new zealand’s national education monitoring project: the ...reasonably clear cut answers. teachers...

New Zealand’s National Education Monitoring Project:

The First Four Year Cycle, 1995 – 1998

Pre-publication Report

Lester Flockton and Terry Crooks

Educational Assessment Research Unit

University of Otago

Box 56, Dunedin

New Zealand

Paper FLO99155 presented as part of Symposium CRO99008

at the combined annual conference for 1999 of the

New Zealand Association for Research in Education

and the

Australian Association for Research in Education Melbourne, Australia

November 29 – December 2, 1999

The National Education Monitoring Project is conducted by the Educational Assessment Research Unit, University of Otago,

under contract to the New Zealand Ministry of Education.

NEW ZEALAND’S NATIONAL EDUCATION MONITORING PROJECT: THE FIRST FOUR YEAR CYCLE, 1995 to 1998.

PART 1

BACKGROUND, PURPOSE AND ORGANISATION

BACKGROUND

New Zealand’s national monitoring of students’ educational achievements started in 1995. This marked the realisation of a succession of recommendations, spanning at least thirty years, from governmental enquiries and reports which highlighted the need for regular, dependable and consistent information about the educational achievements, attitudes and interests of New Zealand students. Prior to 1995 New Zealand had no national programme for systematically monitoring student learning outcomes. While valuable information has been available through participation in international IEA surveys, these cover only some areas of our mandatory curriculum and include only a modest coverage of learning outcomes. Furthermore, they are restricted mainly to paper and pencil tests and questionnaires which are not tailored to New Zealand’s school system and curriculum. National monitoring covers most of the curriculum in diverse ways to give a rich picture of student achievement.

PURPOSE

The National Education Monitoring Project (NEMP) is a national assessment programme with the purpose of obtaining a dependable national picture of what New Zealand students know and can do. The programme monitors achievement trends over time and provides information which is particularly relevant to the work of both policy makers and practitioners. Because national monitoring also meets a public accountability function, its descriptive reports on students’ achievements and attitudes are widely circulated. An important goal of the project is to help identify what is being done well, areas of concern, and priorities for future improvement in student achievement.

ORGANISATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF NEMP

Random Samples of Schools and Students

Each year nationally representative random samples of 2,880 students from 260 randomly chosen schools were carefully selected from national lists of state, integrated and private school; half at year 4 (ages 8-9) and half at year 8 (ages 12-13). From each school or pair of neighbouring small schools, twelve students were randomly chosen to take part. In turn, the twelve students were assigned to three groups of four. Each group of students worked on a different set of tasks across all of the curriculum areas being assessed that year. Over a period of a week, each student typically took part in about four hours of assessment activities. Schools and parents/students were individually notified of their selection to take part in national monitoring, and given the opportunity to withdraw.

Approximately 11,500 students from over 1000 schools took part in the first four years of national monitoring. Over 1000 personal contacts were made with school principals by the project’s directors along with numerous discussions with individual parents. In the first four years ten schools withdrew for reasons not related to the project, and were subsequently replaced. The number of students who were replaced for reasons other than change of school or absences averaged approximately 2 percent of the original sample.

Learning Areas Assessed

Within repeating four year cycles, NEMP assessed and reported on all major curriculum areas. This is recognition of the considerable value and importance New Zealand attaches to a broad-based curriculum which relates to the world around the school, and to learning for life beyond school.

In the first four years of national monitoring, assessments were reported in 15 areas of the curriculum: science, art, information skills (graphs, tables and maps) (1995); reading and speaking, aspects of technology, music (1996); mathematics, social studies, information skills (library and research) (1997); writing, listening and viewing, health and physical education (1998).

Curriculum Advisory Panels

The process of identifying the key learning outcomes to be assessed (knowledge, skills, understandings and attitudes) and deciding on suitable assessment tasks involved curriculum advisory panels made up of curriculum specialists, classroom practitioners and Maori educators. These panels assisted with drawing up frameworks to guide the development and selection of tasks without being unduly prescriptive or limiting. The assessment frameworks helped to guide task development decisions and helped those interested in contributing task ideas. NEMP curriculum panels played an important part in generating task ideas and guiding the final selection of tasks that were used in the assessment programme.

