Summary

Introduction

This report summarises the information received from returning officers following the triennial elections for parent representatives on school boards of trustees held between February and May 2007. This information is collected through three key forms. These are as follows:

• Appendix A – Summary of Candidates
• Appendix B – Declaration of Results, and
• Appendix F – New Membership

The Appendix A form contains information on the gender, ethnicity and previous experience of the candidates, and the Appendix B form is used to indicate whether a school held a voting election. For the 2007 election the Appendix B form also contained information on the number of voting papers sent out, the number returned and the number which were invalid for the schools that held a voting election. Each new and re-elected candidate completes an Appendix F form which contains information on their gender, ethnicity, title and member type.

As at March 2007 there were 2,469 state and state integrated schools. A number of these school boards were excluded from this analysis because they either do not have elected parent representatives in their board constitutions (14 schools); have commissioners temporarily appointed to replace their boards (25 schools); or are an establishment board (3 schools). The correspondence school was also excluded as it has a board appointed by the Minister. Two schools that were in the process of closing in the first half of 2007 were also excluded. There are 16 schools that are governed by a combined board of trustees. Because of the difference of these combined board constitutions, this meant that 10 elections for parent representatives were held for these 16 schools. Therefore overall we were expecting information back from 2,418 schools.

On the 22 nd June we discontinued the collection of Appendix A and Appendix B forms. At this stage we had received Appendix A forms from 2,268 of the expected 2,418 schools. This represents a response rate of 94%. This response rate was higher than the response rate to the survey in 2004 (90%) but comparable to 2001 (95%). At the same point the Appendix B form was submitted by 2,333 schools from an expected 2,418 schools. This represents a response rate of 96%. Since then eight schools have returned an Appendix A form and four schools have returned an Appendix B form.

In total 14,327 people stood as candidates, and 201,261 valid votes were cast.

A total of 79 Appendix A forms had data quality problems. The errors consisted of having more than seven positions available, and/or incorrectly completing the candidate table, and/or incorrectly completing the ethnicity table. These problems were not resolved for one form therefore it was excluded from the analysis. Slightly over 5% of the Appendix A forms had an inconsistency between the gender totals in the two tables. These forms were still included in the report and the gender in the ethnicity table was used for the analysis.

The Appendix B form was incorrectly completed by 35 schools. These errors consisted of schools either not completing the voting papers section of the form or misinterpreting the 'number of voting papers posted' question as the number of voting papers returned via the post. These problems were resolved for 26 forms, and nine forms had to be excluded from the analysis.

This report only includes the Appendix F forms received before the 13 th July. At this stage 18,586 board of trustee members were identified in the Ministry of Education database, of whom 10,499 were elected parent representatives. However at this stage only 1,427 schools had returned the correct number of Appendix F forms according to the information contained on the Appendix A form. The 982 schools who had not returned the correct number of Appendix F forms have been excluded from the analysis of successful candidates.

Number of Positions Available

The majority of schools (84%) that submitted an Appendix A had five or more positions for parent representatives on their board of trustees. In 2004 this percentage was slightly higher at 87%. T he usual number of positions for parent representatives on a board of trustees is five, but individual boards can resolve to change this number to between three and seven parent representatives by following the appropriate legislative process under s94B of the Education Act 1989.

In 2002, mid-term (also known as staggered) elections were introduced. Schools had the option of having half their parent representatives elected every eighteen months. In 2002; 315 schools took part in the mid-term elections and in 2005; 298 schools took part.

Number of Candidates

A total of 14,327 people stood as candidates in the 2,268 schools included in these results. This represents an average of 6.3 candidates per school, compared with 6.3 in 2004 and 6.8 in 2001.

The highest average number of candidates, by school type in 2007, was at Secondary (Year 9-15) schools with 8.5 candidates per school. The lowest average number of candidates was at Restricted Composite schools with 4.3 candidates per school.

The Auckland region had the highest average number of candidates per school (7.2). The Gisborne region had the lowest average for the 2007 election with 5.3 candidates per school. There was little variation in the average number of candidates by decile. Schools with a decile rating of 10 had the highest average of candidates per school (6.9). While schools with a decile rating of 4 averaged the lowest at only 5.9 candidates per school. Rural area schools averaged 5.5 candidates and schools in main urban areas averaged 6.7 candidates per school.

