington: Ministry of Education.
    Learning Media Ltd. (2006). Literacy Professional Development Project: Achievement with Cohort 1 Schools. February 2004–November 2005. Wellington: Learning Media Ltd.
    Rubie-Davies, C., Hattie, J. and Hamilton, R. (2006). ‘Expecting the Best for Students: Teacher Expectations and Academic Outcomes’ in British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(Pt)3, pp429–444.
    Tunmer, W. E., Chapman, J. and Prochnow, J. E. (2003). The Structure Achievement-related Beliefs, Gender and Beginning Reading Achievement: Final Report – Phase II. Wellington: Ministry of Education.
    Wylie, C. and Hipkins, R. (2006). Growing Independence: Competent Students at 14 Project. Wellington: Research Division, Ministry of Education.
  2. Peters, S. (2010). Literature Review: Transition from Early Childhood Education to School. Wellington: Ministry of Education.
    Turoa, L., Wolfgramm, E., Tanielu, L. and McNaughton, S. (2002). Pathways over the Transition to Schools: Studies in Family Literacy Practices and Effective Classroom Concepts for Māori and Pasifika Children. Wellington: Ministry of Education.
  3. Education Review Office. (2009). Reading and Writing in Years 1 and 2. Wellington: Education Review Office.
  4. Education Review Office. (2008). Schools’ Provision for Students at Risk of Not Achieving. Wellington: Education Review Office.
  5. Ministry of Education. (2009). Reading and Writing Standards for Years 1–8. Wellington: Learning Media.
  6. Ministry of Education. (2010 draft). Ngā Whanaketanga Rumaki Māori. Wellington: Learning Media.
  7. Ministry of Education. (2008). Te Marautanga o Aotearoa. Wellington: Ministry of Education.
  8. Ministry of Education. (2007). The New Zealand Curriculum. Wellington: Ministry of Education.
  9. Ministry of Education. (2009). Te Aho Arataki Marau mō te Ako i Te Reo Māori – Kura Auraki. Wellington: Ministry of Education.
  10. Ministry of Education. (2007). Te Reo Matatini: The Māori-medium Literacy Strategy. Wellington: Ministry of Education.
  11. Education Review Office. (2009). Reading and Writing in Years 1 and 2. Wellington: Education Review Office.
  12. Education Review Office. (2008). Schools’ Provision for Students at Risk of Not Achieving. Wellington: Education Review Office.
  13. Crooks, T., Smith, J. and Flockton, L. (2009). Reading and Speaking: Assessment Results 2008. Wellington: Ministry of Education.
  14. Lee, M. (2010). Annual Monitoring of Reading Recovery: The Data for 2009. Wellington: Ministry of Education.
  15. Ministry of Education. (2009). Resource Teachers: Literacy Annual Report 2008. Wellington: Ministry of Education.
  16. The average effect sizes from LPDP were 1.90 for reading and 2.50 for writing (a significant effect size is around 0.4 and a large one is around 0.6, so an effect size of over 1 is extremely high). Timperley, H., Parr, J. , Meissel, K. (2010), Making a Difference to Student Achievement in Literacy: Final Research Project (Milestone 3) on the Literacy Professional Development Project 2009-2010. Auckland: Auckland Uniservices Limited.
  17. Ministry of Education. (2010 draft). Literacy Professional Development Project Milestone Report. Wellington: Learning Media.
  18. Chamberlain, M. (2007). Reading Literacy in New Zealand: An Overview of New Zealand’s Results from the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) 2005/2006. Wellington: Ministry of Education.
    Chamberlain, M. (2008). PIRLS 2005/2006 in New Zealand: An Overview of National Findings from the Second Cycle of the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS).Wellington: Ministry of Education.
  19. Marshall, N., Caygill, R. and May, S. (2006). PISA 2006: Reading Literacy: How Ready Are Our 15-year-olds for Tomorrow’s World? Wellington: Ministry of Education.
