Summary

Number of candidates

A total of 13,879 people stood as candidates in the 2,207 schools included in these results. This represents an average of 6.3 candidates per school, compared with 6.8 in 2001 and 7.0 in 1998. The highest average number of candidates, by school type in 2004, was at secondary schools with 8.0 candidates per school. Rural schools averaged 5.5 candidates and schools in main urban areas averaged 6.7 candidates per school¹. The Auckland region had the highest average number of candidates per school--7.1. The Tasman and Chatham Island regions had the lowest average for the 2004 election with 5.4 and 5.0 candidates per school respectively. There was little variation in the average number of candidates by decile.

Just over a quarter (27%) of schools had five candidates for the election, while 30% of schools had six or seven candidates. The highest number of candidates was 17.

Over half (56%) of the 2,207 schools returning Appendix A had more candidates than positions available and therefore were required to hold a voting election. In 2001, 62% of schools were required to hold a voting election. If the number of candidates was equal to the number of positions available for parent elected representatives then a board of trustees could be formed without holding a voting election. If three or four candidates were nominated for a board with five positions, then a board could be formed and other members may be subsequently elected to the casual vacancies in a by-election, or appointed by the board. All schools included in this report had enough candidates standing for election as parent representatives to form a board as required under the Act.²

As shown in Table 2, secondary schools were most likely to have more candidates than positions and hold a voting election. Schools most likely to have more candidates than positions were in the Auckland (68%) and Bay of Plenty (71%) regions, in main urban areas (63%), and decile 10 schools (67%). Schools most likely to have fewer candidates than positions were in the Marlborough (20%), and Gisborne and Northland regions (both 17%), in rural areas (17%), and decile 3 schools (19%).<

For 2,095 of the 2,207 schools returning Appendix A there was data available on the number of candidates who stood for the previous board elections in 2001. Almost one fifth of the 2,095 schools (19%) had the same number of candidates as they did in 2001, 31% of schools had more candidates and 50% had fewer candidates.

Number of trustees

As of October 2004, there were 19,821 board of trustees members - 1,020 fewer than after the 2001 triennial elections. The number of parent elected representatives also fell from 12,718 in 2001 to 11,700 in 2004. This decline is largely due to a reduction in the number of schools. This distorts any comparisons between the actual number of parent elected representatives (or overall trustees) between 2001 and 2004. As such, the following analysis compares the proportion of parent elected representatives (or all trustees) by gender or ethnicity in 2001 and 2004.

Composition of school boards of trustees

Over half of all board of trustees members were parent elected representatives (59%), 13% were principals (or acting principals), and 12% were staff representatives. In total, 52% of all board members were female, while 49% of parent elected representatives were female (accordingly, 48% of all board members and 51% of parent elected representatives were male). The three main outliers in terms of representation were principals, proprietors' representatives, and staff representatives. Forty-two percent of principals and 41% of proprietors' representatives were female while 80% of staff representatives were female. The `other members' classification includes trustees appointed by the Secretary or specified organisations.

The proportion of trustees who are female was largely unchanged from previous years. In 1997, 51% of all trustees were female while 47% of parent elected representatives were female; in 1999 51% of trustees and 48% of parent elected representatives were female and in 2001 51% of trustees and 48% of parent elected representatives were female.

Table 4 below shows the positions that board members held. A total of 90% of board chairs were parent elected representatives and 41% of board chairs were female (59% of board chairs were male). The number of board chairs was comparable with the number of schools (less schools with commissioners or combined boards). The data show that 177 boards had a designated deputy chair position.

Gender

Exactly half the candidates standing for election as parent representatives for the 2004 board elections were female. In the previous two elections 49% (2001) and 47% (1998) of candidates were female. In both 2004 and 2001, the proportion of parent elected representatives who were female was slightly lower than the proportion of candidates (49% and 48% respectively). The proportion of all trustees who were female was slightly higher than the proportion of parent elected representatives. This was largely attributable to the high proportion of staff representatives who were female.

By and large, Table 5 shows a higher proportion of females across school type after the 2004 elections than after the 2001 elections. A notable exception to this is at secondary schools where despite an increase in the proportion of female candidates, there has been a fall in the proportion of females who were elected, though the overall proportion of female trustees at secondary schools remained unchanged.

At composite schools there was an increase in the percentage of female candidates, parent elected representatives and overall trustees. In particular, the data show a notable increase in the proportion of female parent elected representatives (from 41% to 51% between 2001 and 2004). Special schools also had more female than male candidates, parent elected representatives and overall trustees. Primary schools had slightly more female than male candidates and total trustees.

