HADLOW SCHOOL CHARTER 2014 - 2016

1

HADLOW SCHOOL CHARTER 2014 - 2016

Hadlow School was founded in 1929 as a privately owned, primary boys’ school in the

English preparatory school tradition. It was purchased in 1954 by the St Matthew’s Trust

Board (now the Trinity Schools’ Trust Board) which has maintained the school’s association

with the Church of the Province of New Zealand (Anglican). Hadlow provides a teaching

and learning programme based on the Anglican interpretation of the Christian faith.

Hadlow is now one of three schools and a preschool under the proprietorship of the Trinity

School’s Trust Board, the others being Rathkeale College and St Matthew’s Collegiate

School. The Trinity Schools’ Trust Board, as proprietor of Hadlow, is responsible for most

of the school property and for the preservation and development of the Special Character of

the school.

The Special Character of Hadlow School is defined in Schedule 4, Clause 17 of the

Integration Deed of Agreement between the Crown and the Trinity Schools’ Trust Board,

dated 22 December 1998. Integral to this Special Character is the development of each child

as a whole being, focusing on the development of the spiritual, academic, cultural and

physical dimension of each child. An essential element of Hadlow School’s Special

Character is the reinforcement of a strong, positive moral code based on Christian standards

and values.

MISSION

To foster learning by educating for excellence through academic, physical,

cultural, and spiritual challenges in a caring and safe environment.

The Hadlow School Board of Trustees will ensure that every child at Hadlow School receives

an education which addresses their needs and which fulfils our aim to educate for excellence

in each of the spiritual, academic, cultural and physical dimensions. Education of Hadlow

pupils will be based upon the Anglican interpretation of the Christian faith in accordance with

the Special Character of the School pursuant to the Integration Agreement. The National

Education Goals and the National Administration Guidelines will be complied with, and form

part of this charter.

Hadlow School welcomes all learners. The school is committed to their engagement in all

school activities and to their achievement.

2

VISION

A Hadlow learner will be literate, self-managing, self-motivated, confident,

respectful, and responsible.

VALUES

At Hadlow we value:

committed learners

passionate teachers

innovation and inquiry

respect, friendliness and truthfulness

a balance of flexibility and structure to the day

specialist curriculum delivery

STRATEGIC PRIORITIES 2014 – 2016 1. To identify, preserve and celebrate the values and special character of the school.

2. To develop and implement systems and programmes to improve pupil achievement,

with emphasis on numeracy and literacy.

3. To ensure all pupils, including those with special education needs, are provided with

a variety of opportunities to enable them to become self-managing learners.

4. To develop, implement and review a school-wide programme for sport development.

5. To ensure all staff maintain a high quality of teaching practice and build sound parent-

teacher relationships.

TREATY OBLIGATIONS/CULTURAL DIVERSITY The Hadlow Board of Trustees will promote and foster tolerance and understanding of the

many different cultures and their values at the school. The school is predominantly European

in its pupil demographics with less than ten percent acknowledging a different cultural

affiliation. Maori and Asian children would make up this group. The school will consciously

develop policies and protocols to acknowledge New Zealand’s cultural diversity and, in

particular, the unique position of Maori as the tangata whenua. Hadlow School

acknowledges the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. All pupils will have the opportunity

to acquire knowledge of Te Reo Maori and Tikanga Maori.

PARTNERSHIPS The Hadlow Board of Trustees acknowledges that learning is enhanced if a partnership is

established between the school and its community. To encourage and enhance that

partnership, the school will consult effectively with the school community on an on-going

basis, recognising that all people in the school community contribute to the values and

traditions and heritage of Hadlow School.

The Hadlow Board of Trustees will work constructively and cooperatively with the Trinity

Schools’ Trust Board as proprietor, pursuant to the Integration Agreement and the obligations

created by that agreement, particularly in relation to the Special Character of Hadlow as one

of the Trinity Schools. The Hadlow Board (and its trustees) as one of its functions will act as

agent for the Trinity Schools’ Trust Board as and when required or as and when is

appropriate, in order to fulfil the responsibilities or obligations created by the Integration

3

Agreement or by Statute or accepted by the Hadlow Board of Trustees pursuant to a

decision/resolution of the Hadlow Board.

SPECIAL CHARACTER STATEMENT Hadlow is an Anglican, coeducational, full primary day school offering programmes of

worship, religious studies, a strong moral code, and providing a well-rounded education

promoting excellence through academic, cultural, sporting and spiritual pursuits in which all

pupils and teaching staff are expected to participate fully.

Hadlow School is the junior school of the Trinity Schools, a family of schools offering

education from preschool to Year 13.

By the Trust Deed of 1921 of the St Matthew’s Schools’ Trust Board (now TSTB), the

Proprietor holds property to establish and maintain schools in connection with the Church of

the Province of New Zealand (Anglican). In this regard Hadlow Preparatory School was

purchased by the St Matthew’s Schools’ Trust Board as one of its family of schools.