  20. Crooks, T., Smith, J. and Flockton, L. (2010). Mathematics: Assessment Results 2009. Dunedin: Educational Assessment Research Unit, University of Otago.
  21. Ministry of Education. (2009). Pasifika Education Plan 2009–2012. Wellington: Ministry of Education.
  22. Madjar, I., McKinley, E., Seini Jensen, S. and Van Der Merwe, A. (2009). Towards University: Navigating NCEA Course Choices in Low-mid Decile Schools. Auckland: Starpath Project, University of Auckland.
  23. Wylie, C. and Hipkins, R. (2006). Growing Independence: Competent Learners @ 14 Project. Wellington: Research Division, Ministry of Education.
  24. Vaughan, K., Phillips, H., Dalziel, P. and Higgins, J. (2009). A Matter of Perspective: Mapping Education Employment Linkages in Aotearoa New Zealand (EEL Research Report No.3). Lincoln: AERU Research Unit, Lincoln University.
  25. Scott, D. and Smart, W. (2005). What Factors Make a Difference to Getting a Degree in New Zealand? Wellington: Ministry of  Education.
  26. Earle, D. (2009). Skills, Qualifications and Wages – an Analysis from the Adult Literacy and Life Skills Survey. Wellington: Ministry  of  Education.
  27. Ministry of Education. (2010). Tertiary Education Strategy 2010–2015. See: www.minedu.govt.nz/theMinistry/PolicyAndStrategy/TertiaryEducationStrategy.aspx
  28. School leaver data is provisional as at 16 September 2010.
  29. ENROL is a national database which holds enrolment information and the eligibility criteria under which students enter school. It was developed to track student movements between schools.
  30. To ensure an accurate trend analysis the Ministry needs to use the restricted (pre 2009) definition of school leavers, which is based on data collected via highly aggregate paper-based roll returns. As a result, analysis of school leavers that is focused on 2009 data includes over 2,000 more students and is subsequently different to the 2009 results used for the trend analysis.
  31. Middle Eastern and Latin American and African (MELAA).
  32. Includes leavers achieving a University Entrance standard, which is defined as: those students with 42–59 credits at NCEA Level 3 and satisfying University Entrance criteria; or a National Certificate at Level 3 or above including a NCEA Level 3 qualification; or an overseas award at year 13 (for example, Cambridge International, Accelerated Christian Education) or University Entrance or University Bursary (A or B) or New Zealand Scholarship.
  33. Includes leavers with year 12 Cambridge International, International Baccalaureate, Accelerated Christian Education or any other overseas award.
  34. Includes leavers with year 11 Cambridge International, International Baccalaureate, Accelerated Christian Education or any other overseas award.
  35. Includes leavers with NCEA Level 2, an international equivalent Level 2 school qualification or a tertiary qualification at International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 3 or higher are the minimum qualifications that individuals need to attain for upper-secondary graduation in OECD indicators.
  36. Please refer to School leavers in 2009 on page 36.
  37. Targets in Ka Hikitia – Managing for Success are based on prioritised ethnicity and the more restrictive definition of school leavers. 
  38. Targets in the Pasifika Education Plan 2009–2012 are based on prioritised ethnicity and the more restrictive definition of school leavers.
  39. Under the old definition of the school leaver cohort.
  40. Engler, R. (2010). School Leavers’ Progression to Bachelors-level Study. Wellington: Ministry of Education.
  41. Please refer to School leavers in 2009 on page 36.
  42. Please refer to School leavers in 2009 on page 36.
  43. Participation is calculated by dividing candidates (with at least one credit from the NQF) by the roll total for each group. The denominator for achievement is also roll count for each year level.
  44. Ministry of Education. (2009). Ngā Haeata Mātauranga – Annual Report on Māori Education. Wellington: Ministry of Education. See: www.educationcounts.govt.nz/publications/series/5851/75954.
  45. Ninety-nine percent of year 11–13 students in Māori-medium schooling are Māori students.
  46. Candidates are used as the denominator for Māori-medium achievement statistics because the number of year 11–13 students enrolled at Māori-medium schools is relatively small, and there is a poor match between candidates and roll count for this small group. 
