1 The Draft New Zealand Curriculum – Feedback Questionnaire Results Downloaded from: TKI | NZ Curriculum | Consultation and Feedback

1

The Draft New Zealand Curriculum – Feedback Questionnaire Results

Downloaded from: TKI | NZ Curriculum | Consultation and Feedbackhttp://www.tki.org.nz/r/nzcurriculum/consultation_feedback_e.php© New Zealand Ministry of Education 2007 – copying restricted to use by New Zealand education sector

2

Contents

Executive Summary 3

Background, Objectives & Method 13

Results:

Overall Intent and Direction 19

Clarity and Usefulness 32

Likely Impact and Challenges 69

Learning Areas 79

Appendix: Demographic Tables 133

Page

3

Executive summary

4

Background and Method

• In July 2006, the Ministry of Education released a draft for consultation on the New Zealand curriculum

• A feedback questionnaire was included in the document. The questionnaire was also available for completion online.

• A total of 9117 questionnaires were received and processed (79% hardcopy, and 21% online)

• The cut-off date for questionnaires to be accepted for processing was mid December 2006.

• This report presents the findings from the feedback questionnaire.

Executive Summary

5

Overall Intent and Direction

• The majority or respondents agree that the document: Reinforces the educational direction that schools are taking (78%)Will inform the future direction of the school curriculum (75%)Will give schools the right amount of flexibility (72%)

• Respondents are equally divided on whether or not they agree that the document sets out a direction for learning that is ‘just what New Zealand students need’

51% disagree or are unsure45% agree

Main findings

Key Finding #1:

The overall intent and direction of the document is generally accepted.

6

Clarity of Document

• Response to the overall clarity of the document is positive83% say it is easy to read and understand

• The document part that is least easy to understand is ‘designing a school curriculum’:

30% of secondary school stakeholders, 26% of tertiary stake holders and 20% of primary stakeholders say this section is difficult to understand

Main findings

Key Finding #2:

Most agree that the document as a whole is easy to read and understand

7

Usefulness of Document Parts

• The reported usefulness of the document parts ranges from: 82% for ‘Key competencies’ to 68% for ‘Designing a school curriculum’

• However, 21% of all respondents say that the section on designing a school curriculum will not be useful

secondary school stakeholders are the least likely group to find this section useful with almost one third (31%) saying it is not very useful

Main findings

Key Finding #3:

Most agree that all document parts will be useful to their school when designing a curriculum

8

Impact of the document

• More primary school stakeholders predict an impact than secondary stakeholders (91% of primary compared to 80% of secondary)

• Secondary stakeholders are less likely to predict a major impact because of perceived constraints of NCEA

Main findings

Key Finding #4:

Nine out of ten respondents (86%) believe that the direction set out in the document will have an impact on the ongoing development of the curriculum in their school (or in New Zealand schools)

9

Implementation Challenges

• Secondary and tertiary stakeholders foresee the biggest challenges• 45% of secondary and 47% of tertiary stakeholders predict major challenges (compared to 35% of primary stakeholders)

• The major challenges that respondents think may be faced by schools concern:

•adequate resourcing for implementing changes •creating changes within the constraints of NCEA, and •willingness of teachers to change (if adequate resourcing is not available)

Main findings

Key Finding #5:

Eight out of ten respondents (82%) believe that there will be moderate to major challenges to schools as they design and implement a curriculum in line with the direction set out in the document

10

Descriptions of Learning Areas

• Levels of agreement range from 91% for English to 75% for Learning Languages and 74% for Technology

• In all learning areas, secondary teachers are less likely than primary teachers to agree that the descriptions are accurate; this is especially the case for:

• Science • Technology, and • Learning Languages

Main findings

Key Finding #6:

Learning area descriptions tend to be seen as accurately capturing the essence of the learning area and accurately describing how they are structured

11

Statements of Outcomes

Agreement ranged from 82% for Maths & Statistics, and Health & Physical Education, to 68% for Learning Languages and 53% for Technology

Nevertheless, significant proportions of secondary teachers don’t think the achievement objectives are useful for many of the learning areas. E.g.

For Science and Technology 58% and 66% respectively don’t think the achievement objectives state student outcomes in a way that will be usefulSimilarly, for Maths & Statistics, and Social Sciences, 45% disagree that the statement of outcomes are usefulNearly half (49%) don’t think the Learning Languages achievement outcomes are useful

Main findings

Key Finding #7:

The achievement objectives state student outcomes in a way that teachers and students are likely to find useful.

12

• The survey results indicate strong support for the overall intent and direction of the draft NZ Curriculum document

• The main areas of concern are:• Adequate resourcing to assist in implementing the changes including assistance in designing a curriculum within the constraints of possible competing demands from NCEA, ERO and Ministry of Education• For some, the document is seen as not detailed enough to enable schools to design a curriculum and they request more ‘how to’ instructions and detail

•Not surprisingly therefore, the least useful and least understood section in the document is ‘Designing a school curriculum’.

• Some of the learning area descriptions are not seen as accurate – particularly amongst secondary teachers - in Technology, Science, and Learning Languages• Some of the learning area statements of outcomes are not seen as useful – particularly at the secondary level - for Technology, Science, Learning Languages, Maths & Statistics, and Social Sciences

Conclusions

Conclusions

13

Background, Objectives & Method

14

• In July 2006, the Ministry of Education released a draft New Zealand curriculum for consultation

• A feedback questionnaire, designed by the Ministry of Education, was included in the document. The questionnaire was also available for completion online.

• As part of the consultation process the Ministry commissioned Colmar Brunton to analyse the results from the feedback questionnaire.

• The overall objective of the feedback questionnaire was to obtain feedback on the draft document from a wide cross-section of individuals and communities.

• Specific objectives included measuring response to the following aspects of the document:

• Its intent and direction • Its clarity and usefulness when designing a curriculum•Its likely impact on the ongoing development of the

curriculum in New Zealand schools •The challenges created by the direction set out in the

document • This report presents the findings from the feedback questionnaire.

Background & Objectives

15

Obtained Sample

• The final sample obtained was 9117 • The sample was obtained from respondents who:

1. completed and returned the questionnaire by mail (n=7202 or 79% of total questionnaires received) or

2. completed the questionnaire online (n=1915 or 21% of total questionnaires received)

• A large number of questionnaires received online were not able to be used due to incomplete data received; respondents were able to log on to the website and scroll thru the questionnaire without answering any of the questions. Unless basic demographic data was supplied (such as type of contributor) the questionnaire was deleted from the data set.

• The following two charts provide an overview of the sample; full details of the obtained sample are appended.

Method

16

Method (contin.)

Contributor School Type

Parent/caregiver 8% Primary School 59%

Family/whanau member 2% Secondary School 34%

Principal 10% Tertiary 2%

Teacher 61% Other/not stated 6%

School student 1% Total 100%

BOT member 4% Location

Teacher educator (pre-svce) 1% North Island 75%

Teacher educator (in-svce 3% South Island 25%

Other/not stated 3% City 56%

Total 100% District 44%

Base: All respondents (n=9117)

Respondent Overview

17*= % between 0.0% and 0.5%

Method (contin.)

School Decile Primary

(n=5263)

Secondary

(n=3050)

1 11% 4%

2 9% 6%

3 9% 8%

4 9% 9%

5 8% 12%

6 9% 13%

7 11% 14%

8 8% 7%

9 12% 11%

10 13% 16%

Not available *% 1%

17

Respondent Overview

Base: Respondents linked to a particular school (n=8313)

Low decile

Medium decile

High decile

18

Questionnaire and Survey Period

• The questionnaire was designed by the Ministry of Education• The Ministry was also responsible for its distribution and the

technical set-up and hosting on the www.tki.org.nz website • The questionnaire was in field from July until mid-December 2006.• Initially fieldwork was scheduled to finish on the 30 November but

questionnaires continued to be accepted for processing up until 15th December

• The location (city or district) and decile of the school were obtained by using the Ministry’s database of schools. All other data reported are from the questionnaires

• Due to the self-completion methodology of both the hardcopy and online questionnaires, not all data are complete for all questionnaires. Gaps in the data are reported as ‘not answered’ or ‘NA’

Method (contin.)