Key Understandings:

1. Although Anglican, Hadlow welcomes pupils into its environment from all cultures,

religions and faiths who will undertake to uphold the Special Character of the school.

2. The moral code of conduct upheld at Hadlow is based on Christian standards and

values, and those of the Virtues Project.

3. All pupils are expected to fully participate in the extra-curricular programmes provided

at the school.

4. When parents enrol their children at Hadlow they are accepting the condition that their

children will participate in the programmes that make up the school’s Special Character.

4

0%

18%

52%

30%

National Standards Writing 2013

WB

Below

At

Above

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Below At Above

%

NS Writing 2013 Gender

Boys

Girls

0

13

44

43

National Standards Writing 2012

WB

Below

At

Above

Annual Report: 2013 Analysis of Variance

Writing To increase the achievement level of all boys who are currently achieving below and at the

standard, school-wide.

To reduce the percentage of boys achieving below the standard in writing to less than 15%.

To increase the percentage of boys achieving above the standard to more that 35%.

The basis for these goals was that, although in 2012 87% of the school achieved at or above

the standard, boys were over-represented below the standard and under-represented above the

standard. In 2012 18% of the boys achieved below the standard compared to only 9% of the

girls, and only 26% of the boys achieved above the standard compared to 58% of the girls.

The goal was not achieved in 2013. The percentage of learners achieving at or above the

standard in writing reduced by 5% to 85% overall, while the proportion of boys achieving

below the standard rose by 8% to 26% while the girls’ proportion increased by 1% to 10%

The actual number of boys failing to achieve the standard increased from eighteen in 2012 to

twenty-four. In 2012 the groups of boys that exceeded the 15% level below the standard

were the after one year at school cohorts, the after three years cohorts, and the Y5 and Y6

boys. The proportion achieving below the standard ranged from 20% to 57%.

2013 after two years at school cohort group – to accelerate the progress and achievement of

the learners to ensure they are assessed as writing at the proficient or advanced level at

curriculum level 1 after two years at school, and achieving at the standard.

5

The 2012 after one year at school group improved their overall performance in writing as the

after two years at school group, reducing the number and proportion from 57% to 36%,

although the actual number of boys remained the same. The original four boys identified at

the end of 2012 all improved their writing achievement level to be at the standard after two

years at school. The four boys currently achieving below the standard were new entrants to

the school in 2013, and therefore not part of the target group, specifically.

After One Year at School 2011 After Two Years at School 2012

A2Y(1) 1A Below 2P At

A2Y(2) 1P Below 2B At

A2Y(3) 1P Below 2P At

A2Y(4) 1P Below 2P At

To provide an explicit writing to accelerate progress and achievement for the 2013 Y4&5 to

ensure they are writing at the proficient or advanced stage of curriculum level 2.

Of the three boys identified at the 2012 after three years at school and at the end of Y4 cohort

groups, none improved his achievement level and the same number remain below the

standard. Two of these particular boys have identified learning deficiencies in the literacy

field and this has had an impact on their progress. All have received specialist intervention

and support during the year but although they have made progress, the progress has not been

sufficiently accelerated to allow them to achieve at the standard. Only one of the three boys

achieved the goal to be writing at the proficient or advanced level of the relevant curriculum

achievement level.

Of the fifteen boys who achieved below the standard at the end of 2012, one (7%) left the

school at the beginning of 2013, eight (53%) progressed to be writing at the standard, and six

(40%) remained below the standard. Their achievement profile is detailed below

Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 Y6 Y7 Y8

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4

Y4 1P 1A 2B 2B

Y5(1) 1A 3B 1A

Y5(2) 1B 1P 1A 2A 2P

Y6 1B 1A 2B 2B 2A 3B

Y7(1) 1B 1P 1A 2B 2P 2P 3B

Y7(2) 1B 1P 1A 2P 2B 3B 3P

Y8 3B 3B

The chart documents the year end assessment for writing. Initially the assessment was an

overall teacher judgement based on moderation against the national writing exemplars, but at

the Y4 –Y8 levels the e-asTTle assessment programme is used to determine the level of

achievement in writing across the curriculum, which determines the level of achievement

against the national standard. The expectation is that learners will achieve at the proficient or

advanced stage of the appropriate curriculum achievement level (1-4) at the end of the two-

year period. Another trend that affects the level of achievement is the personal bias a teacher

may use when assessing writing. The chart above highlights a gradual improvement in

achievement but a regression after Y4. Y5(1) for example improved from advanced level 1

to basic level 3, a total of four stages, but then was re-assessed at the end of Y5 at the same

level as at the end of Y3. This highlights the need to ensure that the assessment of the writing

6

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Year Group

N S Writing 2013 Year Groups

is valid and consistent across the school. The implementation of e-asTTle should improve

this, although the subjective nature of writing does mean there is greater teacher-discretion

regarding the allocation of achievement levels. The Ministry has trialled an assessment tool

to ensure there is greater consistency, but this is yet to be released.