National monitoring drew upon the experience and insights of 65 nationally acknowledged curriculum specialists, classroom practitioners and Maori educators who were members of the project’s nine curriculum panels and its Maori Reference Group, Te Pitau Whakarei.

Task Administration and Marking

Each year more than 100 national monitoring tasks and survey questionnaires were administered by trained teachers seconded from their own schools for periods of six weeks. Each teacher attended a one week national training workshop then spent the following five weeks working with a paired colleague in group of selected schools. Each week each pair of teachers visited one school where twelve randomly selected students were assessed, or two

small neighbouring schools which together provided the required twelve students. At the conclusion of the assessment programme in schools, tasks were marked by senior tertiary education students and teachers. Tertiary students generally marked tasks which required reasonably clear cut answers. Teachers marked tasks requiring a higher degree of experienced professional judgement. The payback for professional development from these involvements is an established feature of the project.

In the first four year cycle of national monitoring, 384 teachers had opportunities to work as task administrators. 120 senior tertiary students and 660 experienced teachers were involved in marking. Systematic feedback each year from all groups shows a high level of professional satisfaction and extended understandings of assessment principles and methods.

Approaches to Assessment

Assessing a full cross-section of students across a broad range of curriculum outcomes in authentic, contextualised ways required varied approaches suited to the different processes and outcomes that were assessed. National monitoring used five main approaches for presenting assessment tasks, each one allowing students easy access to the support of a trained teacher assessor: Most sessions took approximately one hour.

One-to-one interview: each student worked individually with a teacher with the whole session recorded on videotape.

Stations: four students worked independently, moving around a series of task activity stations.

Team: four students worked collaboratively with the session usually recorded on videotape.

Independent: four students worked individually on paper and pencil task or art making tasks.

Open Space (physical education): four students, supervised by two teachers, attempted a series of physical skill tasks with performances being videorecorded.

Across the first four years of national monitoring approximately 15,000 hours of video recorded performances and 240,000 pages of paper responses (including art works) were gathered for marking from a total of 499 tasks. Total student assessment time amounted to approximately 45,000 hours. Approximately four tonnes of supplies and equipment were in use around New Zealand during each year’s assessment programme. About one million bits of information were produced from the marking of individual tasks each year. The highest proportion of tasks used performance assessment methods. Very few tasks involved paper and pencil multiple choice methods.

Low Stakes, High Impact Assessment

There is a considerable imperative arising out of the low stakes nature of national monitoring (no school, teacher or student is identified at any point). Tasks and their presentation had to be designed so that students would feel strongly inclined to produce and sustain their best efforts regardless of individual differences in ability, background and experience. However, the national monitoring project recognised that any form of externally administered assessment inevitably constrains the sorts of things that students can be asked to do. Despite this, there has been a strong commitment to developing and administering tasks that reflect the best of day to day teaching methods, learning experiences, and the world in which we live. Emphasis was placed on assessing important or "big picture" learning outcomes in order to sum up students’ achievements at particular points in time.

Every student who has taken part in national monitoring assessment was asked to rate their impressions of the tasks they attempted a s "really enjoyed" or" not enjoyed. Feedback on this variable can be useful for gauging task attributes that might have a negative impact on student performance. Of the 499 tasks administered in the first four years, in only 4 tasks did fewer students say they really enjoyed them than those who said they did not enjoy them – each at the year 8 level.

Reporting NEMP Results

The project attaches great importance to wide distribution and easy access to its reports on student achievement. Annual reports of assessment results provide task by task descriptive information in preference to statistically aggregated data which can be largely meaningless and easily misused. Approximately one third of each year’s tasks will be used again as "link tasks" in the second four year cycle to allow comparisons of performance over time. The descriptive details of these monitoring tasks will not be fully published until they have been repeated. The relative performance of subgroups was also reported using nine demographic variables. Prior to public release, all reports were examined by national reporting forums made up of curriculum and assessment specialists, teachers and Maori educators. Each year the forum produced a summary statement of key findings and highlighted implications for policy and practice.