19

Results – Overall Intent and Direction

20

Q3. Overall Intent and Direction

13

14

16

34

5

5

7

11

2

3

3

6

58

57

47

36

20

18

25

9

100 80 60 40 20 0% 20 40 60 80 100% %

Base: All respondents (n=9117)*NA not shown

It will reinforce or reaffirm the educational direction that our

school is taking (or that NZ schools are taking)

It will inform the future direction of our school curriculum (or the

curriculum of New Zealand schools)

Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agreeNeither/nor

It will give each school the right amount of flexibility when

designing a curriculum for its particular group of students.

The direction for learning set out in this document is just what New

Zealand students need.

Q3) What is your response to the overall intent and direction of this document?

21

Q3. Overall Intent and Direction - by decile and school type

13

12

13

11

9

18

25

17

5

5

4

4

2

8

12

6

2

2

2

3

1

3

6

8

58

58

61

59

61

57

38

48

20

22

19

21

25

12

14

18

100 80 60 40 20 0% 20 40 60 80 100

Total (n=9117)

High (n=2812)

Med (n=3490)

Low (n=2134)

Primary (n=5263)

Secondary (n=3050)

Tertiary (n=159)

Other schools(n=338)

% %


“It will reinforce or reaffirm the educational direction that our school is taking (or that NZ schools are taking)”


22

Q3. Overall Intent and Direction - by contributor type


“It will reinforce or reaffirm the educational direction that our school is taking (or that NZ schools are taking)”

13

5

15

9

18

22

16

5

2

4

2

8

8

7

2

1

1

3

8

5

58

57

68

62

58

50

53

20

33

12

25

12

11

18

100 80 60 40 20 0% 20 40 60 80 100

Total (n=9117)

Primary principal (n=991)

Secondary principal (n=75)

Primary teacher (n=4579)

Secondary teacher (n=2715)

Pre-service teacher/educator (n=167)

In-service teacher/educator (n=397)

% %


23


14

13

15

12

10

19

22

18

5

6

5

3

3

8

10

9

3

2

2

3

1

4

5

7

57

58

60

58

61

55

43

45

18

19

17

21

23

12

16

17

100 80 60 40 20 0% 20 40 60 80 100

Total (n=9117)

High (n=2812)

Med (n=3490)

Low (n=2134)

Primary (n=5263)

Secondary (n=3050)

Tertiary (n=159)


% %


“It will inform the future direction of our school curriculum (or the curriculum of New Zealand schools)”


24



14

8

15

9

19

20

15

5

2

4

3

8

4

5

3

1

1

1

4

5

4

57

56

59

62

55

55

58

18

31

21

23

11

15

14

100 80 60 40 20 0% 20 40 60 80 100

Total (n=9117)







% %

“It will inform the future direction of our school curriculum (or the curriculum of New Zealand schools)”


25

16

16

15

14

12

22

23

19

7

8

7

5

3

13

9

7

3

3

2

3

1

5

7

7

47

48

49

47

51

42

40

39

25

24

25

30

31

16

18

26

100 80 60 40 20 0% 20 40 60 80 100

Total (n=9117)

High (n=2812)

Med (n=3490)

Low (n=2134)

Primary (n=5263)

Secondary (n=3050)

Tertiary (n=159)


% %



“It will give each school the right amount of flexibility when designing a curriculum for its particular group of students.”


26



16

12

25

11

22

23

21

7

2

9

3

14

10

9

3

1

3

1

5

5

4

47

47

49

52

42

41

40

25

37

13

31

16

21

22

100 80 60 40 20 0% 20 40 60 80 100

Total (n=9117)







% %

“It will give each school the right amount of flexibility when designing a curriculum for its particular group of students.”


27

34

33

36

30

32

37

38

32

11

12

11

10

7

17

17

12

6

6

5

5

3

9

11

13

36

36

36

40

43

27

23

29

9

9

9

11

12

5

9

9

100 80 60 40 20 0% 20 40 60 80 100

Total (n=9117)

High (n=2812)

Med (n=3490)

Low (n=2134)

Primary (n=5263)

Secondary (n=3050)

Tertiary (n=159)


% %



“The direction for learning set out in this document is just what New Zealand students need.”


28



“The direction for learning set out in this document is just what New Zealand students need.”

36

33

44

32

38

39

37

13

7

13

7

18

19

14

12

3

5

3

9

9

8

28

40

29

43

27

23

29

7

14

5

12

5

8

7

100 80 60 40 20 0% 20 40 60 80 100

Family (incl parent/caregiver) (n=1018)







% %


29

Q3. Overall Intent and Direction Comments (1)

Q3. What is your response to the overall intent and direction of this document?

Total(n=9117)

%

Primary(n=5263)

%

Secondary school

(n=3050)%

Not answered 40 45 33

Too vague/ not prescribed enough/ too open to interpretation/ doesn’t tell what to teach/ doesn’t tell what is compulsory/ no examples 9 7 13

Some teachers/schools would have difficulties/ consistency issues a problem/ identification of standards required/too much flexibility will lead to unevenness

7 6 10

Allow for flexibility/ more variety, creativity in teaching/ ability to cater for student interests/needs of community/school 7 8 4

Treaty of Waitangi must be included/ no acknowledgment of the Reo Maori/ Maori student needs omitted 5 5 4

Reflects my views/ like the ideas/ positive direction 5 5 5

Resources often lacking to implement changes/ need to have necessary resources 3 3 3

Some curriculum areas limited/some areas not covered 3 2 4

Curriculum well set out/ shows clear areas/ easy to follow/ more concise 2 3 1

Assessments/NCEA assessments will rule what is taught/ NCEA will affect flexibility 2 * 4

Will need time for development/trialling/monitoring/feedback 2 3 2

Loaded questions, too much assumption/ whose opinion is it/ dislike implication of ‘just’ what NZ needs 2 2 2

*=% between 0.0% and 0.5%Base: All respondents who answered the associated closed-ended question

30

Q3. Overall Intent and Direction Comments (2)

Q3. What is your response to the overall intent and direction of this document?

Total(n=9117)

%

Primary(n=5263)

%

Secondary school

(n=3050)%

Some students could be disadvantaged i.e. special needs/ESOL students/transient students 2 1 2

Has an over-emphasis on global and economic interests/ business oriented 2 2 2

Our school/teachers already doing this/ won’t have much impact on good schools 2 3 1

Key competencies focus is great—reflects the needs of children 2 2 1

Base: All respondents who answered the associated closed-ended question

31

• Majority of respondents agree that the document• Reinforces the educational direction that schools are taking (78%)• Will inform the future direction of the school curriculum (75%)• Will give schools the right amount of flexibility (72%)

• Overall the majority of respondents (51%) disagree or are unsure that the document sets out a direction for learning that is ‘just what New Zealand students need’

• 61% of family members disagree or are unsure• 62% of secondary principals and 65% of secondary teachers disagree or are

unsure• However, low decile schools (51%) and primary school stakeholders

(55%) do agree with the direction• The main objection to the overall intent and direction of the document is that

it is too vague, too open to interpretation, and doesn’t specify what is compulsory

• As a result therefore, some stakeholders are concerned that the document’s suggested direction will lead to inconsistencies between and within schools; they would like identification of standards and specification of what is compulsory to teach

• On the other hand, some respondents, especially primary school stakeholders, like its flexibility and the opportunity the document signals to meet specific community and student needs.

Overall Intent and Direction- Key Findings

32

Results (contin) – Clarity and Usefulness

33

Q4. Overall clarity - by decile and school type

10

11

11

9

7

17

10

12

2

2

2

1

1

4

3

1

60

59

61

63

64

56

47

53

23

24

22

23

26

18

30

25

100 80 60 40 20 0% 20 40 60 80 100

Total (n=9117)

High decile (n=2812)

Med decile (n=3490)

Low decile (n=2134)

Primary (n=5263)

Secondary (n=3050)

Tertiary (n=159)

Other schools (n=338)

% %

Very difficult Quite difficult Quite easy Very easy

Q4) Considering the document as a whole, how easy or difficult did you find it to read and understand?


