School staffing improvements: Evaluation of the impact of additional teaching staff provided through the School Staffing Review Publications
Publication Details
This evaluation was carried out by the Education Review Office under contract to the Ministry of Education in 2004.
Author(s): Education Review Office
Date Published: July 2007
Executive Summary
This evaluation was carried out by the Education Review Office under contract to the Ministry of Education in 2004.
The School Staffing Review Group reported to the Government in February 2001. The recommendations of the Review Group targeted two key goals: to improve the capacity of schools to deliver quality education; and to alleviate problems associated with teacher workload. The Government has responded to these recommendations by developing the School Staffing Improvement Plan, known as School Staffing Improvements. By 2004, approximately 2,090 additional teaching staff, of an intended total of 3,700, had been made available to schools as part of this plan.
The Ministry of Education has recognised that there are significant difficulties in evaluating the impact of the additional teacher resource on student outcomes. The lack of parameters around the use of the resource, and the wide range of options open to schools, create a major challenge in evaluation1 These issues led to a phased approach being proposed, with phase one providing indicators for a more detailed second phase of evaluation.
A theory-based approach (see methodology) was used for this evaluation in order to address the challenge of evaluating across multiple contexts.
This study is the first stage of a proposed evaluation to measure the impact of School Staffing Improvements on student outcomes. In particular, this stage of the evaluation has focused on the decisions schools make about using their additional teaching staff entitlement, and the way in which they are measuring the effectiveness of the way in which the entitlement has been used. One hundred and ten schools, across all school types, were included in the sample for this evaluation.What are schools using the additional teaching staff entitlement for and why?
In many schools, the principal was the only person in the school community who had any knowledge of School Staffing Improvements or the additional teaching staff entitlement allocated to their school. In only 35 percent of schools were many or all of the board of trustees aware of School Staffing Improvements, and in only 32 percent did all or many trustees have knowledge of how the additional teaching staff entitlement was allocated in their school. In almost half of all schools in this study (46 percent) no teachers were aware of School Staffing Improvements and a majority (70 percent) were not aware of how the entitlement was being used at the school level.
The employment of extra staff was the most common allocation of the additional teaching staff entitlement (38 percent). Some schools increased the hours of their part-time staff (15 percent), while others used the entitlement to resource staffing previously charged to operations and/or local funds (14 percent). Nineteen percent of schools were unable to identify where the additional teaching staff entitlement had been allocated.
Not all schools had a clear rationale for their allocation of the additional teaching staff entitlement. This was the case in 37 percent of schools. The most frequent outcomes identified by the remaining 63 percent of schools included release time for senior managers (31 percent) and the introduction or increase in programmes targeted at individual student learning needs (19 percent). The creation or increase in staff non-contact time and a reduction in class sizes was also noted by a smaller number of schools.
In the majority of cases, schools described processes or activities as the key purpose of the way in which the additional teaching staff entitlement had been used. Goals were expressed in terms such as: new opportunities for student learning; better programmes; and upskilled staff. In the small number of schools where goals had been expressed as student outcomes, achievement in literacy was most frequently identified.
Schools were asked to identify who was involved in making decisions about the types of activities that the additional teaching staff entitlement had contributed to. Principals are the key decision-makers when allocating additional teaching resources in their schools. Staff involvement in decision-making was comparatively uncommon and in only 36 percent of schools were all board members involved in deciding the allocation of these resources. Sixty-three percent of schools had clear processes for making decisions about the allocation of their teaching entitlement. Goals identified in school strategic plans and/or the results of self-review were the key influences on resource allocation in these schools.
Decision-making for the use of the additional teaching staff entitlement was usually undertaken as part of wider decision-making about allocation of the school’s staffing entitlement and school resources generally. This was confirmed by the finding that about 75 percent of schools were using other school resources as well as the additional teaching staff entitlement to contribute to outcomes for which the entitlement had been allocated. These resources, provided by the board of trustees through the operations grant, most commonly took the form of additional teachers or teacher aides.
Effective use of the additional teaching staff entitlement
Schools can only assess the impact of additional teaching staff on student outcomes if they can identify how they have used the entitlement. Forty percent of schools were found to have well or adequately defined and measurable goals. A significant number of schools had only some definition or had not defined their goals.
Few schools were found to have effective processes in place for monitoring and evaluating the impact of the use of the additional teaching staff entitlement on the quality of education in their school. This makes it challenging for schools to assess the extent to which they are allocating their resources in the most effective way. Clear goals linked to student learning outcomes were commonly observed in those schools where effective measures were in place.
Half of the schools in this evaluation had identified goals and outcomes that were feasible and could realistically be expected to be achieved as a result of the additional teaching staff entitlement made available to the school. A focus on established student learning needs was regularly evident in those schools that had effectively matched the allocation of their entitlement with manageable goals for its use.
Having an effective process for identifying students’ learning needs also enabled schools to allocate the additional teaching staff entitlement to address the priority needs of their students in 19 percent of cases. Another 30 percent of schools were addressing some of their students’ priority needs through the use of the entitlement.
Outcomes as a result of School Staffing Improvements
Goals set for the use of the additional teaching staff entitlement were being achieved in 18 percent of schools. Goals were largely being achieved in a further 35 percent of schools. The most frequently observed goals included: increases in student literacy levels; the maintenance of low class sizes; non-contact time made available for teachers; and the release of professional leaders from the classroom. In many schools goals were focused on processes or activities, rather than student outcomes. Therefore, achieving goals identified for the use of the additional teaching staff entitlement often required only that an activity occur.
School characteristics, such as school type, locality and decile, were not shown to have a direct relationship with the outcomes experienced by schools as a result of their use of the entitlement. Schools were most likely to achieve the outcomes they set for themselves when their goals for the use of the additional teaching staff entitlement were well-defined and measurable, feasible and realistic and had been implemented as the school had planned.Footnote
- (Barwick H 2003, see Appendix 5).
Navigation
Contact Us
Education Data Requests
If you have any questions about education data please contact us:
Email: Requests Data and Insights
Phone: +64 4 463 8065