In the first four years of national monitoring a total of approximately 210,000 copies of reports were distributed to major educational institutions and agencies, and to every New Zealand school and its Board of Trustees. Around 170,000 copies were distributed of the Forum Comment which highlights major findings and their implications for policy and practice.

PART 2

RESULTS ACROSS THE FIRST FOUR YEARS OF NATIONAL MONITORING: THE PERFORMANCE OF SUBGROUPS USING NINE DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES.

NINE DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES

National Monitoring results are analysed and reported task by task. Although the emphasis is on the overall national picture of student achievement, attention is also given to examining performance patterns for different demographic groups and categories of school. Nine variables were used for creating subgroups, with students divided into two or three subgroups on each variable.

TABLE 1

9 Demographic Variables and Subgroups

Variables Subgroups

Gender male, female.

Ethnicity Maori, non-Maori.

Socio-economic index

for the school

bottom three deciles (1 – 3),

middle four deciles (4 – 7),

highest three deciles (8 – 10).

Size of school Year 4 Schools: less than 20 year 4 students,

20-35 year 4 students, more than 35 year 4 students.

Year 8 Schools: less than 35 year 8 students,

35 – 150 year 8 students, more than 150 year 8 students.

Type of school full primary school, intermediate school.

(Some students were in other types of schools, but too few to allow separate analysis.)

Geographic zone greater Auckland,

other North Island,

South Island.

Size of community urban area over 100,000,

community of 10,000 to 100,000,

rural area or town of less than 10,000.

Percent of Maori children in the school

less than 10 percent,

10 to 30 percent,

more than 30 percent.

Percent of Pacific Island students in the school

less than 5 percent,

5 percent or more.

Each of the categories listed above, except the small year 4 schools in one year, included at least 16 percent of the students. Categories containing fewer students, such as Asian students or female Maori students, were not used because the resulting statistics would be based on the performance of fewer than 75 students, and would therefore be too unreliable.

The analyses of the relative performance of subgroups used an overall score for each task, created by adding scores for the most important components of the task.

Where only two subgroups were compared, differences in task performance between the two subgroups were checked for statistical significance using t-tests. Where three subgroups were compared, one way analysis of variance was used to check for statistically significant differences among the three subgroups.

Because the number of students included in each analysis was quite large (approximately 450), the statistical tests were sensitive to small differences. To reduce the likelihood of attention being drawn to unimportant differences, the critical level for statistical significance was set at p = .01 so that differences this large or larger among the subgroups would not be expected by chance in more than one percent of cases. For team tasks, the critical level was raised to p = .05, because of the smaller sample size (120 teams rather than about 450 students).

NUMBERS OF ASSESSMENT TASKS

Each year a variety of tasks were undertaken by the three groups of students in each school or pair of small schools. The number of components in individual tasks varied considerably from one to several markable items. A large proportion of tasks were identical for year 4 and year 8, some had small adjustments to take account of age appropriateness, and some were entirely different for reasons of curriculum constructs.

TABLE 2

Number of Assessment Tasks Administered

in the First Four Year Cycle, 1995 - 1998

Subject Area

Year 4 Year 8 Total

Tasks

Science 37 39 54

Art 11 11 16

Graphs, Tables, Maps 29 31 45

Reading 17 17 25

Speaking 13 13 18

Technology 15 16 22

Music 22 21 31

Mathematics 51 46 82

Social Studies 19 26 35

Information Skills 21 27 37

Writing 24 29 34

Listening 8 9 12

Viewing 11 14 19

Health 31 32 39

Physical Education 25 25 30

TOTALS 334 356 499

PERFORMANCE OF SUBGROUPS ACROSS THE FIRST FOUR YEARS

The summary tables that follow show the relative performance of subgroups within each of the nine demographic variables. The data show percentages of the total number of tasks which had some or no significant differences in performance between subgroups in each of the 15 learning areas which were assessed. Notable differences occurred in subgroups of gender, ethnicity and socio-economic status, whereas differences in school size, type and location were few or non-existent.

