Appendix One: Methodology

Sample

This evaluation is based on the 51 schools with international students that had a regular ERO review in Terms 3 and 4, 2011. The 51 schools are from a variety of school types, as shown in Table 1. [9]

Table 1: Types of schools in sample

School type

Number of schools included

Percentage of schools included

National percentage of schools with international students

Contributing primary (Y1-6)

13

25

19

Full primary (Y1-8)

5

10

15

Intermediate (Y7-8)/Restricted composite (Y7-10)

6

12

11

Composite (Y1-15)

3

6

7

Secondary (Y7-15)

8

16

14

Secondary (Y9-15)/Secondary (Y11-15)

16

31

35

Total

51

100

100

Twenty-seven of the schools were secondary or composite and 24 were primary and intermediate schools. Thirty-nine schools were in a main urban area and 29 were large or very large. Thirty schools were high decile, 16 were medium decile and five were low decile.

Although the number of schools in each sub-group is too small to present results separately, some trends were identified.[10] Higher ratings tended to be given to schools in main urban areas, and to larger schools and to high decile schools. The differences for self review were statistically significant for main urban schools (36 percent received the highest rating compared with 8 percent of other schools), high decile (50 percent compared with none), and larger schools (38 percent compared with 18 percent).

Ten schools were rated in the highest category for five aspects (excluding self review). Of these ten schools, nine were in main urban areas, eight were high decile and seven were large or very large. Similarly, of the six schools rated in the highest category on all six aspects, five were in main urban areas, six were high decile, and four were large or very large.

Data collection

For each school, ERO considered information from a variety of sources including:

  • school charters, vision, annual plans
  • evidence of self-review process and outcomes, and reports
  • survey / questionnaire / feedback data from students, parents, homestay caregivers (opportunity for anonymous or confidential feedback)
  • reports to senior managers / board about the International Students programme and outcomes
  • ERO’s Board Assurance Statement and Self-Audit Checklist.

During the reviews, ERO had discussions with a range of people including:

  • staff with responsibility for the pastoral care of international students
  • staff with responsibility for the accommodation provision for international students
  • staff with responsibility for teaching international students
  • the principal and school managers
  • international students
  • members of the board
  • any other people considered to be appropriate.