It is also relevant to acknowledge that the school enrols children at different levels because

parents are concerned about a lack of progress at their child’s current school, and there is

often a significant intake of boys especially at the Y7 level from contributing schools. These

additions to the original cohort groups can and do alter the achievement profile of the school.

Using only those boys who were a part of the 2012 and 2013 school demographic, in reading

63% maintained their 2012 level of achievement, 27% regressed a level, and 10% lifted their

level of achievement (from below to at or from at to above). The two areas where there was

the greatest proportion of regression were at the end of three years’ milestone (50%) and at

the end of Y7 (40%).

The proportion of learners achieving at the different levels of national standards fluctuates

considerably across the year levels. The following graph illustrates this. There are large

portions at the after one year at school, Y4, Y5 and Y6 levels and then there are much smaller

groups at the after two and three years, and the Y7&8 levels. The Y7 level also has the

highest proportion achieving below the standard, and this is a combination of a small group

of existing pupils being joined by a significant group of new entrants who are achieving

below the standard. A change of teaching personnel also has an impact on the resulting

achievement profile because of a different interpretation of assessment data and the overall

teacher judgement. The development of a two-year hub with teachers operating more

collaboratively will promote greater collegial discussions about the progress of learners.

The graph below shows the achievement profile for the after one year at school cohort group

for the last four years. 2010 was the year of implementation of national standards and

procedures and processes were not well established so there was greater variation. In 2011

and 2012 the proportion above the standard was quite small, but this year the proportion has

increased exponentially, and the number achieving below the standard has reduced

significantly.

7

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

%

2010 A1Y 2011 A1Y 2012 A1Y 2013 A1Y

NS Writing After 1 Year 2010-2013

Above

At

Below

0%

16%

52%

32%

National Standards Mathematics 2013

WB

Below

At

Above

0

16

55

29

National Standards Mathematics 2012

WB

Below

At

Above

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Below At Above

%

NS Mathematics 2013 Gender

Boys

Girls

Mathematics To increase the percentage of girls achieving above the standard to 30%, and decrease the

percentage at the standard as progress is accelerated.

Although 29% achieved above the standard last year, this was made up of a proportion of

only 21% of the girls compared to 38% of the boys. This year the overall proportion

achieving above the standard was 32% - 37% of the boys and 27% of the girls. While the

proportion of boys achieving above the standard has not changed significantly, the girls’

proportion has increased by 6%, and is inching closer to 30%. The 30% mark was achieved

or bettered at the Y4 (31%), Y6 (44%), and Y5 (64%) levels. The proportion at the standard

has reduced from 63% in 2012 to 56% in 2013.

The proportion of girls below the standard is only fractionally higher than the boys (17%

compared to 15%) but is 8% more at the standard (56% compared to 48%). The proportion

below the standard in 2012 was the same for boys and girls (16%), but at the standard there

was a 17% difference – 63% of the girls, 46% of the boys – and above the standard the

difference was also 17% - 21% of the girls, 38% of the boys.

8

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2011 After 1YAS 2012 After 2YAS 2013 After 3YAS

NS Mathematics After 3 Years at School Cohort Progress

Above

At

Below

2012 after one year at school: 39% achieved below the standard after one year at school –

37% of the girls did not meet the standard and none of the girls was above the standard. To

accelerate the progress of the girls achieving below the standard to have reduced the number

achieving below the standard, and to have a proportion achieving above the standard.

Of the five girls who originally formed the cohort group above, three (60%) have achieved

the standard, one failed to meet the standard (20 %,) while one (20%) left the school at the

beginning of 2013. The number achieving below the standard at the end of two years was

still five girls, because three further girls regressed from being at the standard to being below

the standard.

NS

2012

NS

2013

ADD/SUB

2012

ADD/SUB

2013

MULT/DIV

2012

MULT/DIV

2013

PROP/RATIO

2012

PROP/RATIO

2013 1 Below At 2-3 5 0-1 4 0-1 4 2 Below At 2-3 4 0-1 4 2-3 4 3 Below At 2-3 4 0-1 4 2-3 4 4 Below Below 1 3 0 2-3 1 2-3

2012 after two years at school: only one girl (8%) achieved above the standard while 67%

achieved at the standard. To accelerate the 2013 after three years at school girls’ cohort

group to have more girls achieving above the standard.

In 2013 22% of the girls achieved above the standard, an increase of 14% from the previous

year, but that was an increase of only one girl. The number of girls in the cohort group

reduced by two which increased the individual pupil value. One girl left the school before

the end of 2013 and the other girl was reclassified as at the end of Y4. In 2012 67% had

achieved the standard while 25% failed to achieve the standard. In 2013 the proportion who

achieved at the standard rose to 75% while the proportion who failed to meet the standard

was 12%.

The graph below highlights the achievement profile of the after three years at school cohort

group (both boys and girls) since starting school in 2011. It is acknowledged that there will

have been changes to the group’s composition, but the graph does show a very small

proportion achieving above the standard, a gradually decreasing proportion below the

standard, and a large proportion at the standard.