  47. International students are defined as fee-paying or NZAID students from 2004 to 2008, from 2009 onwards NZAID students are domestic students.
  48. Total candidates are used as the denominator to estimate attainment rate instead of roll. Participation in NCEA is relatively low for international students, so total candidates are therefore more accurate than roll.
  49. Hipkins, R. (2010). The Evolving NCEA: Findings from the NZCER National Survey on Secondary Schools 2009. Wellington:
    New Zealand Council for Educational Research.
  50. Wylie, C. and Hodgen E. (2007). Growing Independence: Competent Learners @ 16: Competency Levels and Development over Time. Wellington: Ministry of Education.
  51. Wylie, C., with Cameron, M., Twist, J., McDowell, S. and Fisher, J. (2009). Conditions for School Innovation and Transformation. Paper for 22nd ICSEI, Vancouver, January 2009.
  52. Gibbs, R. and Poskitt, J. (2010). Student Engagement in the Middle Years of Schooling (Years 7–10): A Literature Review. Report to the Ministry of Education. Wellington: Ministry of Education.
    Wylie, C. and Hipkins, R. (2006). Growing Independence: Competent Learners @ 14 Project. Wellington: Research Division, Ministry of Education.
  53. asTTle (Assessment Tools for Teaching and Learning) is an educational resource for assessing literacy and numeracy. It provides teachers, students and parents with information about a student’s level of achievement. Teachers can use asTTle to create tests designed for their own students’ learning needs. See: www.tki.org.nz/r/asttle/
  54. Research Division. (2008). A Study of Students’ Transition from Primary to Secondary Schooling. Wellington: Ministry of Education.
  55. Durling, N., Ng, L. and Bishop, F. (2010). The Education of Years 7 to 10 Students: A Focus on Their Teaching and Learning Needs — Summary Report. Wellington: Ministry of Education.
  56. Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs and Statistics New Zealand. (2010). Education and Pacific Peoples in New Zealand. Wellington: Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs and Statistics New Zealand.
  57. Education Review Office. (2009). Progress in Pacific Student Achievement: A Pilot Evaluation of Auckland Schools. Wellington: Education Review Office.
  58. Ministry of Education. (2006). Pasifika Education Plan 2006–2010. Wellington: Ministry of Education. 
  59. Wylie, C., with Cameron, M., Twist, J., McDowell, S. and Fisher, J. (2009). Conditions for School Innovation and Transformation. Paper for 22nd ICSEI, Vancouver, January 2009.
  60. May, S., Hill, R. and Tiakiwai, S. (2004). Bilingual/Immersion Education: Indicators of Good Practice. Final Report to the Ministry of Education. Wellington: Ministry of Education.
  61. TNS and Monarch Consulting. (2006). Consultation on ‘Staying at School’. Wellington: TNS and Monarch Consulting.
  62. Ussher, S. (2007). Tertiary Education Choices of School Leavers. Wellington: Ministry of Education.
  63. Wylie, C. and Hipkins, R. (2006). Growing Independence: Competent Learners @ 14 Project. Wellington: Research Division, Ministry of Education.
  64. Wylie, C., Hodgen, E., Hipkins, R. and Vaughan, K. (2009). Competent Learners on the Edge of Adulthood: A Summary of Key Findings from the Competent Learners @ 16 Project. Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.
  65. Ng, L. (2006). Attendance, Absence and Truancy in New Zealand Schools in 2006. Wellington: Ministry of Education.
  66. Cox, S. and Kennedy, S. (2008). Students’ Achievement as They Transition from Primary to Secondary Schooling. Wellington: Ministry of Education.
  67. Ministry of Education. (2008). A Study of Students’ Transition from Primary to Secondary Schooling. Wellington: Ministry of Education.