Just over a quarter (28%) of schools had five candidates for the election, while 54% of schools had six candidates or more. In 2004 these figures were very similar at 27% and 54% respectively. The highest number of candidates was 21.

Over half (57%) of the 2,268 schools returning Appendix A had more candidates than positions available and therefore were required to hold a voting election. In 2004, 56% of schools were required to hold a voting election. If the number of candidates was equal to the number of positions available for parent 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 elected to the casual vacancies later in a by-election, or may be selected.

Secondary (Year 9-15) schools (80%) were most likely to have more candidates than positions and had to hold a voting election. Schools most likely to have more candidates than positions were in the Auckland (67%) and Bay of Plenty (66%) regions, in rural centres (64%), and decile 10 schools (67%). Schools most likely to have fewer candidates than positions were in the Chatham Islands (33%), and West Coast (19%), in rural areas (14%), and decile 2 schools (13%). (See Appendix 1).

For 1,967 of the 2,268 schools returning an Appendix A there was data available on the number of candidates who stood for the previous board elections in 2004. More than one fifth of the 2,095 schools (22%) had the same number of candidates as they did in 2004, 38% of schools had more candidates and 40% had fewer. In 2004, 19% of schools had the same number of candidates as in 2001, 31% had more candidates than 2001 and 50% had fewer candidates than in 2001.

Number of Trustees

As of July 2007, there were 18,586 board of trustee members – 1,235 fewer than after the 2004 triennial elections. The number of parent elected representatives also fell from 11,700 in 2004 to 10,499 in 2007. However according to the information on the Appendix A forms we should still expect another 2,032 parent representatives to return an Appendix F form in the next couple of months.

Voting Papers

1,349 schools returned an Appendix B indicating that they held a voting election. A total of 749,719 voting papers were sent out, and 28% of these voting papers were returned. The proportion of voting papers returned was highest for Full Primary schools (38%) and lowest for Restricted Composite schools (16%).

Decile 9 schools had the highest return rate at 32%, and decile 1 schools had the lowest return rate at 22%. Rural area schools and schools in the Chatham Islands had the highest return rates at 52% and 90% respectively. Whilst Main Urban schools and Auckland schools had the lowest return rate at 25% and 24% respectively. (See Appendix 2).

The rate of return is significantly lower for the board of trustees elections compared to the 2004 local authority elections where the voter turnout was 46%.

Out of the 208,301 voting papers returned 3% of those votes were invalid. This percentage did not vary much across school type, decile, and area type. However the Chatham Islands did have a large percentage of invalid votes at 13%, and Canterbury had a very low percentage of invalid votes at 2%. (See Appendix 2).

Gender and Ethnic Composition of Successful Candidates

At the 1,437 schools that provided the correct number of Appendix F forms, seventy-five percent of the candidates that stood for the election were successfully elected onto a school board. The percentage of successful candidates was slightly higher for males (76%) compared to females (74%).

NZ European candidates had the highest success rate of being elected onto a school board (81%), and Asian candidates had the lowest success rate (52%). Female Asian candidates and female European candidates were 9% more likely to be elected onto a board than their male counterparts. Male NZ European's were the most likely to be elected onto a board (83%).

Composition of School Boards of Trustees

Over half of all board of trustees members were parent representatives (56%), 13% were principals (or acting principals), and 13% were staff representatives. In total, 52% of all board members were female, while 49% of parent representatives were female (accordingly, 48% of all board members and 51% of parent representatives were male). The three main outliers in terms of representation were principals, proprietors' representatives, and staff representatives. Forty-four percent of principals and 40% of proprietors' representatives were female, while 79% of staff representatives were female.

The proportion of trustees who are female was largely unchanged from previous years. In 1999 51% of trustees and 48% of parent representatives were female, in 2001 51% of trustees and 48% of parent representatives were female, and in 2004 52% of trustees and 49% of parent representatives were female.

Table 11 below shows the positions that board members held. A total of 89% of board chairs were parent elected representatives and 41% of board chairs were female (59% of board chairs were male).

