Appendix 2: Alim and all student achievement informaton analysis of the public achievement information PAI

ERO analysed each group’s 2012 achievement and improvement from 2011 to 2012 as reported by schools to the Ministry. [11] This information was sourced from the Ministry’s and Fairfax’s websites.[12] The percentage of Māori, Pacific and all students achieving at or above National Standards which each school reported was used for this analysis as it was the only data available for 2011.[13]

A number of caveats apply to this analysis. ERO was interested in how each school responded to the needs of individual students achieving below or well below National Standards so it investigated the effect of teacher and school actions on individual students. The Public Achievement Information (PAI) data was about a school picture, and not about individual student progress, therefore:

  • an improved shift in a large school affects more students than one in a small school. For example, two percent in a school of 400 was eight students but in a school of 50 it was one student
  • major changes in a school population, such as student transience or a year level at an intermediate, were not accounted for when comparing one year to the next.
  • the shift in the percentage of students at or above National Standards in relation to the whole population meant shifts in some schools were more meaningful than in others. For example, a shift from 80 to 85 percent of students achieving National Standards was a 25 percent improvement, whereas a shift from 45 to 50 percent was a nine percent improvement in the proportion of students underachieving.

Due to how the achievement information was reported, schools with a high proportion of a particular ethnicity may have had other ethnicities’ achievement data masked by either the school or the Ministry. For example, some schools reported all students’ achievement was very similar to Māori or Pacific students’ achievement. This made it seem outcomes are equitable, but in reality the small number of Pakēha and other students’ achievement was masked. In other schools with small numbers of Māori or Pacific students, the achievement may have been masked so it was not known how well these students are achieving.

There are also caveats around this data’s reliability, as reported in Ward. J., & Thomas, G. (2013) National Standards: School Sampling Monitoring and Evaluation Project, 2010-2012. Wellington: Ministry of Education.

The proportion of schools that reported Māori or Pacific students’ progress in 2012 decreased from the first group to the fourth. For example, 92 percent of schools in the first group, those that were strategic and successful in their actions, reported achievement for Māori students, whereas only 72 percent in the fourth group, schools with little sense of urgency, did so. Thirty-five percent of schools in the first group and 18 percent in the fourth group reported Pacific student achievement. This may not mean there are less Māori or Pacific students in the fourth group as each school may have a high proportion or number of Māori or Pacific students.

School-reported National Standards data was useful to explore as part of understanding each group’s context, but no clear patterns of achievement and improvement were evident across the groups.

Overall the strategic and successful schools reported the highest achievement of the four groups, with the proportion of Māori students achieving at or above National Standards greater than the national picture for all students. Māori student achievement in mathematics and writing was very close to the national picture for all students. The proportion of Pacific students achieving at or above National Standards was lower than that in the groups of schools that had strategically trialled a new approach and were aware of the need. The six schools with 2011 and 2012 achievement information reported a 7.6 percent increase in the proportion of Pacific students achieving in mathematics.

The groups of schools that had strategically trialled a new approach and were aware of the need had very similar information for 2012 achievement and 2011 to 2012 improvement. Schools that had strategically trialled a new approach reported a greater proportion of all students, Māori and Pacific achieving at or above National Standards in mathematics and writing. They also reported the biggest improvement from 2011 to 2012 in mathematics achievement for all, Māori and Pacific students, and in writing for all and Māori students.

The schools aware of the need to accelerate progress reported a greater proportion of students achieving at or above National Standards in reading for all students and Pacific students, and in writing for Pacific students. They also reported the biggest improvement from 2011 to 2012 in reading for all students, Māori and Pacific students, and in writing for Pacific students.

The schools with little sense of urgency had the most equitable results, as the percentage of Māori and Pacific students achieving at or above National Standards was the same as for all students. The percentage of students achieving at or above was the lowest of all four groups. There was some improvement from 2011 to 2012 in reading and mathematics for all students for the six schools with PAI for both years.