The class profile for the PAT mathematics assessment shows significant progress was made

from the beginning of the year to the end of the year. At the start of the year 47% were

9

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

%

Stanine Level

PAT Y3 SOY/EOY PROGRESS

National

SOY

EOY

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

%

Stanine

PAT Maths SOY/EOY Y3 Girls

SOY

EOY

NAT

classified as ‘average’ (stanines 4-6), and 53% ‘above average’ (stanines 7-9). This had

changed to only 14% classified average and a creditable 86% classified as above average.

The following graph compares the girls’ performance at the Y3 level with the national model

of achievement distribution. The progress is evident by the degreasing proportion of girls

achieving at stanines 4-6, and the increase in numbers achieving at stanines 7-9, and

especially at stanine 9 where the national expectation is 4%, and where the Y3 girls increased

from 0% at the start of the year to 57% at the end of the year. The PAT assessment is only

one tool that is used to determine an overall teacher judgement, along with the NUMP

diagnostic interview and the anecdotal information collected by the teacher during the year.

The same national standard achievement profile is not evident for this group for reading or

writing, where there has been significant growth of learners achieving above the standard in

reading (from 40% to 80% over three years), although there is a greater fluctuation in writing.

This particular group was the foundation group for national standards in 2011 and will be an

appropriate cohort to track to identify the progress that can be achieved longitudinally.

10

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


NS Reading After 3 Years at School Cohort Progress

Above

At

Below

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


NS Writing After 3 Years at School Cohort Progress

Above

At

Below

The reading and mathematics assessments tend to be more formal and standardised, and

possibly provide a more objective or clearer indication of achievement. At the Y3 level

there is not an equivalent PAT assessment for reading, but it will be interesting to review the

class’s performance using the PAT programme next year as the Y4 cohort group.

2012 Y5&Y6: only 27% achieved above the standard in maths at the end of both years. To

have accelerated the progress of the girls to increase the proportion of girls achieving above

the standard by the end of 2013 Y6&Y7 respectively.

The 2013 Y6 girls’ cohort group improved their achievement profile to have 44% achieving

above the standard. The proportion achieving at the standard was similar for both the years

(47%/50%) but the proportion achieving below the standard in 2012 (26%) was reduced to

6%.

The 2012 Y6 girls’ cohort group numbered ten, but eight of this group left the school at the

end of the year to attend St Matthew’s and the Y7 girls in 2013 only numbered three.

Because of this difference in numbers it is not appropriate to make a comparison with the

performance of the group over the year. The two girls who remained at the school

11

maintained their achievement level at the standard. The chart below documents their

achievement levels since Y3 using the Numeracy Project diagnostic interviews and

assessments, and the PAT stanine at the beginning of each year, and at the end of Y6 & Y7.

Progress has been maintained but there has not always been sustained acceleration to lift the

overall achievement level.

NUMP STAGES PAT MATHEMATICS STANINES

Y3 Y4 Y5 Y6 Y7 Y3 Y4 Y5 Y6 Y7

1 4 5 5 6 7 3 5 5 5 6 6 5

4 5 6 6 7

4 5 5 6 7

2 5 5 6 6 6 4 3 4 5 6 5 6

5 5 6 6 6

4 5 6 6 6

2012 Y7: 90% of the girls achieved at the standard. To provide a teaching and learning

structure that addresses the needs of the girls and to accelerate their progress so they are

represented above the standard by the end of Y8.

The national standards achievement profile for the 2013 Y8 girls has 70% at the standard,

10% below the standard, and 20% above the standard. During 2013 the Y7&8 classes

developed a future-focused, flexible learning programme with cross-grouping of the two

year-groups depending of the particular needs of the learners. Girl-only groups were also

formed for maths tuition to ensure that the girls were not dominated or intimidated by the

boys. The girls had the benefit of two teachers completing their group instruction depending

on the organisation of the groups, and access to both of the teachers when required.

There are now two girls achieving above the standard and end-of-year testing identified that

progress had been made. In the PAT test all but one girl improved the SOY raw score level,

one by ten marks.

The progress made is highlighted in the comparison of NUMP stages of last year and this

year, and PAT SOY & EOY stanine levels. There are a number of observations which need

some clarification. The apparent regression in the NUMP stages highlights the discretionary

power individual teachers have when completing an assessment activity with the learners.

The 2013 results are potentially more accurate because there would have been two-teacher

input into the decision using a wider sample group.

NUMP STAGE PAT 2012 SOY/EOY PAT 2013 SOY/EOY

1 7, 7, 7 7, 8, 8 6 6 5 7

2 6-7, 7, 7 7, 7, 6 5 6 4 4

3 6-7, 6, 6 7, 6, 6 5 5 5 5

4 7, 7, 7 6, 6, 6 5 6 4 6

5 6-7, 5-6, 6 6, 6, 6 3 5 4 4

6 7, 7, 7 7, 7, 8 6 7 7 6

7 7, 7, 8 7, 7, 8 7 7 7 8

8 7, 7, 7 7, 7, 7 7 8 6 7

9 7, 7-8, 7 7, 7, 7 7 8 7 8

The sixteen boys and girls who achieved below the standard in 2012. To accelerate the

progress of all children achieving below the standard to improve their mathematics standard.