Gender Differences

Results achieved by male and female students were compared. Year 4 samples across the first four years averaged 50 percent boys and 50 percent girls. Year 8 samples averaged 52 percent boys and 48 percent girls.

Results of the statistical significance tests for the total sample of year 4 and year 8 students are shown in adjoining tables. The first column in each table shows learning areas in order from those on which girls did best to those on which they did worst relative to boys. The second shows the percentage of tasks on which girls performed statistically significantly higher than boys, the third column shows the percentage of tasks on which boys and girls were not statistically significantly different, and the final column shows the percentage of tasks on which boys performed statistically significantly higher than girls.

Gender Differences: Year 4 Students

Subject G> = B>

Writing 79 21 0

Reading 50 50 0

Speaking 36 64 0

Info. Skills 30 70 0

Physical Ed. 23 29 48

Viewing 22 78 0

Art 18 73 9

Music 15 85 0

Listening 13 87 0

Graphs/Tables 11 89 0

Technology 8 75 17

Health 4 96 0

Mathematics 4 94 2

Science 0 90 10


Gender Differences: Year 8 Students

Subject G> = B>

Writing 86 14 0

Reading 64 36 0

Physical Ed. 33 19 48

Viewing 29 71 0


Health 23 77 0

Listening 22 78 0

Music 20 80 0

Technology 17 75 8


Mathematics 13 85 2

Speaking 9 91 0

Art 9 91 0


Science 0 70 30

Comment

With the exception of the performance of boys in physical education (years 4 and 8), science and social studies (year 8), girls outperformed boys on a substantial percentage of tasks. The most striking gender differences occur in the area of literacy generally, and most particularly in reading and writing where the gap is unacceptably high. Furthermore, the gap worsens from year 4 to year 8 in reading and writing, although considerable recovery is shown in speaking. Both year 4 and year 8 boys performed better on ten of twenty-one physical education tasks, most of which involved ball handling skills. Year 8 boys performed better than girls on ten of the 33 science tasks which dealt with all strands of the science curriculum.

Maori/Non-Maori Differences

Results achieved by Maori and non-Maori students were compared. Year 4 samples across the first four years averaged 79 percent non-Maori students and 21 percent Maori students. Year 8 samples averaged 80 percent non-Maori students and 20 percent Maori students.

The first column in each table shows learning areas in order from those on which Maori students did less well relative to non-Maori students. The second shows the percentage of tasks on which Maori students performed statistically significantly lower than non-Maori students, the third column shows the percentage of tasks on which Maori and non-Maori students were not statistically significantly different, and the final column shows the percentage of tasks on which Maori students performed statistically significantly higher than non-Maori students.

Maori/non-Maori Differences: Year 4

Subject M< = M>

Reading 100 0 0


Mathematics 80 20 0

Viewing 67 33 0

Science 61 39 0

Info. skills 55 45 0

Listening 50 50 0

Writing 46 54 0


Art 27 73 0

Health 26 74 0

Speaking 25 75 0

Technology 16 84 0

Music 10 85 5

Physical Educ.

0 81 19

Average 45 53 2

Maori/non-Maori Differences Year 8

Subject M<

= M>

Mathematics

77

23

0

Social studies

68

27

5

Info. skills 62

38

0

Science 58

42

0

Viewing 57

43

0

Reading 50

50

0

Speaking 50

50

0

Writing 39

61

0

Listening 33

67

0

Graphs/Tables

33

67

0

Health 27

73

0

Technology 25

75

0

Music 15

85

0

Physical Educ.

5 66

29

Art 0 100

0

Average 40

58

2

Comment

The overall picture shows Maori students performing less well than their non-Maori counterparts in most curriculum areas. However, there is considerable variation in comparative performance across the 15 curriculum areas assessed, together with some substantial changes between year 4 and year 8. These differences are analysed and discussed by Crooks and Caygill (1999).