Across candidates, parent elected representatives and all trustees, the proportion of females decreased as the socioeconomic decile rating of the school increased. In 2004, females comprised 64% of candidates at decile 1 schools and 41% of candidates at decile 10 schools; 62% of parent elected trustees at decile 1 schools and 40% at decile 10; and 61% of all trustees at decile 1 and 45% at decile 10 schools.

In rural areas there were more female than male candidates (53%), parent elected representatives (51%), and all trustees (57%). In main urban areas 49% of candidates, 48% of parent elected trustees, and 50% of all trustees were female. The Gisborne region had the highest percentage of female candidates (58%), parent elected representatives (56%), and all trustees (58%). The Nelson region had the lowest percentage of female candidates (45%), parent elected representatives (44%), and all trustees (43%).⁵

Gender by experience

Figure 1: Female candidates and parent elected representatives by board membership status

While overall, 50% of candidates were female, Figure 1 shows that female candidates accounted for 48% of candidates already on a board and 53% of candidates with no previous board experience. The proportion of females elected to a board of trustees was similar to the proportion of female candidates standing for election. Females accounted for 52% of board members who were newly elected and 46% of those who were re-elected.

Ethnicity

The ethnicity of those elected onto boards of trustees as parent representatives by and large reflects the ethnicity of those standing for election as candidates (Table 6). The percentage of those elected onto boards in 2004 identified as NZ European/Pakeha (76.1%) was slightly higher than the percentage standing for election (74.1%). Māori made up 17.6% of those elected as parent representatives and 18.8% of candidates, Pasifika people 3.8% of those elected and 5.0% of candidates, and people of Asian ethnicity accounted for 0.8% of elected representatives and 1.5% of candidates. The final 1.7% of elected parent representatives and 0.6% of candidates identified with another ethnicity (such as South American or African).

The data show a decrease in the proportion of NZ European / Pakeha candidates, parent elected representatives and all trustees between 2001 and 2004, and a corresponding increase in the proportion of Māori candidates, parent elected representatives, and all trustees. The data also show a discernable increase in the proportion of Pasifika candidates, parent elected representatives and all trustees.

Figure 2: Ethnic group by elected status for 2004

After the 1998 triennial board elections 80% of parent elected representatives identified as NZ European/Pakeha as did 76% of candidates. Fourteen percent of parent elected representatives were Māori as were 15% of candidates and 3% of parent elected representatives and 4% of candidates were of Pasifika ethnicity.

Slightly over half (51%) of NZ European / Pakeha parent elected representatives on boards were re-elected--that is they were current board members at the time of the 2004 elections. For the other main ethnic groups a greater proportion of trustees were newly elected to boards rather than re-elected.

Figure 3: Female candidates and parent elected representatives by ethnic group

Figure 3 shows that NZ European/Pakeha and Asian ethnic groups had fewer female than male candidates and parent elected representatives, whilst Māori and Pasifika ethnic groups had more female than male candidates and parent elected representatives (i.e. greater than 50% female).

Comparing the proportion of parent elected representatives to students by ethnicity

Table 7 compares the ethnicity of parent elected representatives with the ethnicity of students on the school rolls to ascertain whether there are proportionally more, the same, or fewer parent elected representatives than students of each ethnicity on a school-by-school basis. The proportion of parent elected representatives has been compared to the proportion of students, with a tolerance of one parent elected representative. For example, consider a school with five parent elected representatives and a student population consisting of 65% NZ European / Pakeha, 30% Māori and 5% Pasifika students. Fewer than three NZ European / Pakeha parent elected representatives would be recorded as fewer parent elected representatives than students, three or four would be same proportion of parent elected representatives and students, and five would be more parent elected representatives than students. If the school had no Māori parent elected representatives it would be recorded as fewer parent elected representatives than students, one to two would be same proportion of parent elected representatives and students, and three or more would be more parent elected representatives than students. Similarly, none or one Pasifika representatives would be recorded as same proportion of parent elected representatives and students, and more than one would be recorded as more parent elected representatives than students. The ethnicity of the student population has been calculated from each schools July 2004 total funding roll.⁷

The data show that at 778 (32%) schools there were proportionally more parent elected representatives of NZ European / Pakeha ethnicity than students, while at the same time 448 (18%) schools had fewer Māori parent elected representatives than students.