34

Q4. Overall clarity - by contributor type

11

4

19

7

17

10

9

2

1

1

4

3

2

55

58

56

65

57

49

60

22

35

23

26

18

27

24

100 80 60 40 20 0% 20 40 60 80 100

Family (incl parent/caregiver) (n=1018)







% %

Very difficult Quite difficult Quite easy Very easy

Q4) Considering the document as a whole, how easy or difficult did you find it to read and understand?


35

Q4. Overall clarity Comments (1)

Q4. Considering the document as a whole, how easy or difficult did you find it to read and understand?

Total(n=9117)

%

Primary(n=5263)

%

Secondary school

(n=3050)%


Easy to read/easy to understand/user friendly/not too wordy 12 14 8

Very vague/too broad/lacks detail/inconsistent/ambiguous-difficult to interpret

8 6 13

Liked layout/layout of questions/good headings/liked chart effect/colour coding

8 9 5

Terminology/jargon could be simplified/Will take time to become familiar with new terminology

4 4 6

Good in book form/everything in one book/compact 3 4 1

Too wordy/some sections too wordy/repetitive 3 2 3

Layout confusing/need tabs to show different parts/bullet points in learning areas/diagrams are confusing

3 3 3

Fold-out pages annoying/fold outs cumbersome/foldouts lack headings/do not show levels

3 4 2

Need to indicate levels on each section/Show all levels/Have levels side by side

2 3 1

Written for experienced teachers/difficult for yr1 teachers/parents 2 1 2


36

Q4. Overall clarity Comments (2)

Q4. Considering the document as a whole, how easy or difficult did you find it to read and understand?

Total(n=9117)

%

Primary(n=5263)

%

Secondary school

(n=3050)%

Needs supporting documents/examples etc/wall charts/PD development 2 3 1

Level of understanding of concepts/learning areas varies-some easy, others not-e.g.technology

2 2 1

Technology section difficult to interpret 2 2 1


37

Q7. Clarity of each part

Q7) How easy or difficult do you find it to understand each of the following parts of the document?

3

5

6

7

10

18

1

1

2

2

2

6

45

48

47

46

52

49

45

41

39

40

28

18

100 80 60 40 20 0% 20 40 60 80 100

Vision

Principles

Values

Key competencies

Effective pedagogy

Designing a schoolcurriculum

% %

Very difficult Quite difficult Quite easy Very easyBase: All respondents (n=9117)*NA not shown

38

Q7. Clarity of each part Vision (1)


3

4

4

2

2

5

5

5

1

1

1

1

2

4

3

45

44

47

46

45

48

36

35

45

47

45

47

50

39

39

45

100 80 60 40 20 0% 20 40 60 80 100

Total (n=9117)


Med decile (n=3490)

Low decile (n=2134)

Primary (n=5263)

Secondary (n=3050)

Tertiary (n=159)


% %


39

Q7. Clarity of each part Vision (2)


3

1

8

2

5

4

4

1

2

4

2

45

33

40

45

49

37

45

45

63

45

49

39

44

39

100 80 60 40 20 0% 20 40 60 80 100

Total (n=9117)







% %


40

Q7. Clarity of each part Principles (1)


5

4

5

4

3

7

5

6

1

1

1

1

1

2

6

2

48

48

50

47

47

51

42

35

41

42

40

43

45

34

32

45

100 80 60 40 20 0% 20 40 60 80 100

Total (n=9117)


Med decile (n=3490)

Low decile (n=2134)

Primary (n=5263)

Secondary (n=3050)

Tertiary (n=159)


% %


41

Q7. Clarity of each part Principles (2)


5

2

11

3

6

5

7

1

1

1

2

6

2

48

38

40

48

52

40

46

41

56

43

45

34

37

36

100 80 60 40 20 0% 20 40 60 80 100

Total (n=9117)







% %


42

Q7. Clarity of each part Values (1)


6

6

7

5

5

9

8

7

2

2

2

2

1

3

6

3

47

46

49

47

47

49

42

36

39

41

38

42

43

33

29

43

100 80 60 40 20 0% 20 40 60 80 100

Total (n=9117)


Med decile (n=3490)

Low decile (n=2134)

Primary (n=5263)

Secondary (n=3050)

Tertiary (n=159)


% %


43

Q7. Clarity of each part Values (2)


6

4

13

5

9

9

9

2

1

1

3

4

3

47

39

39

48

50

37

45

39

53

40

43

33

37

32

100 80 60 40 20 0% 20 40 60 80 100

Total (n=9117)







% %


44

Q7. Clarity of each part Key competencies (1)


7

5

8

6

5

9

8

6

2

2

2

1

1

3

3

3

46

46

47

48

47

48

41

34

40

41

39

41

44

33

32

44

100 80 60 40 20 0% 20 40 60 80 100

Total (n=9117)


Med decile (n=3490)

Low decile (n=2134)

Primary (n=5263)

Secondary (n=3050)

Tertiary (n=159)


% %


45

Q7. Clarity of each part Key competencies (2)


7

3

11

5

9

5

9

2

1

1

1

3

3

2

46

41

40

47

49

40

43

40

52

40

44

34

37

35

100 80 60 40 20 0% 20 40 60 80 100

Total (n=9117)







% %


46

Q7. Clarity of each part Effective pedagogy (1)


10

10

12

9

8

14

9

9

2

3

2

1

1

4

5

4

52

51

53

55

54

51

45

43

28

30

27

30

32

22

24

31

100 80 60 40 20 0% 20 40 60 80 100

Total (n=9117)


Med decile (n=3490)

Low decile (n=2134)

Primary (n=5263)

Secondary (n=3050)

Tertiary (n=159)


% %


47

Q7. Clarity of each part Effective pedagogy (2)


10

6

13

8

14

11

10

2

1

1

1

4

4

4

52

49

49

55

52

45

50

28

40

27

31

23

25

24

100 80 60 40 20 0% 20 40 60 80 100

Total (n=9117)







% %


48

Q7. Clarity of each part Designing a school curriculum (1)


18

18

19

18

17

21

17

19

6

5

7

4

3

9

9

7

49

50

49

53

53

45

40

38

18

18

17

19

19

16

17

24

100 80 60 40 20 0% 20 40 60 80 100

Total (n=9117)


Med decile (n=3490)

Low decile (n=2134)

Primary (n=5263)

Secondary (n=3050)

Tertiary (n=159)


% %


49

Q7. Clarity of each part Designing a school curriculum (2)


18

15

20

18

21

13

16

6

5

8

3

10

9

6

49

49

45

54

45

46

49

18

25

21

18

16

19

16

100 80 60 40 20 0% 20 40 60 80 100

Total (n=9117)







% %


50

Q7. Clarity of each part Comments (1)

Q7. How easy or difficult do you find it to understand each of the following parts of the document? (i.e. Vision, Principles, Values, Key competencies, Effective pedagogy, Designing a school curriculum)

Total(n=9117)

%

Primary(n=5263)

%

Secondary school

(n=3050)%


Easy to understand/use plain language/clear and concise/good graphics 9 10 9

Too vague/Inconsistent/No benchmarks/Open to interpretation/Too wordy

7 5 9

Implementation/integration of themes into curriculum will be time consuming/challenging

4 3 4

Intent unclear/Need guidelines/Principles need further clarification/Need examples given/need to know MOE requirements

3 3 3

Values/conflicting views will arise on values/values unclear/Varying values across schools

2 2 3

Lack of biculturalism/No mention of treaty/Treaty should be underpinning values/Principles/Maori included for all students

2 2 1

Key competencies need clarification/ how incorporated and assessed 2 2 2

New Jargon used/over-complicated jargon/need to use every day language

2 2 2


51

Q7. Clarity of each part Comments (2)

Q7. How easy or difficult do you find it to understand each of the following parts of the document? (i.e. Vision, Principles, Values, Key competencies, Effective pedagogy, Designing a school curriculum)

Total(n=9117)

%

Primary(n=5263)

%

Secondary school

(n=3050)%

Disagree with priorities to statements given and some listed aspects of each key element e.g. Too prescriptive/Understated/Should be intrinsic

2 2 2

Principles/values overlap/aspects inter-relate/hard to separate-should be linked

2 2 1

Too idealistic/Not reality 2 1 3

Design of curriculum/some areas subjects not covered/lack of information

2 2 3


52

Clarity of each part by its usefulness

50

60

70

80

90

100

50 60 70 80 90 100

Q7. Clarity of part(% say its easy to understand)

Q8. Usefulness of part(% say it will be useful)

Effective pedagogy

Designing Curriculum

Q7) How easy or difficult do you find it to understand each of the following parts of the document? Q8) How useful will each of the following parts of the document be to your school (or to New Zealand schools) when designing a curriculum?