12

0

50

100

150

Below At Above

%

2012/2013 Below the Standard

2012

2013

0%

13%

35% 52%

National Standards Reading 2013

WB

Below

At

Above

0

15

30 55

National Standards Reading 2012

Well Below

Below

At

Above

The thirty-two children (16 boys and 16 girls) cannot be compared validly with the national

standards profile of 2013 because the 2012 Y8 children were not at school in 2013, and there

is a new after one year at school group for 2013. The comparison can therefore only be the

twenty-three who were involved in both years. Of the 2012 group, one progressed from

below to above the standard; nine progressed to be at the standard, and thirteen remained

below the standard. That means 43% of the group progressed.

Reading

85% of the school is achieving at or above the standard in reading. To progress all children

from their present level of achievement against the standard, to decrease the percentage

achieving below the standard and to increase the percentage achieving above the standard.

The two graphs above highlight the distribution of the school population across the four

levels of achievement for the national standards’ reading. Although the graphs show an

increase in the proportion achieving above the standard and a decrease of the proportion

below the standard, they are not comparing the same cohort groups because of the inevitable

changes to the roll during the year and the departure of the 2012 Y8 group and first

assessment of the 2013 after one year at school cohort group.

The comparison with the different year levels does give a profile of achievement levels and

highlights where there are areas of high achievement and also areas of under achievement but

each year must be treated separately.

13

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Year Group

NS Reading 2013 Year Groups

Above

At

Below

WB

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

NS Reading 2012 Year Group Performance

Above

At

Below

Well Below

Starting at the left-hand side of the graph, the comparison of the 2012 and 2013 after one year

at school cohort group shows different achievement profiles. In 2012 the group was almost

evenly divided amongst below, at and above, but the 2013 cohort group has a small

proportion at the below and at levels. However, comparing the 2012 after one year with the

2013 after two years (and allowing for the roll changes) the profile is not dissimilar. The

2012 after two years at school achievement profile is significantly different to the 2013 after

three years at school, although there would not have been such a change in the roll. The

greatest proportion above the standard at the end of 2012 was the Y4 class (84%), but this

reduced to 68% in 2013 as the Y5 group, although there were not any changes to the roll.

Much of the variation is teacher judgement against expectations when interpreting the

benchmark levels of achievement for the standards. In reading it is relatively objective to

determine a child’s instructional and independent reading level using the running records, and

the STAR and PAT assessments provide very through data analysis and indicators of

achievement against the national model, but the reading assessment is across the curriculum

rather than just being in reading instructional groups, so teacher judgement is a significant

component of the overall assessment.

When setting the goal above, to progress all the children to increase the proportion above and

decrease the proportion below the standard, the trial strategy was to cross-group across

14

different year-levels to ensure that the particular needs of groups of children could be

addressed more effectively and efficiently by the teachers. The Y7&8 classes had initiated

this programme in 2012 and it was implemented school wide in 2013. The Y0&Y1 and the

Y5&Y6 classes operated as two-year level hubs with cross-grouping and collaborative

teaching. The Y2, Y3, & Y4 classes also cross-grouped and made use of teacher-support

personal which allowed them to reduce the teacher-pupil ration for reading from 1:23 to 1:12.

Children with particular learning needs were targeted, and received daily, individual or small-

group instruction and support. There still remains a small but significant group of under-

achievers who are making progress but are not achieving at a level required to be at the

standard. Further investigation and implementation of different strategies need to be

developed. The nature of the pupil intake at key levels also can have a significant effect on

the school’s achievement profile. Those children that join us ‘mid-stream’ often do so

because parents are dissatisfied with their children’s progress at the current school and we are

perceived to be a school which can lift achievement levels in the learners.

First Three Years at School The school’s 2011& 2012 national standards’ data highlights an exceptionally large

proportion of the learners at after one year at school, and in certain areas after two years at

school, are not achieving the standard. This trend has been evident for the first three years of

implementation, and anecdotal research from some of the other schools in the Masterton area

indicates a similar pattern is occurring in other schools as well. The over-representation of

learners achieving only below the standard seems to diminish by the time they have

completed three years at school, but it would be relevant to research this apparent anomaly.

The achievement profile for children starting school had been lower than expected, and the

question was pondered as to whether the standard was actually achievable after one year at

school, or was just setting the benchmark for later progress. The school entry assessment

after six weeks provides a stanine score for literacy components such as concepts about print,

letter and sound identification, writing vocabulary etcetera, and generally the highest

proportion of the new entrants score below stanine 4 level. Usually a test with a stanine level

has a natural distribution curve that provides a national expectation, but there are very few

children who appear to score at the uppermost level – we had one this year in the after one

year at school cohort group – 7% of the group. When the test is repeated after six weeks,

there is inevitably improvement in the results as the children have received specific reading

and writing instruction, and by the one year at school (Six Year Net) there is the natural

distribution curve evident.

