1. 1 The Draft New Zealand Curriculum – Feedback Questionnaire Results Downloaded from: TKI | NZ Curriculum | Consultation and Feedback http://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. 2 Contents Executive Summary3 Background, Objectives & Method13 Results: Overall Intent and Direction19 Clarity and Usefulness32 Likely Impact and Challenges69 Learning Areas79 Appendix: Demographic Tables133 Page

3. 3 Executive summary

4. 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. 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 unsure 45% agree Main findings Key Finding #1: The overall intent and direction of the document is generally accepted.

6. 6 Clarity of Document Response to the overall clarity of the document is positive 83% 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. 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 al most 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 useful  Similarly, for Maths & Statistics, and Social Sciences, 45% disagree that the statement of outcomes are useful  Nearly 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. 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

13. 13 Background, Objectives & Method

14. 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. 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. 16 Method (contin.) ContributorSchool Type Parent/caregiver8%Primary School59% Family/whanau member2%Secondary School34% Principal10%Tertiary2% Teacher61%Other/not stated6% School student1%Total100% BOT member4% Location Teacher educator (pre-svce)1%North Island75% Teacher educator (in-svce3%South Island25% Other/not stated3%City56% Total100%District44% Base: All respondents (n=9117) Respondent Overview

17. 17 *= % between 0.0% and 0.5% Method (contin.) School Decile Primary (n=5263) Secondary (n=3050) 111%4% 29%6% 39%8% 49% 58%12% 69%13% 711%14% 88%7% 912%11% 1013%16% Not available *%1% 17 Respondent Overview Base: Respondents linked to a particular school (n=8313) Low decile Medium decile High decile

18. 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 websitewww.tki.org.nz 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 15 th 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. 19 Results – Overall Intent and Direction

20. 20 Q3. Overall Intent and Direction 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 disagreeDisagreeAgreeStrongly agree Neither/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. 21 Q3. Overall Intent and Direction - by decile and school type Strongly disagreeDisagreeAgreeStrongly agree Neither/nor “It will reinforce or reaffirm the educational direction that our school is taking (or that NZ schools are taking)” Base: All respondents (n=9117) *NA not shown

22. 22 Q3. Overall Intent and Direction - by contributor type Strongly disagreeDisagreeAgreeStrongly agree Neither/nor “It will reinforce or reaffirm the educational direction that our school is taking (or that NZ schools are taking)” Base: All respondents (n=9117) *NA not shown

23. 23 Q3. Overall Intent and Direction - by decile and school type Strongly disagreeDisagreeAgreeStrongly agree Neither/nor “It will inform the future direction of our school curriculum (or the curriculum of New Zealand schools)” Base: All respondents (n=9117) *NA not shown

24. 24 Q3. Overall Intent and Direction - by contributor type Strongly disagreeDisagreeAgreeStrongly agree Neither/nor “It will inform the future direction of our school curriculum (or the curriculum of New Zealand schools)” Base: All respondents (n=9117) *NA not shown

25. 25 Strongly disagreeDisagreeAgreeStrongly agree Neither/nor Q3. Overall Intent and Direction - by decile and school type “It will give each school the right amount of flexibility when designing a curriculum for its particular group of students.” Base: All respondents (n=9117) *NA not shown

26. 26 Q3. Overall Intent and Direction - by contributor type Strongly disagreeDisagreeAgreeStrongly agree Neither/nor “It will give each school the right amount of flexibility when designing a curriculum for its particular group of students.” Base: All respondents (n=9117) *NA not shown

27. 27 Strongly disagreeDisagreeAgreeStrongly agree Neither/nor Q3. Overall Intent and Direction - by decile and school type “The direction for learning set out in this document is just what New Zealand students need.” Base: All respondents (n=9117) *NA not shown

28. 28 Q3. Overall Intent and Direction - by contributor type Strongly disagreeDisagreeAgreeStrongly agree Neither/nor “The direction for learning set out in this document is just what New Zealand students need.” Base: All respondents (n=9117) *NA not shown

29. 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 404533 Too vague/ not prescribed enough/ too open to interpretation/ doesn’t tell what to teach/ doesn’t tell what is compulsory/ no examples 9713 Some teachers/schools would have difficulties/ consistency issues a problem/ identification of standards required/too much flexibility will lead to unevenness 7610 Allow for flexibility/ more variety, creativity in teaching/ ability to cater for student interests/needs of community/school 784 Treaty of Waitangi must be included/ no acknowledgment of the Reo Maori/ Maori student needs omitted 554 Reflects my views/ like the ideas/ positive direction 555 Resources often lacking to implement changes/ need to have necessary resources 333 Some curriculum areas limited/some areas not covered 324 Curriculum well set out/ shows clear areas/ easy to follow/ more concise 231 Assessments/NCEA assessments will rule what is taught/ NCEA will affect flexibility 2*4 Will need time for development/trialling/monitoring/feedback 232 Loaded questions, too much assumption/ whose opinion is it/ dislike implication of ‘just’ what NZ needs 222 *=% between 0.0% and 0.5% Base: All respondents who answered the associated closed-ended question