VisionPrinciplesValuesKey Competencies

Base: All respondents who answered question

53

Q8. Usefulness of each part

Q8) How useful will each of the following parts of the document be to your school (or to New Zealand schools) when designing a curriculum?

11

10

10

8

12

15

3

3

3

3

3

6

50

52

48

43

50

46

29

27

31

39

25

22

100 80 60 40 20 0% 20 40 60 80 100

Vision

Principles

Values

Key competencies

Effective pedagogy

Designing a schoolcurriculum

% %

Not at all useful Not very useful Quite useful Very usefulBase: All respondents (n=9117)*NA not shown

54

Q8. Usefulness of each part Vision (1)

11

11

11

9

7

17

11

14

3

3

3

2

1

5

8

5

50

51

51

49

51

50

46

37

29

29

28

34

36

20

18

28

100 80 60 40 20 0% 20 40 60 80 100

Total (n=9117)


Med decile (n=3490)

Low decile (n=2134)

Primary (n=5263)

Secondary (n=3050)

Tertiary (n=159)


% %

Not at all useful Not very useful Quite useful Very useful



55

Q8. Usefulness of each part Vision (2)

11

6

9

7

17

10

11

3

1

4

1

5

5

5

50

47

57

52

51

44

49

29

41

23

36

19

28

23

100 80 60 40 20 0% 20 40 60 80 100

Total (n=9117)







% %



56

Q8. Usefulness of each part Principles (1)

10

11

11

8

7

16

11

12

3

2

2

2

1

5

6

5

52

52

53

52

53

52

47

40

27

27

26

32

33

19

19

26

100 80 60 40 20 0% 20 40 60 80 100

Total (n=9117)


Med decile (n=3490)

Low decile (n=2134)

Primary (n=5263)

Secondary (n=3050)

Tertiary (n=159)


% %



57

Q8. Usefulness of each part Principles (2)

10

7

12

7

16

13

11

3

2

4

1

4

4

5

52

50

56

54

52

43

50

27

36

23

33

19

26

21

100 80 60 40 20 0% 20 40 60 80 100

Total (n=9117)







% %



58

Q8. Usefulness of each part Values (1)

10

10

11

9

7

15

10

11

3

3

3

3

2

5

8

5

48

48

49

48

49

49

43

40

31

31

30

35

37

22

21

27

100 80 60 40 20 0% 20 40 60 80 100

Total (n=9117)


Med decile (n=3490)

Low decile (n=2134)

Primary (n=5263)

Secondary (n=3050)

Tertiary (n=159)


% %



59

Q8. Usefulness of each part Values (2)

10

8

16

7

16

10

12

3

2

3

2

5

5

5

48

44

49

50

49

43

44

31

41

25

37

21

28

26

100 80 60 40 20 0% 20 40 60 80 100

Total (n=9117)







% %



60

Q8. Usefulness of each part Key competencies (1)

8

8

8

6

4

13

6

11

3

2

2

2

1

5

6

5

43

43

44

45

43

47

36

33

39

39

38

41

47

27

36

36

100 80 60 40 20 0% 20 40 60 80 100

Total (n=9117)


Med decile (n=3490)

Low decile (n=2134)

Primary (n=5263)

Secondary (n=3050)

Tertiary (n=159)


% %



61

Q8. Usefulness of each part Key competencies (2)

8

4

9

4

13

7

9

3

1

3

1

4

3

3

43

38

48

43

47

44

41

39

52

35

47

27

32

34

100 80 60 40 20 0% 20 40 60 80 100

Total (n=9117)







% %



62

Q8. Usefulness of each part Effective pedagogy (1)

12

12

13

10

8

17

11

15

3

4

3

2

1

5

6

6

50

51

51

52

53

49

38

34

25

25

24

30

31

18

25

27

100 80 60 40 20 0% 20 40 60 80 100

Total (n=9117)


Med decile (n=3490)

Low decile (n=2134)

Primary (n=5263)

Secondary (n=3050)

Tertiary (n=159)


% %



63

Q8. Usefulness of each part Effective pedagogy (2)

12

8

13

8

18

16

12

3

1

7

1

5

4

5

50

49

45

54

50

34

44

25

35

25

31

18

28

25

100 80 60 40 20 0% 20 40 60 80 100

Total (n=9117)







% %



64

Q8. Usefulness of each part Designing a school curriculum (1)

15

15

17

13

12

22

11

15

6

6

6

4

3

9

6

10

46

47

47

49

51

42

42

34

22

22

20

26

26

15

19

21

100 80 60 40 20 0% 20 40 60 80 100

Total (n=9117)


Med decile (n=3490)

Low decile (n=2134)

Primary (n=5263)

Secondary (n=3050)

Tertiary (n=159)


% %



65

Q8. Usefulness of each part Designing a school curriculum (2)

15

14

24

12

22

16

15

6

5

4

3

9

7

7

46

45

39

51

43

38

42

22

28

20

26

15

19

18

100 80 60 40 20 0% 20 40 60 80 100

Total (n=9117)







% %



66

Q8. Usefulness of each part Comments

Q8. How useful will each of the following parts of the document be to your school (or to New Zealand schools) when designing a curriculum (i.e. Vision, Principles, Values, Key competencies, Effective pedagogy, Designing a school curriculum)

Total(n=9117)

%

Primary(n=5263)

%

Secondary school

(n=3050)%


Useful/Supports what we are doing/A good point of reference/A good starting point/ provides guidance

10 11 8

Need professional development/Need guidance/More help with clarification/More examples/More support

5 4 5

Too vague/Difficult to understand/Not detailed enough/No depth/Too wordy

4 3 5

Diversity of NZ culture not recognised/no treaty of Waitangi references 2 2 2

Need resources for setting up curriculum-funds/time input/More staff 2 1 2

Need help in designing curriculum-e.g. MOE requirement/Curriculum areas to use

2 1 2

Disagree with some wording in aspects/terms used/omission of key words

2 2 2

Values unclear/lack correlation with principles and vision/whose values? 2 2 2

Key competencies have gaps/Do not cover all areas/Need more explanation how to fit in

2 2 2


67

Clarity of document• Response to the overall clarity of the document is positive with 83% saying it

is easy to read and understand • 77% of family members also found it easy to read and understand• When prompted for comments about the document’s clarity, the main

positive comments included:• Easy to read, easy to understand, user friendly, not too wordy• Like layout, good headings, like colour coding

• The main negative comments regarding clarity included:• Very vague, too broad, too difficult to interpret.• Terminology could be simplified/too much jargon• These comments were more likely to be offered by secondary school stakeholders

than by primary school stakeholders

• The least clear part of the document is ‘designing a school curriculum’ :• 30% of secondary school stakeholders say it is difficult to understand

(compared to 20% of primary school stakeholders)• 26% of tertiary stakeholders also say that this part of the document is

difficult to understand.

Clarity and Usefulness of document - Key Findings

68

Usefulness of document• All parts of the document are believed to be potentially useful when schools

are designing a curriculum• The only part of the document that scored less than 70% on its usefulness

was ‘designing a school curriculum’; • over 20% said that this part of the document was not very useful

• When prompted for comments about the document’s usefulness when designing a school curriculum, the positive comments included:

• It supports what we are doing• It’s a good point of reference

• The negative comments included:• Its too vague, difficult to understand, not detailed enough, no depth• Need more support, clarification, need more examples, need

professional development

Clarity and Usefulness of document - Key Findings

69

Results (contin.) – Likely Impact & Challenges

70

Q 5. Likely impact - by decile and school type

9

10

9

7

6

13

9

12

1

1

1

2

1

2

1

2

48

49

50

47

48

50

41

39

38

37

37

41

43

30

35

38

100 80 60 40 20 0% 20 40 60 80 100

Total (n=9117)


Med decile (n=3490)

Low decile (n=2134)

Primary (n=5263)

Secondary (n=3050)

Tertiary (n=159)


% %

Q5) How much impact do you think the direction set out in this document will have on the ongoing development of the curriculum in your school (or in New Zealand schools)?