  68. Sankar, M. and Teague M. (2009). Evaluation of the District Truancy Service. Wellington: MartinJenkins.
  69. National Audit Office. (2005). Improving School Attendance in England. United Kingdom: National Audit Office.
    See: www.nao.org.uk.
  70. Poulton, R. (1997). School Truancy: High Prevalence and Serious Long-term Consequences: Some Results from the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Research Unit. Research update, No.1 Feb.
  71. McAra, L. (2005). ‘Truancy, School Exclusion and Substance Misuse’ in The Edinburgh Study of Youth Transitions and Crime, Number 4. Edinburgh: Centre for Law and Society, The University of Edinburgh. See: www.law.ed.ac.uk.
  72. Loader, M. and Ryan, T. (2010). Attendance in New Zealand Schools in 2009. Wellington: Ministry of Education.
  73. Ng, L. (2007). Attendance, Absence and Truancy in New Zealand Schools in 2006. Wellington: Ministry of Education.
  74. Ministry of Education. (2005). Attendance, Absence and Truancy in New Zealand Schools in 2004. Research Division. Wellington: Ministry of Education.
  75. Youth’07. (2008). Youth’07: The Health and Wellbeing of Secondary School Students in New Zealand. Technical Report, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences. Auckland: University of Auckland.
  76. Nelson, Tasman, Marlborough and West Coast have been grouped together in the regional analysis because the sample size in 2009 was not sufficient to estimate a separate rate for each region.
  77. Based on students attending schools that supplied ten weeks of data.
  78. As a consequence of a serious breach of school rules, a school principal can order a student to stand-down from school for a period of up to five school days. A stand-down, for any student, can total no more than five school days in any term, or ten days in a school year. Students return automatically to school following a stand-down.
    For very serious breaches of school rules, a principal may suspend a student from attending school until the school board of trustees decides on the consequence for the student. The board may decide to lift the suspension with or without conditions, to extend the suspension or, in the most serious cases, to either exclude or expel the student.
  79. Biddulph, F., Biddulph, J. and Biddulph, C. (2003). The Complexity of Community and Family Influences on Children’s Achievement in New Zealand: Best Evidence Synthesis Iteration. Wellington: Ministry of Education.
  80. Education Review Office. (2008). Partners in Learning: Schools’ Engagement with Parents, Whānau and Communities. Wellington: Education Review Office.
  81. Cotton, K., and Wikelund, K. (2001). Parent Involvement in Education. School Improvement Research Series. Portland.
  82. Wylie, C., Hodgen, E. and Darr, C. (2009). National Standards Consultation Analysis. Report for the Ministry of Education. Wellington: Ministry of Education.
  83. Education Review Office. (2009). Progress in Pacific Student Achievement: A Pilot Evaluation of Auckland Schools. Wellington: Education Review Office.
  84. Robinson, V., Hohepa, M. and Lloyd, C. (2008). School Leadership and Student Outcomes: Identifying What Works and Why. Wellington: Ministry of Education.
  85. Cotton, K. and Wikelund, K. R. (2001). Parent Involvement in Education. School Improvement Research Series. Portland.
  86. Robinson, V., Hohepa, M. and Lloyd, C. (2009). School Leadership and Student Outcomes: Identifying What Works and Why. Wellington: Ministry of Education.
  87. Biddulph, F., Biddulph., J. and Biddulph, C. (2003). The Complexity of Community and Family Influences on Children’s Achievement in New Zealand: Best Evidence Synthesis Iteration. Wellington: Ministry of Education.
  88. Education Review Office. (2008). Partners in Learning: Schools’ Engagement with Parents, Whānau and Communities. Wellington: Education Review Office.
  89. Wylie, C., Hodgen, E., Hipkins, R. and Vaughan, K. (2008). Competent Learners on the Edge of Adulthood: A Summary of Key Findings from the Competent Learners @ 16 Project. Wellington: Ministry of Education.
  90. Bull, A., Brooking, K. and Campbell, R. (2008). Successful Home-school Partnerships. Wellington: Ministry of Education.