30. 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 212 Has an over-emphasis on global and economic interests/ business oriented 222 Our school/teachers already doing this/ won’t have much impact on good schools 231 Key competencies focus is great—reflects the needs of children 221 Base: All respondents who answered the associated closed-ended question

31. 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. 32 Results (contin) – Clarity and Usefulness

33. 33 Q4. Overall clarity - by decile and school type Very difficultQuite difficultQuite easyVery easy Q4) Considering the document as a whole, how easy or difficult did you find it to read and understand? Base: All respondents (n=9117) *NA not shown

34. 34 Q4. Overall clarity - by contributor type Very difficultQuite difficultQuite easyVery easy Q4) Considering the document as a whole, how easy or difficult did you find it to read and understand? Base: All respondents (n=9117) *NA not shown

35. 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) % Not answered 414440 Easy to read/easy to understand/user friendly/not too wordy 12148 Very vague/too broad/lacks detail/inconsistent/ambiguous-difficult to interpret 8613 Liked layout/layout of questions/good headings/liked chart effect/colour coding 895 Terminology/jargon could be simplified/Will take time to become familiar with new terminology 446 Good in book form/everything in one book/compact 341 Too wordy/some sections too wordy/repetitive 323 Layout confusing/need tabs to show different parts/bullet points in learning areas/diagrams are confusing 333 Fold-out pages annoying/fold outs cumbersome/foldouts lack headings/do not show levels 342 Need to indicate levels on each section/Show all levels/Have levels side by side 231 Written for experienced teachers/difficult for yr1 teachers/parents 212 Base: All respondents who answered the associated closed-ended question

36. 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 231 Level of understanding of concepts/learning areas varies-some easy, others not-e.g.technology 221 Technology section difficult to interpret 221 Base: All respondents who answered the associated closed-ended question

37. 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? Very difficultQuite difficultQuite easyVery easy Base: All respondents (n=9117) *NA not shown

38. 38 Q7. Clarity of each part Vision (1) Q7) How easy or difficult do you find it to understand each of the following parts of the document? Very difficultQuite difficultQuite easyVery easy Base: All respondents (n=9117) *NA not shown

39. 39 Q7. Clarity of each part Vision (2) Q7) How easy or difficult do you find it to understand each of the following parts of the document? Very difficultQuite difficultQuite easyVery easy Base: All respondents (n=9117) *NA not shown

40. 40 Q7. Clarity of each part Principles (1) Q7) How easy or difficult do you find it to understand each of the following parts of the document? Very difficultQuite difficultQuite easyVery easy Base: All respondents (n=9117) *NA not shown

41. 41 Q7. Clarity of each part Principles (2) Q7) How easy or difficult do you find it to understand each of the following parts of the document? Very difficultQuite difficultQuite easyVery easy Base: All respondents (n=9117) *NA not shown

42. 42 Q7. Clarity of each part Values (1) Q7) How easy or difficult do you find it to understand each of the following parts of the document? Very difficultQuite difficultQuite easyVery easy Base: All respondents (n=9117) *NA not shown

43. 43 Q7. Clarity of each part Values (2) Q7) How easy or difficult do you find it to understand each of the following parts of the document? Very difficultQuite difficultQuite easyVery easy Base: All respondents (n=9117) *NA not shown

44. 44 Q7. Clarity of each part Key competencies (1) Q7) How easy or difficult do you find it to understand each of the following parts of the document? Very difficultQuite difficultQuite easyVery easy Base: All respondents (n=9117) *NA not shown

45. 45 Q7. Clarity of each part Key competencies (2) Q7) How easy or difficult do you find it to understand each of the following parts of the document? Very difficultQuite difficultQuite easyVery easy Base: All respondents (n=9117) *NA not shown

46. 46 Q7. Clarity of each part Effective pedagogy (1) Q7) How easy or difficult do you find it to understand each of the following parts of the document? Very difficultQuite difficultQuite easyVery easy Base: All respondents (n=9117) *NA not shown

47. 47 Q7. Clarity of each part Effective pedagogy (2) Q7) How easy or difficult do you find it to understand each of the following parts of the document? Very difficultQuite difficultQuite easyVery easy Base: All respondents (n=9117) *NA not shown

48. 48 Q7. Clarity of each part Designing a school curriculum (1) Q7) How easy or difficult do you find it to understand each of the following parts of the document? Very difficultQuite difficultQuite easyVery easy Base: All respondents (n=9117) *NA not shown

49. 49 Q7. Clarity of each part Designing a school curriculum (2) Q7) How easy or difficult do you find it to understand each of the following parts of the document? Very difficultQuite difficultQuite easyVery easy Base: All respondents (n=9117) *NA not shown