No impact Not much impact Some impact Considerable impactBase: All respondents (n=9117)*NA not shown

71

Q 5. Likely impact - by contributor type

9

6

8

6

13

6

11

1

1

1

2

2

48

43

52

48

51

41

46

38

48

39

44

30

43

37

100 80 60 40 20 0% 20 40 60 80 100

Total (n=9117)







% %

Q5) How much impact do you think the direction set out in this document will have on the ongoing development of the curriculum in your school (or in New Zealand schools)?

No impact Not much impact Some impact Considerable impactBase: All respondents (n=9117)*NA not shown

72

Q 5. Likely impact Comments (1)

Q5. How much impact do you think the direction set out in this document will have on the ongoing development of the curriculum in your school (or in New Zealand schools)?

Total(n=9117)

%

Primary(n=5263)

%

Secondary school

(n=3050)%


Already moving in this direction/changes already being made 11 14 8

Limitations due to resources/finances/training needs/time involved/lack of professional development

6 6 6

Flexibility to help schools write new courses 4 6 3

Considerable curriculum changes to cover new themes/new language 4 3 5

Depends on willingness of staff to embrace the direction/people's willingness to change

4 3 4

Hard to know what impact till in place/may not always be positive 3 2 4

Help to cater for diverse range of students/cater for students needs in schools

3 3 3

Like emphasis placed on key competencies/Key competencies allow flexibility for student needs/

3 3 3

Need more detailed information for teachers/more explanation/more support

2 2 2

Needs of NCEA assessments mean limitations on change/ ERO and MoE requirements

2 * 4

*=% between 0.0% and 0.5%


73

Q 5. Likely impact Comments (2)

Q5. How much impact do you think the direction set out in this document will have on the ongoing development of the curriculum in your school (or in New Zealand schools)?

Total(n=9117)

%

Primary(n=5263)

%

Secondary school

(n=3050)%

In some cases gives too much freedom/too open to interpretation 2 1 3

Considerable change to assessment/reporting documents 2 2 2

Will vary in different depts/depend how info delivered 2 1 3

Treaty of waitangi/maori issues are not recognised/lack of bi-culturalism 2 2 2

Changes in long term planning may be required/use as base document 2 3 1

Document gives direction in allowing schools to meet community needs 2 2 2

Reflects my views/good to see it happening/will assist in implementing new plans

2 2 1


74

Q6. Implementation challenges - by decile and school type

39

39

40

37

35

45

47

43

43

44

42

45

48

36

33

34

8

7

9

8

8

9

6

10

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Total (n=9117)


Med decile (n=3490)

Low decile (n=2134)

Primary (n=5263)

Secondary (n=3050)

Tertiary (n=159)


Major Moderate Minor

Q6) How significant are the challenges that schools will face as they design and implement a curriculum in line with the direction set out in this document?


75

Q6. Implementation challenges - by contributor type

39

42

49

35

46

47

45

43

44

39

49

36

31

36

8

7

4

8

9

7

8

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Total (n=9117)







Major Moderate Minor

Q6) How significant are the challenges that schools will face as they design and implement a curriculum in line with the direction set out in this document?


76

Q6. Implementation challenges(1)

Q6. Do you believe that schools will face challenges as they design and implement a curriculum in line with the direction set out in this document? Please identify challenges that you foresee.

Total(n=9117)

%

Primary(n=5263)

%

Secondary school

(n=3050)%

Providing sufficient resources/Providing I.C.T. resources/Availability of specialist teachers/Sufficient funding

20 20 22

Time factor/Time to learn/Time for preparation/Time for development of programs

17 18 18


Increased workload/effort required by users/Willingness of teachers learning new system/Training teachers

11 11 11

Including good valuable community input/Interest from community 7 10 4

Document gives too much freedom/Needs more details/Too much room for interpretation/Document too open-ended

6 6 7

Ensure key competencies system developed/assessment of key competencies/key competencies reporting system

6 6 5

Assessments/NCEA system assessments constraints/Blending NCEA into curriculum

5 3 10

Consensus/Managing the changes/Inter-departmental monitoring of implementation/Increased staff meetings/Progress reviews

4 4 3

Consultation on variations between schools/Teaching subject variations at schools/Lack of consistency

3 4 3


77

Q6. Implementation challenges(2)

Q6. Do you believe that schools will face challenges as they design and implement a curriculum in line with the direction set out in this document? Please identify challenges that you foresee.

Total(n=9117)

%

Primary(n=5263)

%

Secondary school

(n=3050)%

Designing the curriculum/where to start?/moe requirements/make user-friendly

4 5 2

Adapting planning structure/Writing new programs/Revising updating documents

3 4 2

Trend away from languages/Second language will make implementation difficult

3 4 2

None/Not for our school/Very few 3 3 3

Including more cultural content/Maori for all students/treaty of Waitangi issues/Te Reo as an official language

3 3 2

Whole concept difficult to implement/schools, staff, pupil diversity 3 3 3

Need benchmarks/baselines for all schools to work to/a set national framework

3 3 3

Teachers’ agreement with curriculum/teachers’ values/ practices/ teachers having to change their mindset

3 3 2

Informing parents/Parents response/Parents agreement with curriculum/Parental demands

2 3 1

Implementing changes/Integrating new style of learning into curriculum/New sections to some subjects

2 2 3


78

Impact of changes• Nearly 40% of respondents say that the direction set out in the document will

have considerable impact on curriculum development with a further 48% saying there will be some impact

• Only 10% of respondents say that there will be little or no impact• Primary school stakeholders predict slightly more impact than secondary

school stakeholders mainly because secondary stakeholders believe that NCEA will limit the possible changes

• The major comments concerning the likely impact of the curriculum changes include

• Schools are already moving in this direction• The impact will be limited by available resources, lack of time, finance

and professional development Challenges ahead• Just under 40% of respondents say that the challenges will be major with a

further 43% saying challenges will be moderate• Secondary and tertiary stakeholders foresee the biggest challenges• The major comments concerning the likely challenges faced by schools

include:• Schools need sufficient resources, funding and time to make the

changes• Creating the changes within the constraints of NCEA/ERO/MoE

requirements will be a challenge

Impact and Challenges- Key Findings

79

Results (contin.) – Learning Areas

80

Accuracy of learning area descriptions by Usefulness of achievement objectives

50

60

70

80

90

100

50 60 70 80 90 100

Q10.Usefulness of Achievement

Objectives% say it will be useful

Q9. Accuracy of Descriptions% say they are accurate

Technology

Learning languages

Q9) How accurately do the descriptions of the learning areas capture the essence of the areas and describe how they are structured? Q10) Do the achievement objectives state student outcomes in a way that teachers and

students are likely to find useful?

All other learning areas


81

Q9. Learning area descriptions


Q9) How accurately do the descriptions of the learning areas capture the essence of the areas and describe how they are structured?

9

8

10

18

9

10

11

17

2

1

2

8

1

2

3

10

58

54

57

52

55

56

57

52

31

37

31

23

35

32

30

22

100 80 60 40 20 0% 20 40 60 80 100

Arts (n=4588)

English (n=5122)

Health & Phys Ed(n=4652)

Learning Languages(n=3660)

Maths & Statistics(n=4815)

Science (n=4638)

Social Sciences(n=4659)

Technology (n=4328)

% %

Not at all Not very accurately Quite accurately Very accurately

82

Q9. Learning area descriptions Arts (1)


9

10

8

9

8

17

19

14

2

2

2

2

1

5

4

12

58

57

60

59

59

57

55

39

31

32

31

30

32

21

23

35

100 80 60 40 20 0% 20 40 60 80 100

Total (n=4588)


Med decile (n=1647)

Low decile (n=1285)

Primary (n=3797)

Secondary (n=477)

Tertiary (n=75)


% %



83

Q9. Learning area descriptions Arts (2)


9

8

22

8

18

16

15

2

1

1

6

9

5

58

55

74

59

57

51

52

31

37

4

32

20

23

28

100 80 60 40 20 0% 20 40 60 80 100

Total (n=4588)







% %



84

Arts Comments

Q9. How accurately do the descriptions of the learning areas capture the essence of the areas and describe how they are structured?