  91. Amituanai-Toloa, M., McNaughton, S., Kuin Lai, M. and Airini with Turner, R., Widdowson, D., McClue, R., Hsiao, S. and Pale, M. (2009). Ua Aoina le Manogi o le Lolo: Pasifika Schooling Improvement Research – Final Report. Auckland: Auckland Uniservices Limited, University of Auckland.
  92. Education Review Office. (2009). Progress in Pacific Student Achievement: A Pilot Evaluation of Auckland Schools. Wellington: Education Review Office.
  93. Education Review Office. (2009). Readiness to Implement the New Zealand Curriculum (January 2009). Wellington: Education Review Office.
  94. Alton-Lee, A. (2003). Quality Teaching for Diverse Students in Schooling: Best Evidence Synthesis. Wellington: Ministry of Education.
    Benseman, J., Sutton, A. and Lander, J. (2005). Working in the Light of Evidence as Well as Aspiration: A Literature Review of the Best Available Evidence about Effective Adult Literacy, Numeracy and Language Teaching. Report prepared for Ministry of Education. Auckland: Auckland Uniservices Ltd.
    May, S., Hill, R. and Tiakiwai, S. (2004). Bilingual/Immersion Education: Indicators of Good Practice. Final Report to the Ministry of Education. Wellington: Ministry of Education.
    Wylie, C., Thompson, J. and Lythe, C. (2004). Competent Children at 12. Report to the Ministry of Education. Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.
  95. Ingersoll, R. and Kralik, J. (2004). The Impact of Mentoring on Teacher Retention: What the Research Says. Denver: Education Commission of the States.
  96. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2005). Teachers Matter: Attracting, Developing and Retaining Effective Teachers. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
  97. Alton-Lee. (2003). Quality Teaching for Diverse Students in Schooling: Best Evidence Synthesis. Wellington: Ministry of Education.
  98. Timperley, H., Wilson, A., Barrar, H. and Fung, I. (2007). Teacher Professional Learning and Development: Best Evidence Synthesis Iteration. Wellington: Ministry of Education
  99. Robinson, V., Hohepa, M. and Lloyd, C. (2009). School Leadership and Student Outcomes: Identifying What Works and Why. Wellington: Ministry of Education.
  100. Education Review Office. (2009). Managing Professional Learning and Development in Primary Schools. Wellington: Education Review Office.
  101. Education Review Office. (2009). Managing Professional Learning and Development in Secondary Schools. Wellington: Education Review Office.
  102. Education Review Office. (2008). The Quality of Teaching in Kura Māori. Wellington: Education Review Office.
  103. Ministerial Consultative Group on Teacher Workload (1999). Workload of Māori Teachers. Unpublished.
  104. Robinson, V., Hohepa, M. and Lloyd, C. (2009). School Leadership and Student Outcomes: Identifying What Works and Why. Wellington: Ministry of Education.
  105. Robinson, V., Hohepa, M. and Lloyd, C. (2009). School Leadership and Student Outcomes: Identifying What Works and Why. Wellington: Ministry of Education.
  106. Wylie, C. (2010). Principal Vacancies and Appointments 2008-9. Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.
  107. Education Review Office. (2010). Preparing to Give Effect to the New Zealand Curriculum. Wellington: Education Review Office.
  108. Robinson, V., Hohepa, M. and Lloyd, C. (2009). School Leadership and Student Outcomes: Identifying What Works and Why. Wellington: Ministry of Education.
  109. Education Review Office. (2009). Managing Professional Learning and Development in Primary Schools. Wellington: Education Review Office.
    Education Review Office. (2009). Managing Professional Learning and Development in Secondary Schools. Wellington: Education Review Office.
  110. Education Review Office. (2009). Reading and Writing in Years 1 and 2. Wellington:  Education Review Office.
  111. Middle and senior leaders are teachers in leadership roles including assistant/associate principals, deputy principals, syndicate leaders and heads of department. In May 2009 there were 10,435 FTTE in middle and senior leadership positions.

 

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.