50. 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) % Not answered 475243 Easy to understand/use plain language/clear and concise/good graphics 9109 Too vague/Inconsistent/No benchmarks/Open to interpretation/Too wordy 759 Implementation/integration of themes into curriculum will be time consuming/challenging 434 Intent unclear/Need guidelines/Principles need further clarification/Need examples given/need to know MOE requirements 333 Values/conflicting views will arise on values/values unclear/Varying values across schools 223 Lack of biculturalism/No mention of treaty/Treaty should be underpinning values/Principles/Maori included for all students 221 Key competencies need clarification/ how incorporated and assessed 222 New Jargon used/over-complicated jargon/need to use every day language 222 Base: All respondents who answered the associated closed-ended question

51. 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 222 Principles/values overlap/aspects inter-relate/hard to separate-should be linked 221 Too idealistic/Not reality 213 Design of curriculum/some areas subjects not covered/lack of information 223 Base: All respondents who answered the associated closed-ended question

52. 52 Clarity of each part by its usefulness 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? Vision Principles Values Key Competencies Base: All respondents who answered question

53. 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? Not at all usefulNot very usefulQuite usefulVery useful Base: All respondents (n=9117) *NA not shown

54. 54 Q8. Usefulness of each part Vision (1) Not at all usefulNot very usefulQuite usefulVery useful 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? Base: All respondents (n=9117) *NA not shown

55. 55 Q8. Usefulness of each part Vision (2) 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? Not at all usefulNot very usefulQuite usefulVery useful Base: All respondents (n=9117) *NA not shown

56. 56 Q8. Usefulness of each part Principles (1) 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? Not at all usefulNot very usefulQuite usefulVery useful Base: All respondents (n=9117) *NA not shown

57. 57 Q8. Usefulness of each part Principles (2) 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? Not at all usefulNot very usefulQuite usefulVery useful Base: All respondents (n=9117) *NA not shown

58. 58 Q8. Usefulness of each part Values (1) 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? Not at all usefulNot very usefulQuite usefulVery useful Base: All respondents (n=9117) *NA not shown

59. 59 Q8. Usefulness of each part Values (2) 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? Not at all usefulNot very usefulQuite usefulVery useful Base: All respondents (n=9117) *NA not shown

60. 60 Q8. Usefulness of each part Key competencies (1) 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? Not at all usefulNot very usefulQuite usefulVery useful Base: All respondents (n=9117) *NA not shown

61. 61 Q8. Usefulness of each part Key competencies (2) 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? Not at all usefulNot very usefulQuite usefulVery useful Base: All respondents (n=9117) *NA not shown

62. 62 Q8. Usefulness of each part Effective pedagogy (1) 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? Not at all usefulNot very usefulQuite usefulVery useful Base: All respondents (n=9117) *NA not shown

63. 63 Q8. Usefulness of each part Effective pedagogy (2) 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? Not at all usefulNot very usefulQuite usefulVery useful Base: All respondents (n=9117) *NA not shown

64. 64 Q8. Usefulness of each part Designing a school curriculum (1) 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? Not at all usefulNot very usefulQuite usefulVery useful Base: All respondents (n=9117) *NA not shown

65. 65 Q8. Usefulness of each part Designing a school curriculum (2) 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? Not at all usefulNot very usefulQuite usefulVery useful Base: All respondents (n=9117) *NA not shown

66. 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) % Not answered 515647 Useful/Supports what we are doing/A good point of reference/A good starting point/ provides guidance 10118 Need professional development/Need guidance/More help with clarification/More examples/More support 545 Too vague/Difficult to understand/Not detailed enough/No depth/Too wordy 435 Diversity of NZ culture not recognised/no treaty of Waitangi references 222 Need resources for setting up curriculum-funds/time input/More staff 212 Need help in designing curriculum-e.g. MOE requirement/Curriculum areas to use 212 Disagree with some wording in aspects/terms used/omission of key words 222 Values unclear/lack correlation with principles and vision/whose values? 222 Key competencies have gaps/Do not cover all areas/Need more explanation how to fit in 222 Base: All respondents who answered the associated closed-ended question

67. 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. 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. 69 Results (contin.) – Likely Impact & Challenges

70. 70 Q 5. Likely impact - by decile and school type 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 impactNot much impactSome impactConsiderable impact Base: All respondents (n=9117) *NA not shown

71. 71 Q 5. Likely impact - by contributor type 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 impactNot much impactSome impactConsiderable impact Base: All respondents (n=9117) *NA not shown

72. 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) % Not answered 434839 Already moving in this direction/changes already being made 11148 Limitations due to resources/finances/training needs/time involved/lack of professional development 666 Flexibility to help schools write new courses 463 Considerable curriculum changes to cover new themes/new language 435 Depends on willingness of staff to embrace the direction/people's willingness to change 434 Hard to know what impact till in place/may not always be positive 324 Help to cater for diverse range of students/cater for students needs in schools 333 Like emphasis placed on key competencies/Key competencies allow flexibility for student needs/ 333 Need more detailed information for teachers/more explanation/more support 222 Needs of NCEA assessments mean limitations on change/ ERO and MoE requirements 2*4 *=% between 0.0% and 0.5% Base: All respondents who answered the associated closed-ended question