Total(n=4588)

%

Primary(n=3797)

%

Secondary school(n=477)

%


Some curriculum areas not covered/Some areas not fully covered e.g. technology/Social Sciences/Maths

8 7 11

Too vague/Not detailed enough/Need more in depth information/Examples

7 7 8

Some terminology difficult to understand/use of jargon confusing/some parts too wordy

5 6 4

Easy to understand/Clear terminology/Concise 5 5 3

No Treaty of Waitangi/Bicultural references included eg In Social Sciences/Arts/Science/Te Reo Maori not specified in languages

3 3 2

No mention of 'why study arts'/Arts undervalued 2 1 12


85

Q9. Learning area descriptions English (1)


8

8

9

7

7

16

21

8

1

2

2

1

1

3

4

5

54

54

52

55

53

56

49

54

37

37

37

37

39

24

26

33

100 80 60 40 20 0% 20 40 60 80 100

Total (n=5122)


Med decile (n=1861)

Low decile (n=1440)

Primary (n=4214)

Secondary (n=584)

Tertiary (n=73)


% %



86

Q9. Learning area descriptions English (2)


8

6

10

7

18

25

14

1

1

1

3

1

3

54

50

76

54

56

45

43

37

43

14

39

23

29

40

100 80 60 40 20 0% 20 40 60 80 100

Total (n=5122)







% %



87

English Comments


Total(n=5122)

%

Primary(n=4214)

%


%


Some curriculum areas not covered/Some areas not fully covered e.g.technology/Social Sciences/Maths

8 7 11


7 7 8


5 5 4


No Treaty of Waitangi/Bicultural references included e.g. In Social Sciences/Arts/Science/Te Reo Maori not specified in languages

3 3 3

Good layout/the way levels/strands shown/Colour coding helps/the way summarised

2 2 2

English well structured/streamlined/clearly described/accurate 2 2 2


88

Q9. Learning area descriptions Health & Physical Education (1)


10

10

11

8

9

17

16

14

2

2

2

1

1

5

3

5

57

58

56

58

58

53

51

48

31

30

31

32

32

25

29

33

100 80 60 40 20 0% 20 40 60 80 100

Total (n=4652)


Med decile (n=1723)

Low decile (n=1288)

Primary (n=3825)

Secondary (n=521)

Tertiary (n=68)


% %



89

Q9. Learning area descriptions Health & Physical Education (2)


10

8

19

9

18

21

15

2

1

1

6

1

2

57

57

63

58

53

51

47

31

34

19

32

24

27

36

100 80 60 40 20 0% 20 40 60 80 100

Total (n=4652)







% %



90

Health and Physical Education Comments


Total(n=4652)

%

Primary(n=3825)

%


%



8 7 9


7 7 11


5 5 2



3 3 1

Unclear where some disciplines belong/Unclear why have been included where shown

2 2 4


91

Q9. Learning area descriptions Learning Languages (1)


18

17

18

19

18

21

13

11

8

7

7

8

7

8

11

11

52

53

52

51

52

48

62

44

23

24

23

22

22

23

13

33

100 80 60 40 20 0% 20 40 60 80 100

Total (n=3660)


Med decile (n=1349)

Low decile (n=1043)

Primary (n=3050)

Secondary (n=364)

Tertiary (n=61)


% %



92

Q9. Learning area descriptions Learning Languages (2)


18

17

28

18

22

23

18

8

7

7

9

8

12

52

51

66

52

46

52

46

23

24

7

23

23

16

23

100 80 60 40 20 0% 20 40 60 80 100

Total (n=3660)


Secondary principal (n=29)*





% %



* Warning: small base size

93

Learning languages Comments


Total(n=3660)

%

Primary(n=3050)

%


%



8 7 10


8 8 10


5 6 3



4 4 4

Language doesn't appear to be a popular choice/no prior knowledge/unsure how fits in

4 4 9

Maori is an official NZ language/Maori should be on its own 3 3 5


94

Q9. Learning area descriptions Mathematics & Statistics (1)


9

9

9

7

8

16

17

7

1

1

2

1

1

4

3

6

55

54

54

59

55

60

52

53

35

36

35

33

37

20

28

34

100 80 60 40 20 0% 20 40 60 80 100

Total (n=4815)


Med decile (n=1783)

Low decile (n=1345)

Primary (n=4016)

Secondary (n=513)

Tertiary (n=60)


% %



95

Q9. Learning area descriptions Mathematics & Statistics (2)


9

5

21

8

17

24

12

1

3

1

3

2

55

53

62

55

60

49

46

35

41

15

37

20

28

40

100 80 60 40 20 0% 20 40 60 80 100

Total (n=4815)







% %



96

Mathematics and Statistics Comments


Total(n=4815)

%

Primary(n=4016)

%


%


Some curriculum areas not covered/Some areas not fully covered e.g.. technology/Social Sciences/Maths

8 7 10


7 7 11


5 5 4


Why not call mathematics and statistics just mathematics 3 3 2


3 3 1

Good layout/the way levels/strands shown/Colour coding helps/the way summarised

2 2 2


97

Q9. Learning area descriptions Science (1)


10

10

10

9

7

25

15

12

2

1

2

2

1

8

2

11

56

56

56

57

57

52

53

46

32

33

32

32

35

15

30

32

100 80 60 40 20 0% 20 40 60 80 100

Total (n=4638)


Med decile (n=1709)

Low decile (n=1291)

Primary (n=3757)

Secondary (n=576)

Tertiary (n=60)


% %



98

Q9. Learning area descriptions Science (2)


10

6

9

7

26

15

11

2

3

1

8

3

2

56

53

82

57

51

56

49

32

41

6

35

14

26

37

100 80 60 40 20 0% 20 40 60 80 100

Total (n=4638)







% %



99

Science Comments


Total(n=4638)

%

Primary(n=3757)

%


%



8 7 12


8 7 14


5 5 3



3 3 1


100

Q9. Learning area descriptions Social Sciences (1)


11

11

10

9

9

19

25

16

3

2

2

3

1

7

4

11

57

58

55

58

57

59

50

43

30

28

32

30

33

15

21

30

100 80 60 40 20 0% 20 40 60 80 100

Total (n=4659)


Med decile (n=1704)

Low decile (n=1284)

Primary (n=3720)

Secondary (n=629)

Tertiary (n=68)


% %



101

Q9. Learning area descriptions Social Sciences (2)


11

9

23

8

20

19

13

3

1

1

7

7

7

57

52

61

58

59

50

51

30

39

16

38

14

24

30

100 80 60 40 20 0% 20 40 60 80 100

Total (n=4659)







% %



102

Social Science Comments


Total(n=4659)

%

Primary(n=3720)

%


%



9 7 20


7 7 7


5 5 2



3 3 3


103

Q9. Learning area descriptions Technology (1)


17

18

17

14

15

24

28

13

10

10

11

8

8

19

17

11

52

51

51

55

54

45

42

51

22

21

21

23

23

13

14

25

100 80 60 40 20 0% 20 40 60 80 100

Total (n=4328)


Med decile (n=1615)

Low decile (n=1197)

Primary (n=3443)

Secondary (n=596)

Tertiary (n=72)


% %



104

Q9. Learning area descriptions Technology (2)


17

15

23

15

25

28

20

10

9

15

8

19

12

11

52

52

54

54

44

41

45

22

25

8

23

12

19

24

100 80 60 40 20 0% 20 40 60 80 100

Total (n=4328)







% %



105

TechnologyComments


Total(n=4328)

%

Primary(n=3443)

%


%



8 7 11


8 7 10


6 6 8



3 3 1


106

• Overall there is a high level of agreement that individual learning areas are described accurately

• Learning languages and technology have the lowest agreement scores (75% and 74% respectively) while all other learning areas have around 90% agreement

• However, in all learning areas, secondary teachers are less likely than primary teachers to agree that they are accurately described

• In some cases there is a significant percentage of secondary teachers who don’t agree with the descriptions. For example:

• 34% of secondary teachers don’t agree that the description of Science accurately captures its essence or how it is structured

• the corresponding percentage for Technology is 44% • 31% of secondary teachers don’t agree that the description of

Learning Languages accurately captures its essence or how it is structured

Accuracy of Learning Areas- Key Findings

107

Q10. Statements of outcomes


16

15

15

20

14

15

17

22

5

4

4

12

4

6

7

24

50

47

51

45

48

48

49

37

29

34

31

23

34

30

26

16

100 80 60 40 20 0% 20 40 60 80 100

Arts (n=4372)

English (n=4929)

Health & Phys Ed(n=4391)

Learning Languages(n=3409)

Maths & Statistics(n=4623)

Science (n=4432)

Social Sciences(n=4424)

Technology (n=1677)

% %

Q10) Do the achievement objectives state student outcomes in a way that teachers and students are likely to find useful?