Gender

The report shows that 49% of candidates for the 2007 election were female. In 2004 50% were female and in 2001 49% of candidates were female. This figure varied across different types of schools. The proportion of parent representatives who were female has not changed since 2004 (49%). The proportion of all trustees who were female was slightly higher than the proportion of parent representatives at 52%. This was largely attributable to the high proportion of staff representatives who were female.

By and large, Table 12 shows a lower or equal proportion of females across school type after the 2007 elections than after the 2004 elections. A notable exception to this is at Composite schools where despite a decrease in the proportion of female parent representatives, there has been a rise in the proportion of female candidates, though the overall proportion of female trustees at Composite schools remained unchanged.

At Special schools there was a decrease in the percentage of female candidates and parent representatives, though the overall proportion of female trustees at Special schools increased. In particular, the data shows a notable decrease in the proportion of female parent elected representatives (from 58% to 52% between 2004 and 2007). Special schools however still had more female than male candidates, parent elected representatives and overall trustees.

The Chatham Islands region had the highest percentage of female candidates (68%), parent representatives (67%), and all trustees (63%). The Nelson region had the lowest percentage of female candidates (42%) and all trustees (46%). Whilst the Otago region had the lowest percentage of female parent elected representatives (44%).

Across candidates, parent representatives and all trustees, the proportion of females decreased as the socio-economic decile rating of the school increased. In 2007, females comprised 64% of candidates at decile 1 schools and 38% of candidates at decile 10 schools; 66% of parent trustees at decile 1 schools and 40% at decile 10; and 65% of all trustees at decile 1 and 46% at decile 10 schools.

The proportion of female candidates and parent representatives was highest in rural areas and minor urban areas where 52% of candidates were female, and 50% of parent representatives were female. Rural areas had the highest proportion of trustees at 56%. Secondary urban areas had the lowest proportion of candidates (47%), parent representatives (47%), and trustees (49%).

Ethnicity

The ethnicity of those elected onto boards of trustees as parent representatives by and large reflect the ethnicity of those standing for election as candidates (Table 16). The percentage of those parent representatives elected onto boards in 2007 identified as NZ European/Pakeha (66.0%) was slightly higher than the percentage standing for election (62.1%). M ā ori made up 16.4% of those elected as parent representatives and 19.1% of candidates, Pasifika people 3.8% of those elected and 4.3% of candidates, and people of Asian ethnicity accounted for 0.6% of elected representatives and 1.0% of candidates. The percentage of all trustees in each ethnicity category is reasonably consistent with the percentage of parent representatives. M ā ori is the only exception to this with a significantly lower percentage of all trustees compared to parent representatives.

In 2007 we introduced a new ethnicity category of European in line with Statistics NZ recording of ethnicities. This category accounted for 10.7% of candidates, 10.5% of parent representatives and 10.4% of all trustees. In 2004 we would expect that those that identified themselves as European would have chosen NZ European/Pakeha instead.

Those candidates and trustees that did not identify with any of the other choices for ethnicity were grouped under the category of Other. This category made up 2.6% of those elected as parent representatives, 2.7% of candidates and 2.5% of all trustees.

The introduction of the European category and the increase in the Other category should account for some of the large drop in NZ European/Pakeha.

Between 2004 and 2007 there has been an increase in the proportion of M ā ori candidates, but a decrease in the proportion of M ā ori parent representatives, and all trustees. A decrease in the proportion of Asian candidates and parent elected representatives is also evident. The data also shows a small decrease in the proportion of Pasifika candidates, no change in Pasifika parent elected representatives and a small increase in all Pasifika trustees.

Slightly over half (54%) 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 1: Ethnic Group by Elected Status for 2007

Figure 2 shows that NZ European/Pakeha and Asian ethnic groups had fewer female than male candidates and parent elected representatives, whilst M ā ori and Pasifika ethnic groups had more female than male candidates and parent elected representatives (i.e. greater than 50% female).

Figure 2: Female Candidates and Parent Elected Representatives by Ethnic Group

Experience of Candidates

Slightly over one third of candidates (35%) were current parent representatives on boards of trustees standing for re-election. Co-opted/Appointed candidates and candidates with previous board experience both account for 8% of the total candidates. Candidates with no previous board experience account for 44%.

