Activity centres operate in 11 urban centres from Auckland to Invercargill. These centres are for secondary students who are at risk of not achieving in mainstream education. Most of the students have been referred for behaviour that impedes their learning as well as that of others. Activity centres give students time to reflect on their learning and behaviour in an environment where teachers can focus on what individual students need, so that they can be reintegrated into a mainstream school.
ERO reviews activity centres on a regular cycle and has recently completed individual reviews of all 14 centres. Those reviews resulted in reports on the quality of governance and management of the centres in relation to seven terms of reference, which include education programmes, student outcomes, support for students and safety.
This evaluation gives a national overview of what is working well in activity centres and what aspects need improving. The report concludes with a discussion on the efficiency and effectiveness of activity centres in providing education for referred students.
At the time of the most recent reviews, over 200 students were enrolled in activity centres. One centre had the maximum number of 20 students, while the others averaged fewer than 15. Boys and Māori comprised the largest percentage of students.
The most effective activity centres succeeded in returning many of their students to secondary school. The national average in 2008 was 44 percent of students reintegrated, but one centre returned as many as 80 percent.
Some centres saw reintegration as unrealistic for many of their students. These centres often retained students for longer periods, sometimes until they reached school leaving age, but more often to prepare them for moving on to Alternative Education,1 community training courses or employment. The consequences of this approach were that fewer students re-engaged with mainstream schooling and fewer places were available for students on waiting lists.
Activity centres are governed by the board of the ‘host’ secondary school, and most are managed by a committee consisting of principals or other school personnel.
Day-to-day management is the responsibility of the director, who reports regularly to the management group. Annual reporting by the director was of variable quality, with the best examples showing detailed analysis of student outcomes and programme evaluation. In most centres policies and procedures are well documented, providing clear and useful guidance for staff. A designated person on the management committee often liaises with teachers in the centre. All but four centres were suitably governed and managed.
ERO had concerns about the quality of governance and management in these four centres, and will return to all of them within two years. They fell short of one or more requirements relating to the safety and/or learning of students. Other aspects needing attention were self review and planning, monitoring student progress, performance management and professional development.
The quality of education programmes and learning resources in activity centres was generally sound. Most centres focused on building students’ literacy and numeracy skills. The Correspondence School provided teaching and learning materials for up to four curriculum areas. Teachers developed individual learning and behaviour plans through discussion with students and parents and these were regularly reviewed. High quality assessment practices contributed to responsive, personalised planning in about half the centres.
Students in at least six centres were gaining credits and unit standards on the New Zealand qualifications framework, many of which were related to literacy and numeracy. Some centres provided a wide range of opportunities for students to work towards national certificates.
Systems for supporting students and ensuring their health, safety and wellbeing are generally well developed and effective. Staff fostered positive relationships and modelled appropriate social behaviour. Students felt physically and emotionally safe in the activity centres. In this secure and supportive environment, students were able to take time to reconsider their values and choices. Community agencies provided additional support for students, such as counselling and life skills coaching.
Overall, activity centres had a positive influence on many students’ lives and education. However, some questions remain about the role of centres and whether they are the most effective and efficient way of meeting the needs of students who are at risk of not achieving in mainstream education. Inconsistency in the way different centres interpreted their role and set their priorities affected the:
Centres with small rolls and those who retain students for long periods appeared to be under-utilising the available resource, with the result that some students who could benefit from this intervention were denied the opportunity or were unable to access it when it was needed. However, there was sufficient evidence in the well-governed and managed activity centres to demonstrate that they are providing an important safety valve and refocusing opportunity for many students who struggle to succeed in mainstream schools.
The term ‘Alternative Education’ can be used in two ways. One refers to the specific strategy whereby schools are allocated a certain number of places for qualifying at-risk students in courses run by particular community providers. The other is a generic term for all education strategies and programmes outside the mainstream. The generic term covers activity centres, teen parent units, and other alternative forms of education including the particular strand described above. In order to clarify the terminology, this report capitalises Alternative Education when referring to the specific strategy, and lower case when referring to alternative education in a general way.