Appendix 1: Methodology

As part of its regular education reviews ERO collects information on schools’ engagement and awareness of Pacific students, and their learning outcomes. ERO gathered information from 302 schools.[10] Seventy-one of these schools had no Pacific students and ERO collected minimal data from these schools. There were 188 schools where Pacific students made up between 1 and 25 percent of the roll. There were 13 schools where Pacific students made up between a quarter and a half of the school roll, and 20 schools where Pacific students constituted over 50 percent of their roll. In two of the schools in this evaluation Pacific students made up more than 90 percent of their roll.

Evaluation framework

The evaluation’s overarching evaluation question asked:

What does the school know about Pacific student achievement since the last ERO review?

Six key evaluation questions supported this. Since the last ERO review -

  • to what extent has Pacific student presence improved?
  • to what extent has Pacific student engagement improved?
  • to what extent has the board of trustees’ knowledge and understanding of Pacific issues improved?
  • to what extent has the school’s engagement with its Pacific community improved?
  • to what extent has student achievement in literacy and numeracy improved?
  • to what extent has the quality of achievement information improved?

Review teams observed class programmes and engaged in meetings with boards of trustees, principals, senior leaders and key staff responsible for Pacific student achievement, pastoral care and community liaison. Reviewers also included formal and informal conversations with parents and students.

Based on evidence gathered, reviewers formed overall judgements about the progress made in each of these six areas. They also identified and reported examples of good practice.

Analysis included the identification of a group of high performing schools and a group of schools that were least effective in their provision of Pacific students.

ERO’s judgements on aspects of the six areas were assigned a numeric value (highest quality level given highest number) and these numbers were added together to give an overall total score. With a possible grade aggregate of 63, 12 schools that scored 50 or more were identified as the most effective, and qualitative data on these schools was examined to develop broader judgements about effective practice.

Schools whose aggregate was 14 or less were identified as the least effective.