This evaluation involved 228 schools in which ERO carried out an education review in Terms 1 and 2, 2010. The types of schools, roll size, school locality (urban or rural) and decile ranges of the schools are shown in Tables 1 to 5 below.
Table 1: School types
| School type | Number | Percentage of sample | National percentage[1] |
| Full Primary (Year 1‑8) | 104 | 46 | 48 |
| Contributing Primary (Year 1‑6) | 82 | 36 | 36 |
| Intermediate (Year 7‑8) | 15 | 7 | 6 |
| Special School | 4 | 1 | 2 |
| Secondary (Year 7‑15) | 10 | 4 | 4 |
| Composite (Year 1‑15) | 11 | 5 | 4 |
| Restricted Composite (Year 7‑10) | 2 | 1 | <1 |
| Total | 228 | 100 | 100 |
Table 1 shows that full primaries and special schools in the sample were slightly under‑represented, in comparison to national figures. Intermediates, and composite schools in the sample were slightly over‑represented, in comparison to national figures. The differences were not statistically significant.[2]
Table 2: Roll size
| Roll size[3] | Number | Percentage of sample | National percentage |
| Very small | 25 | 11 | 9 |
| Small | 69 | 30 | 24 |
| Medium | 76 | 33 | 38 |
| Large | 38 | 17 | 19 |
| Very large | 20 | 9 | 9 |
| Total | 228 | 100 | 100 |
Table 2 shows that small and very small schools in the sample were over‑represented, and medium and large schools were under‑represented, in comparison to national figures. This difference was not statistically significant.
Table 3: School locality
| Locality[4] | Number | Percentage of sample | National percentage |
| Main urban area | 110 | 48 | 51 |
| Secondary urban area Minor urban area Rural | 9 17 92 | 4 8 40 | 6 11 32 |
| Total | 228 | 100 | 100 |
Table 3 shows that the numbers of main urban, secondary urban and minor urban schools in the sample are under-represented and rural schools over-represented in comparison to national figures. This difference was not statistically significant.
Table 4: School decile ranges
| Decile[5] | Number | Percentage of sample | National percentage |
| Low decile (1‑3) | 58 | 25 | 29 |
| Middle decile (4‑7) | 90 | 40 | 40 |
| High decile (8‑10) | 80 | 35 | 31 |
| Total | 228 | 100 | 100 |
Table 4 shows that low decile schools in the sample were under‑represented and high decile schools were over‑represented, in comparison to national figures. This difference was not statistically significant.
[1] The national percentage of each school type is based on the total population of schools as at May 2010. For this study it includes full and contributing primaries, intermediates, special schools, secondary, composite and restricted composite schools with students in Years 1‑8. This applies to locality and decile in Tables 2 and 3.
[2] The differences between observed and expected values were tested using a Chi square test.
[3] Roll sizes for full and contributing primary schools, special schools and intermediates are: very small (between 1-30); small (between 31-100); medium (101-300), large (301-500); and very large (500+). Roll sizes for secondary, composite and restricted schools are: very small (1-100), small (101-400); medium (400-800); large (801-1500); very large 1501+).
[4]Based on location categories used by the Ministry of Education and Statistics New Zealand as follows: Main Urban population > 30,000; Secondary Urban 10,000 to 30,000; Minor Urban 1,000 to 9,999; Rural < 1,000
[5] A school’s decile indicates the extent to which a school draws its students from low socio-economic communities. Decile 1 schools are the 10 percent of schools with the highest proportion of students from low socio-economic communities, whereas decile 10 schools are the 10 percent of schools with the lowest proportion of these students.