Not at all In some cases In most cases Yes, definitely

108

Q10. Statements of outcomes Arts (1)


16

17

18

13

15

24

19

15

5

4

5

4

4

7

8

21

50

50

51

51

51

47

42

36

29

28

27

32

30

21

30

27

100 80 60 40 20 0% 20 40 60 80 100

Total (n=4372)


Med decile (n=1540)

Low decile (n=1236)

Primary (n=3651)

Secondary (n=432)

Tertiary (n=73)


% %



109

Q10. Statements of outcomes Arts (2)


16

16

30

15

25

16

14

5

4

4

4

8

13

11

50

51

56

51

47

48

46

29

30

11

30

21

23

30

100 80 60 40 20 0% 20 40 60 80 100

Total (n=4372)







% %



110

Arts Comments

Q10. Do the achievement objectives state student outcomes in a way that teachers and students are likely to find useful?

Total(n=4372)

%

Primary(n=3651)

%


%


Too broad/Need more specific details/Too vague/Too wordy 8 8 8

Need more guidance/Examples of scenarios/More support/Professional development

6 6 6

Achievement objectives quite broad/A.O's need specific goals/A.O's need to include outcomes

5 5 4

Terminology difficult to interpret/Disagree with some words/Language too specialised/Too much jargon

5 5 5

Some curriculum areas not covered/Not fully covered e.g.technology/History

4 4 4

Simple/Easy to follow 4 5 2

Not helpful for students/Students would need interpretation/Students need simpler text/too in depth

3 3 5


111

Q10. Statements of outcomes English (1)


15

15

17

13

13

29

22

21

4

4

5

3

3

8

7

14

47

48

45

48

48

45

37

38

34

33

33

36

36

18

34

27

100 80 60 40 20 0% 20 40 60 80 100

Total (n=4929)


Med decile (n=1795)

Low decile (n=1397)

Primary (n=4078)

Secondary (n=552)

Tertiary (n=68)


% %



112

Q10. Statements of outcomes English (2)


15

12

30

13

31

20

15

4

4

3

3

9

11

7

47

46

53

47

44

46

45

34

38

13

36

17

23

34

100 80 60 40 20 0% 20 40 60 80 100

Total (n=4929)







% %



113

English Comments


Total(n=4929)

%

Primary(n=4078)

%


%




6 6 6


5 5 3


5 5 6


Some curriculum areas not covered/Not fully covered e.g. technology/History

4 5 2


3 3 6


114

Q10. Statements of outcomes Health & Physical Education (1)


15

16

15

12

13

23

11

15

4

3

5

3

3

6

6

20

51

53

50

52

52

50

46

36

31

29

30

34

32

20

37

29

100 80 60 40 20 0% 20 40 60 80 100

Total (n=4391)


Med decile (n=1613)

Low decile (n=1217)

Primary (n=3637)

Secondary (n=484)

Tertiary (n=63)


% %



115

Q10. Statements of outcomes Health & Physical Education (2)


15

12

30

14

23

11

13

4

3

7

2

6

8

8

51

52

50

52

51

51

49

31

33

13

32

20

30

29

100 80 60 40 20 0% 20 40 60 80 100

Total (n=4391)







% %



116

Health & Physical EducationComments


Total(n=4391)

%

Primary(n=3637)

%


%




6 6 8


5 5 5


4 5 3



4 4 2


3 3 4


117

Q10. Statements of outcomes Learning Languages (1)


20

19

21

20

20

24

23

17

12

11

14

10

10

23

14

24

45

46

43

47

47

34

44

30

23

24

22

24

23

19

19

29

100 80 60 40 20 0% 20 40 60 80 100

Total (n=3409)


Med decile (n=1247)

Low decile (n=981)

Primary (n=2848)

Secondary (n=335)

Tertiary (n=57)


% %



118

Q10. Statements of outcomes Learning Languages (2)


20

19

30

20

25

24

14

12

12

20

10

24

15

21

45

48

43

46

32

49

42

23

21

7

24

18

13

23

100 80 60 40 20 0% 20 40 60 80 100

Total (n=3409)







% %



119

Learning LanguagesComments


Total(n=3409)

%

Primary(n=2848)

%


%




6 6 6


5 5 4


5 5 5



3 4 3

Treaty of Waitangi must be part of curriculum/include Maori culture and Te Reo for all pupils

3 3 3


3 3 4

Different layouts confusing/need a standard layout/all levels together/AO's by learning areas/Fold-outs better design

3 3 3

Unsure about relevance of learning languages/when teaching starts which languages to be taught?

3 2 4


120

Q10. Statements of outcomes Mathematics & Statistics (1)


14

15

14

12

12

30

19

15

4

3

5

2

2

12

5

16

48

47

49

51

50

42

39

36

34

36

32

35

37

15

37

32

100 80 60 40 20 0% 20 40 60 80 100

Total (n=4623)


Med decile (n=1702)

Low decile (n=1296)

Primary (n=3874)

Secondary (n=479)

Tertiary (n=59)


% %



121

Q10. Statements of outcomes Mathematics & Statistics (2)


14

10

32

12

32

19

12

4

2

10

2

13

9

2

48

49

48

50

42

48

42

34

40

10

36

13

23

37

100 80 60 40 20 0% 20 40 60 80 100

Total (n=4623)







% %



122

Mathematics & StatisticsComments


Total(n=4623)

%

Primary(n=3874)

%


%




7 6 12


5 5 5


5 5 4

Some curriculum areas not covered/Not fully covered e.g.. technology/History

4 4 3



3 3 6

Different layouts confusing/need a standard layout/all levels together/AO's by learning areas/Fold-outs better design

3 3 3


123

Q10. Statements of outcomes Science (1)


15

14

17

13

12

33

19

16

6

5

7

5

3

22

5

25

48

50

47

50

51

37

42

31

30

30

29

32

34

8

33

28

100 80 60 40 20 0% 20 40 60 80 100

Total (n=4432)


Med decile (n=1627)

Low decile (n=1241)

Primary (n=3588)

Secondary (n=560)

Tertiary (n=57)


% %



124

Q10. Statements of outcomes Science (2)


15

12

31

12

34

19

14

6

2

11

3

24

10

7

48

50

57

51

35

46

48

30

36

34

7

25

31

100 80 60 40 20 0% 20 40 60 80 100

Total (n=4432)







% %



125

ScienceComments


Total(n=4432)

%

Primary(n=3588)

%


%




7 6 8


5 5 6


4 5 3

Some curriculum areas not covered/Not fully covered i.e. technology/History

4 5 3



3 3 5


126

Q10. Statements of outcomes Social Sciences (1)


17

17

18

16

15

29

26

22

7

7

7

5

5

15

9

21

49

50

50

50

51

44

38

34

26

26

25

29

29

12

26

22

100 80 60 40 20 0% 20 40 60 80 100

Total (n=4424)


Med decile (n=1601)

Low decile (n=1224)

Primary (n=3534)

Secondary (n=604)

Tertiary (n=68)