The same concept applies for number. The children are interviewed at six weeks, six months,

and after one year at school, and their performance identifies the level and stage that they are

operating at. This is aligned to the NUMP programme. The children start inevitably at stage

1 and by the end of their primary years are at stage seven for add/sub and stage eight for

mult/div and prop/ratio, as well as being exposed to all the strands.

It is now possible with three years of national standards data to analyse the data to identify

any patterns or trends and try to hypothesis what is the happening or causing the apparent

anomaly in the achievement levels.

The three graphs following document the proportion of children achieving below, at, or

above the standard in reading, writing, and number since 2011. The 2011 after one year at

15

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2011 After 1 Year 2012 After 2 Years 2013 After 3 Years

NS Reading 2013 After 3 Years Progress

Above

At

Below

school cohort group numbered nineteen, growing to twenty as the 2012 after two years at

school group, and seventeen as the after three years at school. Not all the children would

have been in each cohort group.

The reading graph highlights a decrease in the proportion of children achieving below the

standard during the three years from 32%, to 20% to 0%. Accordingly, the proportion that

achieved above the standard increased during the same three years – 36% after one year at

school in 2011, 50% after two years at school (2012), and 88% after three years at school

(2013). The challenge now will be to maintain that level of achievement for this cohort

group as it progresses through the school.

The second graphs details the achievement levels in writing for the first three years at school.

Once again, the picture is positive regarding the proportion achieving below the standard.

42% were below the standard as the after one year at school group in 2011, but this decreased

to only 15% of the group in 2012, and then a slight increase to 19%. The proportion

achieving at the standard was 58% in 2011, 45% in 2012, and 69% in 2013. That would have

been positive if the same trend was evident at the above the standard level, but initially from

having none achieving this level, in 2012 40% were assessed as achieving above the standard,

but in 2013 this dropped to only 12%.

In mathematics, the proportion achieving above the standard is significantly smaller than in

reading and writing, although the number profile is similar to the writing model. In 2011

there were not any pupils achieving above the standard, 79% achieving at the standard, and

21% below the standard. As the after two years at school cohort group, the proportions had

improved fractionally with 20% below the standard, 75% at the standard, and 5% above the

standard. In 2013, after three years at school, the proportion below the standard had dropped

to only 12%, the proportion at the standard remained static at 75%, and the proportion above

the standard had increased to 13%.

16

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


NS Writing 2013 After 3 Years Progress

Above

At

Below

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

%


NS Mathematics 2013 After 3 Years Progress

Above

At

Below

The achievement model in reading is the one to emulate. Starting with an even spread of achievement as new

learners, this has gradually altered to a lower proportion being represented at the below level and a greater

proportion being represented at the above level. Reading instruction is well organised and structured in schools

with support and specialist personnel available to provide the necessary extra support and intervention. There is

a daily programme of instruction with groups organised by their particular needs, and reading is integrated

across the curriculum. There are graded texts that children progress through and their progress is monitored and

documented using the trading wedge-graph.

For the after three years at school group, there is also the opportunity to utilise the Supplementary Test of

Reading Achievement (STAR) to identify any specific strengths and weaknesses with different aspects of reading. The chart below details the performance of the 2013 Y3 class, which would not all be included in the

after three years at school cohort group, but would provide an opportunity to correlate data, and confirm or

question national standards assessments. The progress that the class has made in this test is very positive. At

the start of the year 43% achieved a stanine level above stanine 6 (23% nationally), and by the end of the year

this had risen to 90%. It is interesting that proportion achieving above the standard at the end of three years is

also just under 90% (88%). It is important to remember that the national standards is on the anniversary of three

years at school and the STAR is completed at the end of Y3 – there can be many months between these two

milestones.

STAR READING COMPARISON 2013 SOY/EOY

Stanine 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

S E S E S E S E S E S E S E S E S E

Nat %le 4 7 12 17 20 17 12 7 4

Low Below Ave. Average Above Ave. Outst.

23% 54% 23%

Y3 0 0 1 0 1 0 3 0 5 1 2 1 6 3 3 4 0 12

0 0 5 0 5 0 14 0 24 5 9 5 29 14 14 19 0 57

SOY 10 47 43

EOY 0 5 90

17

0

10

20

30

40

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

%

STANINE LEVEL

STAR 2013 Y4 SOY/EOY

NAT

SOY

EOY

The following graph highlights the Y3 class’s performance against the national expectation,

(in blue) and the progress they made from the beginning of the year to the end.

In mathematics, the Progress and Achievement Test (PAT) can also be used to compare the

class assessment profile in national standards and in other assessment types. The chart below

records the class’s achievement profile at the start of the year and at year end.

