Appendix 4: Demographics of the schools investigated and those that responded to the survey

The table below shows the demographics of the schools that this report is based on

Table 3: Schools visited and schools responding to the surveys[27]

 

Primary schools visited

Secondary schools visited

Percentage of principals

surveyed

National percentage

 

N=173

N=27

204 responses

N=2430

School type

       

Full primary

Contributing

Intermediate, middle school

Special

99

48

14

2

 

44

39

5

44

32

5

2

Composite (Years 1-15, Years 1-10)

Secondary (Years 7-15)

Secondary (Years 9-15, Years 11-15)

7

3

0

1

7

19

1

4

6

5

4

9

Location of school

       

Main urban

Secondary urban

Minor urban

Rural

80

13

18

62

19

1

5

2

54

5

12

28

53

7

12

29

Size of school

       

Very small

Small

Medium

Large

Very large

17

43

72

28

13

0

2

12

9

4

5

22

39

25

8

10

25

37

19

9

Decile grouping

       

Low decile (deciles 1-3)

Medium decile (deciles 4-7)

High decile (deciles 8-10)

40

83

50

6

10

11

24

47

29

31

40

29

Differences between the responding schools and the national distribution of schools were tested using chi square tests. Differences that were statistically significant (P<0.05) are described below.[28]

The primary school evaluation included seven composite schools, three Years 7 to 15 secondary schools, and two special schools. More of the primary schools included were full primary schools (Years 1 to 8) than nationally (61 percent compared with 54 percent), and fewer were contributing schools (Years 1 to 6) – 30 percent compared with 39 percent. The sample also included slightly fewer low decile and more medium decile schools than nationally. This is consistent with the exclusion of longitudinal reviews which occur more often in low decile schools. The principals responding to the principal’s survey slightly under-represented small schools.