Figure 3: Candidates by Board Membership Status  

When looking at the membership status data by school type we find that Special schools have the highest number of candidates standing that are currently on the board, and the lowest numbers of candidates standing that have no experience. Restricted Composite schools have a very low number of current parent representatives, and Contributing schools have a very high number of candidates with no previous experience.

Experience of Trustees

The data in Table 18 show that in 2007 just under half of parent representatives were newly elected to the board in 2007. 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. Further, the data show small peaks in the proportion of parents elected in earlier triennial election years – 20% have been on a school board since 2004 and 6% have been on a school board since 2001.

The data shows that Full Primary, Secondary (Year 9-15) and Special schools all had less than 50% of candidates newly elected to the board this year. Composite and Restricted Composite schools had the highest proportion of representatives newly elected to the board. Special schools have a large proportion (17%) of parent representatives that have been on the board since before 2001.

Tasman and Southland have the lowest numbers of newly elected members to the board, and Nelson and Wellington have the highest numbers. The Chatham Islands and the West Coast show the largest proportion of representatives having been elected since before 2001.

Decile 10 schools show the lowest proportion of newly elected parent representatives. As decile increase so does the proportion of parent elected representatives starting in 2004, and as decile decreases so does the proportion of parent elected representatives starting before 2001.

Main Urban schools have the highest proportion of newly elected parent representatives, and Rural Area schools have the lowest proportion. Urban schools have a significantly higher rate of elected parent representatives starting in 2004. There is no significant effect of area type on parent representatives elected before 2004.

Kura Kaupapa Māori

In total 52 of the 68 currently open Kura Kaupapa Māori schools returned information about their board of trustee elections. This corresponds to a response rate of 76.5%.

The majority of Kura Kaupapa Māori schools (87%) that submitted an Appendix A form had five or more positions for elected parent representatives on their board of trustees. For all schools this rate is lower at 84%.

A total of 329 people stood as candidates in the 52 schools included in these results. This represents an average of 6.3 candidates per school, compared to 6.3 across all school types.

Just over a quarter (29%) of Kura Kaupapa Māori schools had five candidates for the election, while 48% had more than six candidates. The highest number of candidates at a Kura Kaupapa Māori school was 16. The rate of schools with more than 5 candidates is 1% higher at Kura Kaupapa Māori schools, while the proportion of schools with more than six candidates was 6% lower than at all schools.

Exactly 50% of the Kura Kaupapa Māori schools had more candidates than positions available and therefore were required to hold a voting election. This figure is higher for all schools at 57%.

Almost two thirds of candidates and elected parent representatives (66%) were female. Māori candidates contributed to 93% of all candidates standing at Kura Kaupapa Māori, while 2% were NZ European, 1% were European, and 1% were Pasifika. Māori accounted for 96% of the elected parent representatives, with the only other ethnicity represented being NZ European (3%).

A total of 39% of all candidates had no previous board experience, 34% were currently on the board, 12% had previously been on a board, 7% were co-opted or appointed and 8% of candidates did not state their previous experience.

Ethnic Composition of Candidates  and Parent Representatives  Compared to Student Ethnicity

The proportion of candidates and elected parent representatives compared to the proportion of students with the same ethnicity is greater for NZ European, European and Other ethnicity and lower for Māori, Asian and Pasifika ethnicity.

These results however should be interpreted with care due to differences in collecting ethnicity and a high Māori and Pasifika birth rate in recent years.

The ethnicity of students and the ethnicity of candidates and elected parent representatives are collected in different ways. Students can record multiple ethnicities, and then we use a prioritisation system to determine their ethnicity. For example; a student that identifies themselves as Māori and NZ European will be classified as Māori, and a student that identifies themselves as European and Asian will be classified as Asian. For candidates and elected parent representatives they only have the option of recording one ethnicity, so they must choose the ethnicity they feel most strongly connected with.

The proportion of the school-age population who are Māori is 1.25 that of the population aged 25 to 50. Likewise the proportion of school-aged Pasifika people is 1.35 that of the 25 to 50 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 candidates, but an over-representation of NZ European/Pakeha trustees and candidates in comparison to student rolls.