These results should be interpreted with care. The proportion of the school-age population who are Māori is twice that of the population aged 25 to 50. Likewise, the proportion of school-aged Pasifika people is twice that of the adult age group. This is a result of the higher birth rate of Māori and Pasifika groups over the last 15 years compared to NZ European/Pakeha. Consequently, the proportion of the school-age population who are NZ European/Pakeha is lower than the proportion of their parents' age who are NZ European/Pakeha. Therefore, we should not interpret these results as under-representation of Māori or Pasifika trustees and over-representation of NZ European/Pakeha trustees. We would expect NZ European/Pakeha trustees to be over represented in this comparison with the ethnicity of school rolls.

There was a lower proportion of Māori parent elected representatives than students at 448 (18%) schools. However, at 35 of these schools, 50% or more of both parent elected representatives and students were Māori. These schools have, for example, three out of five Māori parent elected representatives and 95% Māori students. Of more importance, 295 schools had no Māori parent elected representatives when the business rule suggested that to attain "same " they should have at least one. Schools most likely to have fewer Māori parent elected representatives than students were located in the central North Island (Waikato 28%, Bay of Plenty 30%, Gisborne 29% Hawke's Bay 34% and Manuwatu / Wanganui 28%). Schools in the Otago region were most likely to have the same proportion of Māori parent elected trustees as students (95%); many schools in Auckland and Wellington also had the same proportion of Māori parent elected trustees as students (86% and 85% respectively).

There were proportionally more Pasifika parent elected representatives than students at 11 (0%) schools and fewer at 93 (4%) schools. This is, however, somewhat misleading as the schools with a high proportion of Pasifika students also had a high proportion of Pasifika trustees--just not as high as the proportion of students. For example, Auckland and Wellington schools were most likely to have proportionally fewer Pasifika parent elected representatives than students. Yet these two centres have the highest percentage of both Pasifika students and parent elected representatives.⁸

Experience

The data in Table 8 show that in 2004 over half of parent representatives were newly elected. That is, they were not a current representative standing for re-election, nor were they co-opted or appointed members of any school board standing for election. Virtually all of those elected in 2004 were elected during the triennial elections (between February and May) with less than one percent being elected outside this timeframe. Further, the data show small peaks in the proportion of parents elected in earlier triennial election years - 20% were elected in 2001 and 6% have been on a school board since 1998.

There were proportionally fewer newly elected parent representatives in special and composite schools. In addition, there were fewer new elected representatives in the South Island (46%), while the Bay of Plenty had the highest proportion of new elected representatives (58%). Board experience does not appear to vary by decile.

Appendix

Footnotes:

1. Statistics New Zealand area type classification. Main urban area, population at least 30,000; secondary urban area, population between 10,000 and 29,999; minor urban area, population between 1,000 and 9,999; and rural area, population less than 1,000.
2. If the result of an election of trustees is that the board has fewer than three trustees elected by parents, a board is not legally constituted and the board may be dissolved and a commissioner appointed by the Secretary of Education. These schools have been excluded from this report.
3. Not all schools have supplied information on their staff representative.
4. The position of secretary, treasurer, deputy chair and acting chair are internal operational issues for the board. In the case of board secretary, we are potentially counting the school administration person. To ensure accuracy, these positions are no longer recorded in Ministry databases.
5. See Table 10 in the Appendix for further details.
6. The ethnicity data has been prioritised (only one ethnicity has been recorded for each candidate, parent elected representative and trustee). See Table 11 in the Appendix for non-prioritised ethnicity statistics and an explanation of how prioritised ethnicity is classified.
7. Foreign fee paying students have been excluded. The July total funding roll has been used as the March roll data does not include ethnicity.
8. In Auckland approximately 19% of students and 12% of parent elected representatives were of Pasifika ethnicity, and in Wellington approximately 10% of students and 7% of parent elected representatives were of Pasifika ethnicity.
9. Note that some board chairs have recorded the date they became the board chair, rather than the date they were elected as a trustee. This is likely to bias the start date towards the more recent years.
10. Note, all trustees includes all trustees at all schools (including the Correspondence School and excluding schools with commissioners), while parent elected reps only includes parent elected representatives. The candidates information is recorded from the 90% of school returning officers that returned Appendix A.
11. The data in Table 11 is non-prioritised, meaning that it counts people with multiple ethnicities according to every ethnicity that they identify with. Prioritised ethnicity assigns each person with one ethnicity in a hierarchical method. If someone has responded that they are Māori and any other ethnicity they are classified as Māori, if they have responded that they are Pasifika and any ethnicity except Māori they are classified as Pasifika, if they have responded that they are Asian and any other ethnicity except Māori or Pasifika they are classified as Asian. People of NZ European / Pakeha ethnicity are classified last in the prioritised method. Non responses are excluded from all ethnicity statistics.