Socio-Economic Differences

Schools are categorised by the Ministry of Education based on census data for the census mesh block where children attending the schools live. The SES index takes into account

household income levels, categories of employment, and the ethnic mix in the census mesh blocks. The SES index uses ten subdivisions, each containing ten percent of schools (deciles 1 to 10). For our purposes, the bottom three deciles (1 to 3) formed the low SES group, the middle four deciles (4 to 7) formed the medium SES group, and the top three deciles (8 to 10) formed the high SES group.

The first data column in each table shows the percentage of tasks in each learning area for which there were statistically significant differences between the three groups, with students in the low decile group performing worst. The second data column shows the percentage of tasks for which there were no statistically significant differences. The third data column shows the percentage of tasks for which there were statistically significant differences with students in the low decile group performing best.

Socio-Economic Differences: Year 4

Subject L< = L>

Viewing 100 0 0

Listening 88 12 0

Mathematics 85 15 0

Writing 83 17 0


Speaking 75 25 0

Reading 71 29 0


Science 54 46 0


Health 44 56 0

Music 35 65 0

Technology 33 67 0

Art 8 92 0

Physical Educ. 0 83 17

Average 58 41 1

Socio-Economic Differences: Year 8

Subject L< = L>

Reading 93 7 0

Viewing 86 14 0

Listening 78 22 0

Mathematics 77 23 0


Writing 72 28 0

Speaking 67 33 0


Science 56 44 0


Music 45 55 0

Technology 41 59 0

Health 38 62 0

Art 17 83 0


Average 58 42 0

Comment

With exceptions in physical education and art, students in low decile schools performed poorly on large percentage of tasks in most learning areas when compared to the performances of students in mid to high decile schools. The differences are substantial and the pattern and size of gaps does not change markedly from year 4 to year 8, except for an increased gap on reading tasks.

School Size Differences

Results were compared from students in larger, medium sized and small schools (see Table 1 above).

The first data column shows the percentage of tasks on which there were no statistically significant differences in student performance according to size of school. The second data column shows the percentage of tasks on which statistically significant differences occurred in relation to school size.

School Size Differences: Year 4

Subject = Diff

Science 100 0

Art 100 0

Graphs/Tables 100 0

Music 100 0

Technology 100 0

Reading 100 0

Speaking 100 0

Info. Skills 90 10

Social Studies 100 0

Mathematics 94 6

Listening 100 0

Viewing 100 0

Health 96 4

Phys. Ed. 91 9

Writing 100 0

Average 98 2

School Size Differences: Year 8

Subject = Diff

Science 97 3

Art 100 0

Graphs/Tables 100 0

Music 85 15

Technology 94 6

Reading 100 0

Speaking 100 0

Info. Skills 96 4

Social Studies 96 4

Mathematics 100 0

Listening 100 0

Viewing 93 7

Health 100 0

Phys. Ed. 100 0

Writing 97 3

Average 97 3

Comment

These analyses show that school size within the roll range encountered in the national monitoring sample is not in itself established as a key determinant or good predictor of student achievement. These results contribute an important educational perspective for discussion and debate on the relative merits and effects of school size for student learning outcomes.

School Type Differences

Results were compared for year 8 students attending full primary and intermediate schools. Across the first four years about fifty percent of students in the sample were in intermediate schools, 40 percent in full primary schools, and the remaining 10 percent in other school types (eg. composite and form1 to 7 schools).

The first data column shows the percentage of tasks in each learning area for which there were statistically significant differences between intermediate and full primary schools, with students in intermediate schools performing best. The second data column shows the percentage of tasks for which there were no statistically significant differences. The third data column shows the percentage of tasks for which there were statistically significant differences with students in full primary schools performing best.