% %



127

Q10. Statements of outcomes Social Sciences (2)


17

15

36

15

29

25

22

7

4

6

4

16

11

10

49

51

45

51

43

42

47

26

29

12

29

11

21

21

100 80 60 40 20 0% 20 40 60 80 100

Total (n=4424)







% %



128

Social SciencesComments


Total(n=4424)

%

Primary(n=3534)

%


%




6 6 7


5 5 7

Some curriculum areas not covered/Not fully covered i.e. technology/History

5 4 7


4 5 2


Treaty of Waitangi must be part of curriculum/include Maori culture and Te Reo for all pupils

3 3 2


3 3 3


129

Q10. Statements of outcomes Technology (1)


22

22

24

18

18

37

15

40

24

27

27

14

22

31

33

10

37

36

35

44

42

22

38

31

16

14

14

24

18

10

13

19

100 80 60 40 20 0% 20 40 60 80 100

Total (n=1677)

High decile (n=532)

Med decile (n=646)

Low decile (n=402)

Primary (n=1232)

Secondary (n=339)

Tertiary (n=39)


% %



130

Q10. Statements of outcomes Technology (2)


22

17

39

18

35

14

34

24

24

33

23

31

31

18

37

40

22

42

23

40

34

16

20

6

18

11

14

14

100 80 60 40 20 0% 20 40 60 80 100

Total (n=1677)







% %



131

TechnologyComments


Total(n=1677)

%

Primary(n=1232)

%


%



11 11 12



10 9 13


6 7 4


6 4 12

Some curriculum areas not covered/Not fully covered e.g.. technology/History

5 5 4

Concern over achievement levels/unrealistic expectations at some levels/how levels overlap

4 4 7


Resources needed - funding/Time for high workloads/Specialist teachers

4 3 4


132

• Overall, there is a high level of agreement (around 80%) that achievement objectives for most learning areas are stated in a way that teachers and students will find useful

• The lowest scoring achievement objectives on usefulness are for:• Learning Languages (68% agreement) and• Technology (53% agreement)

• As with the description of the learning areas (Q9) , secondary teachers are less likely than primary teachers to agree with the usefulness of the statements of outcomes, but the differences between the two groups is much more pronounced

• The following percentages show the proportion of secondary teachers who don’t think the achievement objectives for the learning area state student outcomes in a way that students and teachers will find useful (the corresponding percentage for primary teachers is shown in brackets):

• Arts – 33% (19%)• English – 40% (16%)• Health & Physical Education – 29% (16%)• Learning Languages – 49% (30%)• Maths and Statistics – 45% (14%)• Science – 58% (15%)• Social Science - 45% (19%)• Technology – 66% (41%)

Statements of Outcomes of Learning Areas- Key Findings

133

Appendix: Demographic Tables

134

Demographics

North Island South Island

Region (n=) % Region (n=) %

Auckland 2548 28 Canterbury 1005 11

Bay of Plenty 508 6 Marlborough 96 1

Gisborne 131 1 Nelson 115 1

Hawkes Bay 352 4 Otago 450 5

Manawatu 488 5 Southland 312 3

Northland 301 3 Tasman 90 1

Taranaki 249 3 West Coast 64 1

Waikato 898 10 South Island 2132 23

Wellington 876 10 Not stated 634 7

North Island 6351 70 Total 9117 100

Base: All respondents (n=9117)

Respondents by region

135*= % between 0.0% and 0.5%

Demographics

Decile

Survey Method City/District Type of School (Grouped)

Online

(n=1870)

%

Hardcopy

(n=7247)

%

City

(n=4775)

%

District

(n=3706)

%

Primary

(n=5263)

%

Second-ary

(n=3050) %

Tertiary

(n=159)

%

Other schools

(n=185)

%

Not an-swered

(n=338)

%

1 7 8 10 6 11 4 1 - 1

2 4 8 9 7 9 6 - - 2

3 5 10 10 9 9 8 - - 10

4 7 9 6 13 9 9 - - 9

5 9 9 6 14 8 12 - - 5

6 9 9 8 13 9 13 - - 1

7 9 12 11 13 11 14 - - 0

8 7 7 7 8 8 7 - - 3

9 11 11 13 9 12 11 1 - 0

10 14 13 19 7 13 16 - - 14

Not available 1 * 1 * * 1 - - 8

135

136

Demographics

Survey Method

Survey Method

Total

(n=9117)

City

(n=4775)

District

(n=3706)

% % %

Online 21 20 16

Hardcopy 79 80 84

Note: ’Not applicable’ category not shown

137*Caution: Small sample sizes

Demographics

137

Survey Method

Type of School (1)

Contributing School

(n=2499)

Primary School

(n=1979)

Intermediate School

(n=527)

Area School

(n=258)

Secondary school 7-13

(n=741)


(n=2309)

Universities/College of Education

(n=154)

% % % % % % %

Online 15 13 16 24 17 27 57

Hardcopy 85 87 84 76 83 73 43

Survey Method

Survey Method

Type of School (2)

Polytechnic

(n=5)*

Special Needs School

(n=104)

Correspon-dence

School

(n=31)*

Private School

(n=72)

Cluster of Schools

(n=9)*

Other

(n=122)

Not answered

(n=185)

% % % % % % %

Online 20 10 52 28 - 53 8

Hardcopy 80 90 48 72 100 47 92

138

Demographics

Survey Method

Survey Method

Contributors (1)

Principal

(n=1104)

Teacher

(n=7710)

Other

(n=264)

Parent

(n=970)

Family

(n=187)

% % % % %

Online 27 18 - 32 36

Hardcopy 73 82 100 68 64

Survey Method

Contributors (2)

School Student

(n=79)

Board of Trustee Member

(n=451)

Pre-service teacher

(n=167)

In-service teacher

educator

(n=397)

Not answered

(n=159)

% % % % %

Online 44 29 49 36 -

Hardcopy 56 71 51 64 100

139*Caution: Small sample sizes

Demographics

139

Type of School (1)

Contributing School

(n=2499)

Primary School

(n=1979)

Intermediate School

(n=527)

Area School

(n=258)


(n=741)


(n=2309)

Universities/College of Education

(n=154)

% % % % % % %

City 61 42 70 56 49 60 NA

District 39 58 30 44 50 40 NA

City/District

Type of School (2)

Polytechnic

(n=5)*

Special Needs School

(n=104)

Correspon-dence

School

(n=31)*

Private School

(n=72)

Cluster of Schools

(n=9)*

Other

(n=122)

Not answered

(n=185)

% % % % % % %

City NA 84 NA 97 NA NA NA

District NA 16 NA 3 NA NA NA

140

Demographics

City/District

Contributors (1)

Principal

(n=1104)

Teacher

(n=7710)

Other

(n=264)

Parent

(n=970)

Family

(n=187)

% % % % %

City 39 55 42 45 43

District 58 42 28 45 37

Contributors (2)

School Student

(n=79)


(n=451)

Pre-service teacher

(n=167)

In-service teacher

educator

(n=397)

Not answered

(n=159)

% % % % %

City 41 39 24 46 52

District 39 55 13 26 38

Note: ’Not applicable’ category not shown, thus, figures do not add up to 100%

141

Demographics

School Type (Grouped)

School Type

Contributors (1)

Principal

(n=1104)

Teacher

(n=7710)

Other

(n=264)

Parent

(n=970)

Family

(n=187)

% % % % %

Primary 90 59 55 56 56

Secondary 7 35 14 34 23

Tertiary - - 9 2 3

Other schools 2 3 12 4 8

Not answered 1 1 11 3 4

142

Demographics

School Type (Grouped)

School Type

Contributors (2)

School Student

(n=79)


(n=451)

Pre-service teacher

(n=167)

In-service teacher

educator

(n=397)

Not answered

(n=159)

% % % % %

Primary 42 77 24 31 54

Secondary 37 16 11 39 34

Tertiary 5 - 40 10 1

Other schools 5 3 11 10 4

Not answered 4 3 5 4 7

143

The End

Documents

1 The Draft New Zealand Curriculum – Feedback Questionnaire Results Downloaded from: TKI | NZ Curriculum | Consultation and Feedback