Appendix 3: Variability across schools

Table 1 illustrates the predominance of different elements across the schools visited and the school files analysed. It is indicative only as not all of the elements of the matrix were identifiable in the 2017 reports.

Table 1: Frequency of elements found in schools

Single‑sex, low decile, urban state school                           Sample size 10

3/10 had genuinely responsive curriculum

6/10 had effective range of teaching strategies

Roll 1000 , high decile, urban, state school                        Sample size 6

5/6 had genuinely responsive curriculum

2/6 had cross curricular assessment

1/6 required a much wider range of PLD

Roll 1000 , medium decile, urban, state school                 Sample size 4

2/4 had responsive curriculum

3/4 used an appropriate range of teaching strategies

3/4 closely monitored students

Roll 3‑400, medium decile, minor urban, state school        Sample size 4

2/4 had appropriate pedagogy 

3/4 had responsive curriculum

2/4 had a detailed focus on student wellbeing

2/4 used resourcing appropriately

Roll <200, medium decile, rural, state school                     Sample size 7

6/7 had responsive curriculum

5/7 had appropriate pedagogy and expectations

5/7 monitored students’ progress closely

5/7 provided appropriate PLD

1/7 student wellbeing was not a priority

Roll 700, low decile, urban state, school                               Sample size 6

2/6 students lacked clear pathways

1/6 had some staff with low expectations

1/6 provided staff with appropriate PLD

Integrated (Catholic), medium decile, main urban               Sample size 3

2/3 had a responsive, relevant curriculum

2/3 closely monitored students

2/3 did not provide appropriate PLD

Private co‑educational school, high decile, main urban, offers dual pathways Sample size 1

Distribution of some school matrix aspects

This is indicative of a pattern of frequency of elements across schools. It is not intended to be comprehensive description of whether or not all matrix aspects were present in a given school.

Not all the elements are represented as Table 2 is based on the strength of evidence available in the files, reports or onsite visits.

Pedagogy is not represented as ERO did not make observations of teaching practice and relied on comments from staff interviewed and students. However, comments to ERO indicated variability of pedagogy within schools, which is in keeping with substantive research findings.

Table 2: Schools with identified strengths in matrix elements

Programme Design   Schools where elements were clearly evident
Curriculum and timetable design meets students’ needs Horoeka; Manuka; Harekeke; Haumata; Pōhutukawa; Kōwhai
Use of achievement and engagement data to inform programme design Ngutukākā
Creative solutions to a limited curriculum Haumata
A culturally responsive curriculum Manuka; Harekeke
Integration of some curriculum areas including literacy and numeracy Manuka; Haumata; Nikau; Kōwhai
Assessment strategies
High quality monitoring and mentoring Horoeka; Manuka; Harekeke; Pōhutukawa; Rātā; Kōwhai
Providing students and parents with timely assessment information Pōhutukawa
Reducing credits offered to help manage student work load Haumata; Ngutukākā
Multiple ways to succeed Manuka; Haumata; Ngutukākā; Nikau
High levels of assessment and moderation expertise Kōwhai
Appropriate allocation of resources Horoeka; Haumata
Targeted PLD Horoeka; Rātā
Pastoral care and wellbeing
Schools pay attention to wellbeing Almost all schools
Community partnerships, including parents and whānau Manuka; Harekeke; Nikau; Rātā