School Type Differences: Year 8

Subject Int

>

= FP

>

Science 0 100 0

Art 8 84 8


Music 0 95 5

Technology 0 94 6

Reading 0 100 0

Speaking 0 100 0

Info. Skills 0 96 4


Mathematics 0 95 5

Listening 0 89 11

Viewing 0 100 0

Health 0 100 0


Writing 0 100 0

Average 0 97 3

Comment

These analyses show a very small overall number of differences in student achievement in relation to the type of school attended at the year 8 level where there are two major

alternative types of schools. There was only one instance of intermediate school students performing statistically significantly better on tasks than full primary school students. In turn, full primaries had very few instances of higher performance in relation to intermediate schools.

Geographic Zone Differences

Results achieved by students from Auckland, the rest of the North Island, and the South Island were compared. Both the year 4 and 8 samples across the first four years averaged 28 percent of students in Greater Auckland, 49 percent in the rest of the North Island, and 23 percent in the South Island.

The first data column shows the percentage of tasks on which there were no statistically significant differences in student performance according to geographic zone. The second data column shows the percentage of tasks on which statistically significant differences occurred in relation to zone.

Geographic Zone Differences: Year 4

Subject = Diff

Science 92 8

Art 92 8

Graphs/Tables 93 7

Music 80 20

Technology 93 7

Reading 93 7

Speaking 100 0

Info. Skills 95 5

Social Studies 95 5

Mathematics 91 9

Listening 88 12

Viewing 78 22

Health 84 16

Physical Educ. 87 13

Writing 88 12

Average 90 10

Geographic Zone Differences: Year 8

Subject = Diff

Science 95 5

Art 84 16

Graphs/Tables 97 3

Music 95 5

Technology 100 0

Reading 100 0

Speaking 58 42

Info. Skills 70 30


Mathematics 80 20

Listening 100 0

Viewing 100 0

Health 93 7

Physical Educ. 91 9

Writing 90 10

Average 89 11

Comment

The interesting regional differences elude ready explanation. For example, there was a statistically significant difference on only one of twenty-seven information skills tasks at year 4, whereas at year 8 the differences applied to eight of the twenty-seven tasks, with students in the South Island scoring better on all of these tasks. In social studies, there were statistically significant differences among the three subgroups on six of the twenty-six tasks, with students from the South Island scoring highest on all of these tasks, which featured a substantial focus on factual knowledge. By contrast, the percentage differences on the five out of twelve speaking tasks at the year 8 level are less clear cut. Students in greater Auckland performed statistically significantly higher on one task, but lower on two of the tasks. Students from elsewhere in the North Island scored significantly lower on one task. Overall, there is no consistently clear pattern of one region performing better or worse than another.

Community Size Differences

Results were compared for students living in communities containing over 100,000 people (main centres), communities containing 10,000 to 100,000 people (provincial cities), and communities containing less than 10,000 people (rural areas). Both the year 4 and 8 samples across the first four years averaged 56 percent of students in main centres, 26 percent in provincial cities, and 18 percent in the rural areas.

The first data column shows the percentage of tasks on which there were no statistically significant differences in student performance according to community size. The second data column shows the percentage of tasks on which statistically significant differences occurred in relation to community size.

Community Size Differences: Year 4

Subject = Diff

Science 97 3

Art 100 0

Graphs/Tables 96 4

Music 90 10

Technology 100 0

Reading 100 0

Speaking 92 8

Info. Skills 100 0


Mathematics 98 2

Listening 88 12

Viewing 100 0

Health 92 8

Physical Educ. 96 4

Writing 100 0

Average 97 3

Comment

Community Size Differences: Year 8

Subject = Diff

Science 97 3

Art 100 0

Graphs/Tables 96 4

Music 90 10

Technology 100 0

Reading 100 0

Speaking 92 8

Info. Skills 100 0


Mathematics 98 2

Listening 100 0

Viewing 93 7

Health 100 0

Phys. Ed. 91 9

Writing 93 7

Average 97 3

These analyses of task performance relative to community size show that differences are quite small across all curriculum subjects. This suggests that size of population in the areas where schools are located has little bearing on student learning outcomes.