73. 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 213 Considerable change to assessment/reporting documents 222 Will vary in different depts/depend how info delivered 213 Treaty of waitangi/maori issues are not recognised/lack of bi-culturalism 222 Changes in long term planning may be required/use as base document 231 Document gives direction in allowing schools to meet community needs 222 Reflects my views/good to see it happening/will assist in implementing new plans 221 Base: All respondents who answered the associated closed-ended question

74. 74 Q6. Implementation challenges - by decile and school type 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? Base: All respondents (n=9117) *NA not shown

75. 75 Q6. Implementation challenges - by contributor type 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? Base: All respondents (n=9117) *NA not shown

76. 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 22 Time factor/Time to learn/Time for preparation/Time for development of programs 1718 Not answered 131412 Increased workload/effort required by users/Willingness of teachers learning new system/Training teachers 11 Including good valuable community input/Interest from community 7104 Document gives too much freedom/Needs more details/Too much room for interpretation/Document too open-ended 667 Ensure key competencies system developed/assessment of key competencies/key competencies reporting system 665 Assessments/NCEA system assessments constraints/Blending NCEA into curriculum 5310 Consensus/Managing the changes/Inter-departmental monitoring of implementation/Increased staff meetings/Progress reviews 443 Consultation on variations between schools/Teaching subject variations at schools/Lack of consistency 343 Base: All respondents who answered the associated closed-ended question

77. 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 452 Adapting planning structure/Writing new programs/Revising updating documents 342 Trend away from languages/Second language will make implementation difficult 342 None/Not for our school/Very few 333 Including more cultural content/Maori for all students/treaty of Waitangi issues/Te Reo as an official language 332 Whole concept difficult to implement/schools, staff, pupil diversity 333 Need benchmarks/baselines for all schools to work to/a set national framework 333 Teachers’ agreement with curriculum/teachers’ values/ practices/ teachers having to change their mindset 332 Informing parents/Parents response/Parents agreement with curriculum/Parental demands 231 Implementing changes/Integrating new style of learning into curriculum/New sections to some subjects 223 Base: All respondents who answered the associated closed-ended question

78. 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. 79 Results (contin.) – Learning Areas

80. 80 Accuracy of learning area descriptions by Usefulness of achievement objectives 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 Base: All respondents who answered question

81. 81 Q9. Learning area descriptions Base: All respondents who answered question Q9) How accurately do the descriptions of the learning areas capture the essence of the areas and describe how they are structured? Not at allNot very accuratelyQuite accuratelyVery accurately

82. 82 Q9. Learning area descriptions Arts (1) Base: All respondents who answered question Q9) How accurately do the descriptions of the learning areas capture the essence of the areas and describe how they are structured? Not at allNot very accuratelyQuite accuratelyVery accurately

83. 83 Q9. Learning area descriptions Arts (2) Base: All respondents who answered question Q9) How accurately do the descriptions of the learning areas capture the essence of the areas and describe how they are structured? Not at allNot very accuratelyQuite accuratelyVery accurately

84. 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) % Not answered 474939 Some curriculum areas not covered/Some areas not fully covered e.g. technology/Social Sciences/Maths 8711 Too vague/Not detailed enough/Need more in depth information/Examples 778 Some terminology difficult to understand/use of jargon confusing/some parts too wordy 564 Easy to understand/Clear terminology/Concise 553 No Treaty of Waitangi/Bicultural references included eg In Social Sciences/Arts/Science/Te Reo Maori not specified in languages 332 No mention of 'why study arts'/Arts undervalued 2112 Base: All respondents who answered the associated closed-ended question

85. 85 Q9. Learning area descriptions English (1) Base: All respondents who answered question Q9) How accurately do the descriptions of the learning areas capture the essence of the areas and describe how they are structured? Not at allNot very accuratelyQuite accuratelyVery accurately

86. 86 Q9. Learning area descriptions English (2) Base: All respondents who answered question Q9) How accurately do the descriptions of the learning areas capture the essence of the areas and describe how they are structured? Not at allNot very accuratelyQuite accuratelyVery accurately

87. 87 English 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=5122) % Primary (n=4214) % Secondary school (n=584) % Not answered 495044 Some curriculum areas not covered/Some areas not fully covered e.g.technology/Social Sciences/Maths 8711 Too vague/Not detailed enough/Need more in depth information/Examples 778 Some terminology difficult to understand/use of jargon confusing/some parts too wordy 554 Easy to understand/Clear terminology/Concise 554 No Treaty of Waitangi/Bicultural references included e.g. In Social Sciences/Arts/Science/Te Reo Maori not specified in languages 333 Good layout/the way levels/strands shown/Colour coding helps/the way summarised 222 English well structured/streamlined/clearly described/accurate 222 Base: All respondents who answered the associated closed-ended question

88. 88 Q9. Learning area descriptions Health & Physical Education (1) Base: All respondents who answered question Q9) How accurately do the descriptions of the learning areas capture the essence of the areas and describe how they are structured? Not at allNot very accuratelyQuite accuratelyVery accurately