PAT COMPARISON: MATHEMATICS 2013

Stanine 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Nat %le 4 7 12 17 20 17 12 7 4

Below Average Average Above Average 23% 54% 23%

Y3 BOYS 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 3 0 3 0 0 7

Y3 GIRLS 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 1 4 1 2 2 4 4 0 5

Y3 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 4 1 4 2 5 2 7 4 0 12

13 0 17 5 17 9 23 9 30 20 0 57

0 0 47 14 53 86

None of the children scored at the below average area (stanine 1-3) although 13% did score at

stanine 4 at the start of the year. This is an area of concern. However, by the end of the year

there wasn’t anyone below stanine 5. It is once again very positive to note that initially only

53% of the class were above average (scoring stanine 7-9) but by the end of the year this had

reached 86%. Compare that to the national standards result which had only 13%. More

significantly perhaps, were the 57% at the highest stanine at year end. It is probably

appropriate for the current standardised testing material available to be modified to fit in with

the national standard milestones, or be delivered at the children’s anniversary (after three

years) to see whether there is a closer correlation.

Certainly, it would appear that our five-year-olds seem to start behind the eight ball in writing

and number, and take longer to be at or above the standard, but this may be because the time-

frame for the standardised testing that is available and the overall teacher judgement schedule

is different, and provides conflicting achievement profiles. I would acknowledge that the

national standards are not norms-based and so there won’t be a standard distribution curve,

but it is important to support teacher judgements with standardised test data.

For the last three years, because of my concern, I have compared the separate after one year

at school cohort groups. For the first three years since the introduction of national standards

the cohort group has been quite similar with three distinct levels of achievement with less

18

0%

50%

100%

%

2010 A1Y 2011 A1Y 2012 A1Y 2013 A1Y

NS Reading After 1 Year 2010-2013 Profile

Above

At

Below

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

%

2010 A1Y 2011 A1Y 2012 A1Y 2013 A1Y

NS Writing After 1 Year 2010-2013

Above

At

Below

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1 2 3 4

%

2010 A1Y 2011 A1Y 2012 A1Y 2013 A1Y

NS Mathematics After 1 Year 2010-2013 Profile

Above

At

Below

than 4% difference each year. For example the proportion achieving above the standard has

been 40%, 36%, 35% until 2013 when it increased exponentially to 72%.

A similar pattern is evident in the writing assessment data, although there were some

fluctuations in the first three years. The 2010 proportion of 20% may have been as a result of

a lack of extensive moderation as the school was just implementing the programme and there

was not extensive support or guidance initially. The 2013 proportion above the standard is

double that of 2010, and more than ten times that of 2012 – from 4% to 43%.

The number longitudinal profile follows a very similar patter to the writing. Once again a

20% group achieving above the standard in 2010, but reducing to 0% in 2011, then increasing

slightly to 4% in 2012, and increasing exponentially to 36% in 2013. The patter of the three

graphs is similar – a significant improvement in performance after one year at school in 2013.

19

The change in performance patterns coincides with a change of teaching personnel for part of

the first year at school. The children have traditionally started in the Y1 classroom up until

the end of Term 1, and after that date any new entrants have commenced in the Y0 classroom

and progressed to the Y1 classroom after completing the remainder of their first calendar year

at school. This has meant that for many of the children there have been two teachers guiding

them through their first full year at school. In 2013 there was one personnel change to this

staffing pattern. As quite separate rooms there may not have been the opportunity for

collegial professional discussion to occur as frequently or deeply as required.

It may also be a change of overall teacher judgement with an interpretation of the guidelines

being somewhat different to the predecessor. It is not a criticism of the assessments but more

a concern about an apparent lack of consistency when making teacher judgements. It is a

question that needs further monitoring and investigation to ensure that the judgements being

made are valid, correct and fair. The school entry assessment (SEA) during the first year at

school which includes the Junior Achievement in Maths (JAM) at six weeks, six months, and

one year, the literacy assessment at six weeks and six months, and the six-year net (6YN)

after one year at school should all be able to inform overall teacher judgements to ensure that

there is consistency and validity of decisions.

20

National Standards NAG2A (b) reporting template School name and number: HADLOW PREPARATORY SCHOOL (4104)

NAG2A (b)

Schools are required to report school-level data on Ngā Whanaketanga Rumaki Māori and/or

National Standards under four headings:

i. School strengths and identified areas for improvement

ii. The basis for identifying areas for improvement

iii. Planned actions for lifting achievement

iv. How students are progressing in relation to Ngā Whanaketanga Rumaki Māori and/or

National Standards.

NAG2A (b)(i) Areas of strength

READING

The school has maintained progress in the achievement of reading since 2010. There were no

pupils achieving well below the standard and only 13% overall achieving below the standard.

This is an improvement on 2011 and 2012 of 2% overall. 87% of the school achieved at or

above the standard, with 52% achieving above the standard. The school has averaged 86%

achieving at or above the standard during the last three years. A number of cohort groups

achieved a high proportion above the standard – 88% of the after three years at school group,

72% at the after one year at school group, 68% of the Y5 class and 59% of the Y4 & Y6

classes. The total after three years at school group (100%) achieved at or above the standard;

96% of the Y8 group and 91% of the Y4 group achieved at or above the standard.