Proportion of Maori Students in Schools

Results were compared for students attending three categories of schools:

schools with less than 10 percent Maori students (approximately 36 percent of the sample), schools with 10 to 30 percent Maori students (approximately 42 percent of the sample), and schools with more than 30 percent Maori students (22 percent of the sample).

The first data column in each table shows the percentage of tasks on which Maori students in schools with more than 30 percent Maori students performed statistically significantly lower than Maori students in schools with less than

30 percent Maori students. The second data column shows the percentage of tasks on which there were no statistically significant differences according to the proportion of Maori students on the school roll. The final column shows the percentage of tasks on which Maori students in schools with more than

30 percent Maori students performed statistically significantly higher than those in schools with less than 30 percent Maori students.

Proportion of Maori Students in Schools Year 4

Subject H< = H>

Science 54 46 0

Art 25 75 0


Music 55 45 0

Technology 27 73 0

Reading 71 29 0

Speaking 75 25 0



Mathematics 70 30 0

Listening 88 12 0

Viewing 44 56 0

Health 16 84 0


Writing 58 42 0

Average 50 49 1

Proportion of Maori Students in Schools: Year 8

Subject H< = H>

Science 46 54 0

Art 0 100 0


Music 40 60 0

Technology 41 59 0

Reading 64 36 0

Speaking 58 42 0



Mathematics 73 27 0

Listening 33 67 0

Viewing 36 64 0

Health 21 79 0


Writing 48 52 0

Average 39 60 1

Comment

These results add to the picture given in the analyses of differences in task performance between Maori and non-Maori students. While patterns across the 15 subject areas and from year 4 to 8 fluctuate, it is nonetheless clearly evident that Maori students in schools with higher proportions of Maori students are performing lower than their counterparts who are educated in schools with fewer Maori students. The possible reasons for these worrying differences are the critical issue, since it cannot fairly be claimed that the ethnic make-up of the student roll in a school is the causative factor in levels of achievement.

Proportion of Pacific Island Students in Schools

Results were compared for students attending two categories of schools: those with up to 5 percent Pacific Island students (between 70 and 75 percent of the total sample of schools), and schools with more than 5 percent Pacific Island students (25 to 30 percent of the total sample). Because most of the Pacific Island students are concentrated into relatively few schools, it was difficult to create sensible subgroups for schools with higher or lower percentages of Pacific Island students.

The first data column in each table shows the percentage of tasks on which Pacific Island students in schools with more than 5 percent Pacific Island students performed statistically

significantly lower than Pacific Island students in schools with less than 5 percent Pacific Island students. The second data column shows the percentage of tasks on which there were no statistically significant differences according to the proportion of Pacific Island students on the school roll. The final column shows the percentage of tasks on which Pacific Island students in schools with more than 5 percent Pacific Island students performed statistically significantly higher than those in schools with less than 5 percent Pacific Island students.

Proportion of Pacific Island Students in Schools: Year 4

Subject H< = H>

Science 27 73 0

Art 0 100 0


Music 15 85 0

Technology 13 87 0

Reading 43 57 0

Speaking 25 75 0



Mathematics 66 34 0

Listening 62 38 0

Viewing 44 56 0

Health 32 68 0


Writing 54 46 0

Average 33 66 1

Proportion of Pacific Island Students in Schools: Year 8

Subject H< = H>

Science 26 74 0

Art 17 83 0


Music 25 75 0

Technology 29 71 0

Reading 50 50 0

Speaking 58 42 0



Mathematics 12 88 0

Listening 22 78 0

Viewing 0 100 0

Health 14 86 0


Writing 7 93 0

Average 21 78 1

Comment

Interpretations from these analyses need to take into account that the sub-groupings are very broad because of sampling constraints. The results across the 15 subject areas give a mixed picture, with some marked improvements from year 4 to year 8, particularly in mathematics, writing, listening and viewing.

new zealand’s national education monitoring project: the ...reasonably clear cut answers. teachers...

Documents