Two overarching evaluative questions guided this evaluation:
ERO collected evidence for the two overarching evaluative questions and a set of investigative questions by observing teacher practice, talking with key groups of teachers and senior staff members and looking at school documents relevant to their inquiry.
Reviewers recorded their judgements on a separate synthesis sheet and reported information material to each school in the individual school report. The complete evaluation framework including the investigative questions is detailed in Appendix 2.
As well as the synthesis sheet, there was a school questionnaire. Reviewers used the information from this questionnaire to scope their evaluation, and responses were aggregated to inform this report. Responses were received from 70 percent of the schools in this evaluation and information from these questionnaires supports the school findings.
The findings also include extracts from review officer comments about unidentified school practice. These comments provide examples of effective or ineffective practice in the teaching of reading and writing.
ERO evaluated literacy in Years 1 and 2 in all schools where ERO carried out an education review in Term 1 and Term 2, 2009. The types of schools, roll size, school locality (urban or rural) and decile ranges of the schools are shown in Tables 1 to 3 below.
|School type||Number||Percentage of sample||National Percentage|
|Full Primary (Y1-8)||110||52||54|
Table 1 shows that composite schools in the sample were under-represented and contributing primary schools were over-represented in comparison to national figures, but this difference was not statistically significant.
|Roll size||Number||Percentage of sample||National percentage|
Table 2 shows that medium sized schools in the sample were under-represented, and large schools were over-represented in comparison to national figures, but this difference was not statistically significant.
|Locality||Number||Percentage of sample||National percentage|
Table 3 shows that the number of urban and rural schools in the sample is representative of national figures.
|Decile ||Number||Percentage of sample||National percentage|
|Low decile (1-3)||50||23||30|
|Middle decile (4-7)||78||37||30|
|High decile (8-10)||84||40||40|
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, but this difference was not statistically significant.