89. 89 Q9. Learning area descriptions Health & Physical Education (2) Base: All respondents who answered question Q9) How accurately do the descriptions of the learning areas capture the essence of the areas and describe how they are structured? Not at allNot very accuratelyQuite accuratelyVery accurately

90. 90 Health and Physical Education 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=4652) % Primary (n=3825) % Secondary school (n=521) % Not answered 484943 Some curriculum areas not covered/Some areas not fully covered e.g. technology/Social Sciences/Maths 879 Too vague/Not detailed enough/Need more in depth information/Examples 7711 Some terminology difficult to understand/use of jargon confusing/some parts too wordy 552 Easy to understand/Clear terminology/Concise 553 No Treaty of Waitangi/Bicultural references included eg In Social Sciences/Arts/Science/Te Reo Maori not specified in languages 331 Unclear where some disciplines belong/Unclear why have been included where shown 224 Base: All respondents who answered the associated closed-ended question

91. 91 Q9. Learning area descriptions Learning Languages (1) Base: All respondents who answered question Q9) How accurately do the descriptions of the learning areas capture the essence of the areas and describe how they are structured? Not at allNot very accuratelyQuite accuratelyVery accurately

92. 92 Q9. Learning area descriptions Learning Languages (2) Base: All respondents who answered question Q9) How accurately do the descriptions of the learning areas capture the essence of the areas and describe how they are structured? Not at allNot very accuratelyQuite accuratelyVery accurately * Warning: small base size

93. 93 Learning languages 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=3660) % Primary (n=3050) % Secondary school (n=364) % Not answered 464836 Some curriculum areas not covered/Some areas not fully covered e.g. technology/Social Sciences/Maths 8710 Too vague/Not detailed enough/Need more in depth information/Examples 8810 Some terminology difficult to understand/use of jargon confusing/some parts too wordy 563 Easy to understand/Clear terminology/Concise 553 No Treaty of Waitangi/Bicultural references included eg In Social Sciences/Arts/Science/Te Reo Maori not specified in languages 444 Language doesn't appear to be a popular choice/no prior knowledge/unsure how fits in 449 Maori is an official NZ language/Maori should be on its own 335 Base: All respondents who answered the associated closed-ended question

94. 94 Q9. Learning area descriptions Mathematics & Statistics (1) Base: All respondents who answered question Q9) How accurately do the descriptions of the learning areas capture the essence of the areas and describe how they are structured? Not at allNot very accuratelyQuite accuratelyVery accurately

95. 95 Q9. Learning area descriptions Mathematics & Statistics (2) Base: All respondents who answered question Q9) How accurately do the descriptions of the learning areas capture the essence of the areas and describe how they are structured? Not at allNot very accuratelyQuite accuratelyVery accurately

96. 96 Mathematics and Statistics 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=4815) % Primary (n=4016) % Secondary school (n=513) % Not answered 484941 Some curriculum areas not covered/Some areas not fully covered e.g.. technology/Social Sciences/Maths 8710 Too vague/Not detailed enough/Need more in depth information/Examples 7711 Some terminology difficult to understand/use of jargon confusing/some parts too wordy 554 Easy to understand/Clear terminology/Concise 553 Why not call mathematics and statistics just mathematics 332 No Treaty of Waitangi/Bicultural references included e.g. In Social Sciences/Arts/Science/Te Reo Maori not specified in languages 331 Good layout/the way levels/strands shown/Colour coding helps/the way summarised 222 Base: All respondents who answered the associated closed-ended question

97. 97 Q9. Learning area descriptions Science (1) Base: All respondents who answered question Q9) How accurately do the descriptions of the learning areas capture the essence of the areas and describe how they are structured? Not at allNot very accuratelyQuite accuratelyVery accurately

98. 98 Q9. Learning area descriptions Science (2) Base: All respondents who answered question Q9) How accurately do the descriptions of the learning areas capture the essence of the areas and describe how they are structured? Not at allNot very accuratelyQuite accuratelyVery accurately

99. 99 Science 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=4638) % Primary (n=3757) % Secondary school (n=576) % Not answered 474938 Some curriculum areas not covered/Some areas not fully covered e.g. technology/Social Sciences/Maths 8712 Too vague/Not detailed enough/Need more in depth information/Examples 8714 Some terminology difficult to understand/use of jargon confusing/some parts too wordy 553 Easy to understand/Clear terminology/Concise 553 No Treaty of Waitangi/Bicultural references included e.g. In Social Sciences/Arts/Science/Te Reo Maori not specified in languages 331 Base: All respondents who answered the associated closed-ended question

100. 100 Q9. Learning area descriptions Social Sciences (1) Base: All respondents who answered question Q9) How accurately do the descriptions of the learning areas capture the essence of the areas and describe how they are structured? Not at allNot very accuratelyQuite accuratelyVery accurately

101. 101 Q9. Learning area descriptions Social Sciences (2) Base: All respondents who answered question Q9) How accurately do the descriptions of the learning areas capture the essence of the areas and describe how they are structured? Not at allNot very accuratelyQuite accuratelyVery accurately

102. 102 Social Science 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=4659) % Primary (n=3720) % Secondary school (n=629) % Not answered 474938 Some curriculum areas not covered/Some areas not fully covered e.g. technology/Social Sciences/Maths 9720 Too vague/Not detailed enough/Need more in depth information/Examples 777 Some terminology difficult to understand/use of jargon confusing/some parts too wordy 552 Easy to understand/Clear terminology/Concise 552 No Treaty of Waitangi/Bicultural references included e.g. In Social Sciences/Arts/Science/Te Reo Maori not specified in languages 333 Base: All respondents who answered the associated closed-ended question

103. 103 Q9. Learning area descriptions Technology (1) Base: All respondents who answered question Q9) How accurately do the descriptions of the learning areas capture the essence of the areas and describe how they are structured? Not at allNot very accuratelyQuite accuratelyVery accurately

104. 104 Q9. Learning area descriptions Technology (2) Base: All respondents who answered question Q9) How accurately do the descriptions of the learning areas capture the essence of the areas and describe how they are structured? Not at allNot very accuratelyQuite accuratelyVery accurately

105. 105 Technology 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=4328) % Primary (n=3443) % Secondary school (n=596) % Not answered 474941 Some curriculum areas not covered/Some areas not fully covered e.g. technology/Social Sciences/Maths 8711 Too vague/Not detailed enough/Need more in depth information/Examples 8710 Some terminology difficult to understand/use of jargon confusing/some parts too wordy 668 Easy to understand/Clear terminology/Concise 554 No Treaty of Waitangi/Bicultural references included e.g. In Social Sciences/Arts/Science/Te Reo Maori not specified in languages 331 Base: All respondents who answered the associated closed-ended question

106. 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. 107 Q10. Statements of outcomes Base: All respondents who answered question Q10) Do the achievement objectives state student outcomes in a way that teachers and students are likely to find useful? Not at allIn some casesIn most casesYes, definitely

108. 108 Q10. Statements of outcomes Arts (1) Base: All respondents who answered question Q10) Do the achievement objectives state student outcomes in a way that teachers and students are likely to find useful? Not at allIn some casesIn most casesYes, definitely

109. 109 Q10. Statements of outcomes Arts (2) Base: All respondents who answered question Q10) Do the achievement objectives state student outcomes in a way that teachers and students are likely to find useful? Not at allIn some casesIn most casesYes, definitely

110. 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) % Secondary school (n=432) % Not answered 464744 Too broad/Need more specific details/Too vague/Too wordy 888 Need more guidance/Examples of scenarios/More support/Professional development 666 Achievement objectives quite broad/A.O's need specific goals/A.O's need to include outcomes 554 Terminology difficult to interpret/Disagree with some words/Language too specialised/Too much jargon 555 Some curriculum areas not covered/Not fully covered e.g.technology/History 444 Simple/Easy to follow 452 Not helpful for students/Students would need interpretation/Students need simpler text/too in depth 335 Base: All respondents who answered the associated closed-ended question

111. 111 Q10. Statements of outcomes English (1) Base: All respondents who answered question Q10) Do the achievement objectives state student outcomes in a way that teachers and students are likely to find useful? Not at allIn some casesIn most casesYes, definitely

112. 112 Q10. Statements of outcomes English (2) Base: All respondents who answered question Q10) Do the achievement objectives state student outcomes in a way that teachers and students are likely to find useful? Not at allIn some casesIn most casesYes, definitely

113. 113 English Comments Q10. Do the achievement objectives state student outcomes in a way that teachers and students are likely to find useful? Total (n=4929) % Primary (n=4078) % Secondary school (n=552) % Not answered 474843 Too broad/Need more specific details/Too vague/Too wordy 887 Need more guidance/Examples of scenarios/More support/Professional development 666 Achievement objectives quite broad/A.O's need specific goals/A.O's need to include outcomes 553 Terminology difficult to interpret/Disagree with some words/Language too specialised/Too much jargon 556 Simple/Easy to follow 554 Some curriculum areas not covered/Not fully covered e.g. technology/History 452 Not helpful for students/Students would need interpretation/Students need simpler text/too in depth 336 Base: All respondents who answered the associated closed-ended question

114. 114 Q10. Statements of outcomes Health & Physical Education (1) Base: All respondents who answered question Q10) Do the achievement objectives state student outcomes in a way that teachers and students are likely to find useful? Not at allIn some casesIn most casesYes, definitely

115. 115 Q10. Statements of outcomes Health & Physical Education (2) Base: All respondents who answered question Q10) Do the achievement objectives state student outcomes in a way that teachers and students are likely to find useful? Not at allIn some casesIn most casesYes, definitely

116. 116 Health & Physical Education Comments Q10. Do the achievement objectives state student outcomes in a way that teachers and students are likely to find useful? Total (n=4391) % Primary (n=3637) % Secondary school (n=484) % Not answered 474842 Too broad/Need more specific details/Too vague/Too wordy 886 Need more guidance/Examples of scenarios/More support/Professional development 668 Achievement objectives quite broad/A.O's need specific goals/A.O's need to include outcomes 555 Terminology difficult to interpret/Disagree with some words/Language too specialised/Too much jargon 453 Simple/Easy to follow 443 Some curriculum areas not covered/Not fully covered e.g. technology/History 442 Not helpful for students/Students would need interpretation/Students need simpler text/too in depth 334 Base: All respondents who answered the associated closed-ended question

117. 117 Q10. Statements of outcomes Learning Languages (1) Base: All respondents who answered question Q10) Do the achievement objectives state student outcomes in a way that teachers and students are likely to find useful? Not at allIn some casesIn most casesYes, definitely

118. 118 Q10. Statements of outcomes Learning Languages (2) Base: All respondents who answered question Q10) Do the achievement objectives state student outcomes in a way that teachers and students are likely to find useful? Not at allIn some casesIn most casesYes, definitely

119. 119 Learning Languages Comments Q10. Do the achievement objectives state student outcomes in a way that teachers and students are likely to find useful? Total (n=3409) % Primary (n=2848) % Secondary school (n=335) % Not answered 464833 Too broad/Need more specific details/Too vague/Too wordy 8814 Need more guidance/Examples of scenarios/More support/Professional development 666 Achievement objectives quite broad/A.O's need specific goals/A.O's need to include outcomes 554 Terminology difficult to interpret/Disagree with some words/Language too specialised/Too much jargon 555 Simple/Easy to follow 443 Some curriculum areas not covered/Not fully covered e.g. technology/History 343 Treaty of Waitangi must be part of curriculum/include Maori culture and Te Reo for all pupils 333 Not helpful for students/Students would need interpretation/Students need simpler text/too in depth 334 Different layouts confusing/need a standard layout/all levels together/AO's by learning areas/Fold-outs better design 333 Unsure about relevance of learning languages/when teaching starts which languages to be taught? 324 Base: All respondents who answered the associated closed-ended question

120. 120 Q10. Statements of outcomes Mathematics & Statistics (1) Base: All respondents who answered question Q10) Do the achievement objectives state student outcomes in a way that teachers and students are likely to find useful? Not at allIn some casesIn most casesYes, definitely

121. 121 Q10. Statements of outcomes Mathematics & Statistics (2) Base: All respondents who answered question Q10) Do the achievement objectives state student outcomes in a way that teachers and students are likely to find useful? Not at allIn some casesIn most casesYes, definitely

122. 122 Mathematics & Statistics Comments Q10. Do the achievement objectives state student outcomes in a way that teachers and students are likely to find useful? Total (n=4623) % Primary (n=3874) % Secondary school (n=479) % Not answered 47 39 Too broad/Need more specific details/Too vague/Too wordy 8815 Need more guidance/Examples of scenarios/More support/Professional development 7612 Achievement objectives quite broad/A.O's need specific goals/A.O's need to include outcomes 555 Terminology difficult to interpret/Disagree with some words/Language too specialised/Too much jargon 554 Some curriculum areas not covered/Not fully covered e.g.. technology/History 443 Simple/Easy to follow 442 Not helpful for students/Students would need interpretation/Students need simpler text/too in depth 336 Different layouts confusing/need a standard layout/all levels together/AO's by learning areas/Fold-outs better design 333 Base: All respondents who answered the associated closed-ended question

123. 123 Q10. Statements of outcomes Science (1) Base: All respondents who answered question Q10) Do the achievement objectives state student outcomes in a way that teachers and students are likely to find useful? Not at allIn some casesIn most casesYes, definitely

124. 124 Q10. Statements of outcomes Science (2) Base: All respondents who answered question Q10) Do the achievement objectives state student outcomes in a way that teachers and students are likely to find useful? Not at allIn some casesIn most casesYes, definitely

125. 125 Science Comments Q10. Do the achievement objectives state student outcomes in a way that teachers and students are likely to find useful? Total (n=4432) % Primary (n=3588) % Secondary school (n=560) % Not answered 47 35 Too broad/Need more specific details/Too vague/Too wordy 10820 Need more guidance/Examples of scenarios/More support/Professional development 768 Achievement objectives quite broad/A.O's need specific goals/A.O's need to include outcomes 556 Terminology difficult to interpret/Disagree with some words/Language too specialised/Too much jargon 453 Some curriculum areas not covered/Not fully covered i.e. technology/History 453 Simple/Easy to follow 451 Not helpful for students/Students would need interpretation/Students need simpler text/too in depth 335 Base: All respondents who answered the associated closed-ended question

126. 126 Q10. Statements of outcomes Social Sciences (1) Base: All respondents who answered question Q10) Do the achievement objectives state student outcomes in a way that teachers and students are likely to find useful? Not at allIn some casesIn most casesYes, definitely

127. 127 Q10. Statements of outcomes Social Sciences (2) Base: All respondents who answered question Q10) Do the achievement objectives state student outcomes in a way that teachers and students are likely to find useful? Not at allIn some casesIn most casesYes, definitely

128. 128 Social Sciences Comments Q10. Do the achievement objectives state student outcomes in a way that teachers and students are likely to find useful? Total (n=4424) % Primary (n=3534) % Secondary school (n=604) % Not answered 464739 Too broad/Need more specific details/Too vague/Too wordy 889 Need more guidance/Examples of scenarios/More support/Professional development 667 Achievement objectives quite broad/A.O's need specific goals/A.O's need to include outcomes 557 Some curriculum areas not covered/Not fully covered i.e. technology/History 547 Terminology difficult to interpret/Disagree with some words/Language too specialised/Too much jargon 452 Simple/Easy to follow 452 Treaty of Waitangi must be part of curriculum/include Maori culture and Te Reo for all pupils 332 Not helpful for students/Students would need interpretation/Students need simpler text/too in depth 333 Base: All respondents who answered the associated closed-ended question

129. 129 Q10. Statements of outcomes Technology (1) Base: All respondents who answered question Q10) Do the achievement objectives state student outcomes in a way that teachers and students are likely to find useful? Not at allIn some casesIn most casesYes, definitely

130. 130 Q10. Statements of outcomes Technology (2) Base: All respondents who answered question Q10) Do the achievement objectives state student outcomes in a way that teachers and students are likely to find useful? Not at allIn some casesIn most casesYes, definitely

131. 131 Technology Comments Q10. Do the achievement objectives state student outcomes in a way that teachers and students are likely to find useful? Total (n=1677) % Primary (n=1232) % Secondary school (n=339) % Not answered 303226 Terminology difficult to interpret/Disagree with some words/Language too specialised/Too much jargon 11 12 Too broad/Need more specific details/Too vague/Too wordy 10 9 Need more guidance/Examples of scenarios/More support/Professional development 10913 Achievement objectives quite broad/A.O's need specific goals/A.O's need to include outcomes 674 Not helpful for students/Students would need interpretation/Students need simpler text/too in depth 6412 Some curriculum areas not covered/Not fully covered e.g.. technology/History 554 Concern over achievement levels/unrealistic expectations at some levels/how levels overlap 447 Simple/Easy to follow 443 Resources needed - funding/Time for high workloads/Specialist teachers 434 Base: All respondents who answered the associated closed-ended question

132. 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. 133 Appendix: Demographic Tables

134. 134 Demographics North IslandSouth Island Region(n=)%Region(n=)% Auckland254828Canterbury100511 Bay of Plenty5086Marlborough961 Gisborne1311Nelson1151 Hawkes Bay3524Otago4505 Manawatu4885Southland3123 Northland3013Tasman901 Taranaki2493West Coast641 Waikato89810South Island213223 Wellington87610Not stated6347 North Island635170Total9117100 Base: All respondents (n=9117) Respondents by region

135. 135 *= % between 0.0% and 0.5% Demographics Decile Survey MethodCity/DistrictType 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) % 1781061141-1 2489796--2 3510 998-- 47961399--9 599614812--5 6998139 --1 791211131114--0 8777887--3 911 13912111-0 1014131971316--14 Not available 1*1**1--8 135

136. 136 Demographics Survey Method Total (n=9117) City (n=4775) District (n=3706) %% Online212016 Hardcopy798084 Note: ’Not applicable’ category not shown

137. 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) Secondary school 9-13 (n=2309) Universities/ College of Education (n=154) %%%% Online15131624172757 Hardcopy85878476837343 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) %%%% Online20105228-538 Hardcopy809048721004792

138. 138 Demographics Survey Method Contributors (1) Principal (n=1104) Teacher (n=7710) Other (n=264) Parent (n=970) Family (n=187) %%% Online2718-3236 Hardcopy73821006864 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) %%% Online44294936- Hardcopy56715164100

139. 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) Secondary school 7-13 (n=741) Secondary school 9-13 (n=2309) Universities/ College of Education (n=154) %%%% City614270564960NA District395830445040NA 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) %%%% CityNA84NA97NA DistrictNA16NA3

140. 140 Demographics City/District Contributors (1) Principal (n=1104) Teacher (n=7710) Other (n=264) Parent (n=970) Family (n=187) %%% City3955424543 District5842284537 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) %%% City4139244652 District3955132638 Note: ’Not applicable’ category not shown, thus, figures do not add up to 100%

141. 141 Demographics School Type (Grouped) School Type Contributors (1) Principal (n=1104) Teacher (n=7710) Other (n=264) Parent (n=970) Family (n=187) %%% Primary90595556 Secondary735143423 Tertiary--923 Other schools231248 Not answered111134

142. 142 Demographics School Type (Grouped) School Type 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) %%% Primary4277243154 Secondary3716113934 Tertiary5-40101 Other schools5311104 Not answered43547

143. 143 The End