Girls were more strongly represented at the above the standard level – 61% compared to the

45% of the boys. The largest proportion of the school population achieved above the

standard (52%) with 35% achieving at the standard.

There has also been an improvement of performance at the after one year at school level.

Concern was raised last year about the school’s poorer performance at the first three years at

school, but this year only 14% of the after one year at school group failed to reach the

standard. A similar positive pattern is evident at the after three years at school - 7% below

the standard in 2011, 0% in 2012, and 0% in 2013.

WRITING

82% of the school is achieving at or above the standard in writing. Over the last three years

the school has averaged 83% at or above the standard. At the Y8 level 96% of the cohort

group achieved at or above the standard; 88% at Y5, 86% after one year at school, and 85%

at Y6. The after one year at school writing data is particularly impressive as this was an area

of concern identified last year. In 2011 none achieved above the standard, in 2012 the

proportion achieving above the standard after one year at school was only 4%, and this has

risen to 43% this year. Overall, 90% of the girls achieved at or above the standard, compared

to 66% of the boys. 43% of the girls achieved above the standard.

NUMBER

The school achieved 84% at or above the standard, and 32% overall above the standard. 85%

of the boys and 83% of the girls achieved at or above the standard. The after one year at

school cohort group achieved a proportion of 93% at or above the standard, the highest

proportion across the school. The after one year at school also had the smallest proportion

21

below the standard – 7%. 64% of the Y5 class achieved above the standard while 41% of Y6

and Y4 achieved above the standard. Fractionally fewer boys were represented below the

standard (15% compared to 17% of the girls) and were better represented above the standard

(37% compared to 27% of the girls). The gender difference has improved from 5% in 2011

to 2% this year. There are no pupils well below the standard.

NAG2A (b)(i) Areas for improvement

READING

There was an average of 13% achieving below the standard over the school-levels, and

although at some levels there were very small proportions achieving below the standard such

as none at the after three years at school level, only 4% at the Y8 level, and less than 10% at

the Y4&Y5 levels, over a quarter (26%) of the after two years at school cohort group failed

to achieve the standard, 22% of the Y7 class, and 14% of the Y6 class. Boys were over-

represented below the standard compared to the girls – 19% of the boys compared to only 6%

of the girls overall. Although the Y4 class had a very small boy cohort group, 33% of the

boys failed to achieve the standard. A similar proportion of boys also failed to achieve the

standard at after two years at school (28%), Y6 (27%), and after one year at school and Y7

(25%).

Although the school was well represented at the above the standard level, there are a

significant proportion achieving at the standard who could have their progress accelerated to

achieve above the standard. The largest group unfortunately is the Y8 class (63%) but this

group of learners will be transferring to secondary schools. 52% of the Y7 class (50% of the

boys and 67% of the girls) is also achieving only at the standard and through the flexible

learning programme with targeted teaching there is the potential to raise the proportion

achieving above the standard.

WRITING

18% below the standard is the highest proportion of under-achievers in the national standards.

The average over the last three years has been 17%, but last year we only had 13% below the

standard. There are not any pupils well below the standard in writing. Boys are over-

represented at the below level – 24 boys (26%) compared to nine girls (10%) failed to reach

the standard. Of the groups of boys, the most significant is the group of eight at the Y7 level

– they constitute 40% of the boys at the Y7 level. It is not possible to provide a valid

comparison with the 2012 Y6 boys’ performance because there is a significant intake of boys

at the Y7 level. There were only three 2012 Y6 boys (20%) who were below the standard

last year. Of the eight boys identified, four were new to the school this year, two were part of

the ‘below’ group last year, and two regressed from being at the standard last year to being

below.

There is a group of seven (26%) – four boys and three girls who are below the standard after

two years at school. Of the seven, four are new to the school this year, while three have

regressed from being at the standard after one year at school to below the standard in 2012.

This may be a different interpretation by the teacher regarding the overall teacher judgement.

Two further groups are the five (2 boys and 3 girls) who failed to reach the standard at the

end of Y4, and four (three boys and one girl) who failed to reach the standard at the end of

Y5.

22

NUMBER

Although the gender balance is relatively equitable overall, there are a greater proportion of

groups represented below and at the standard. 31% of the after two years at school girls, and

25% of the Y4 girls failed to reach the standard, while 25% of the Y7 boys achieved below

the standard. The proportion that achieved above the standard was also low at a number of

levels. No girls in the after two years at school cohort group or at the Y7 level, and no boys

in the after three years at school cohort group achieved above the standard. Only three boys

(15%) at the Y7 level achieved above the standard.

Significant proportions achieved only at the standard – 100% of the after three years at school

boys’ cohort group, 100% of the Y7 girls, and 83% of the after one year at school girls’

cohort group. 75% of the after three years at school cohort group overall, and 65% of the Y7

cohort group achieved at the standard.

NAG2A (b)(ii) Basis for identifying areas for improvement

READING

The school has maintained a relatively consistent achievement profile in reading since 2011 –

86% in 2011, 85% in 2012 and 87% in 2013 achieving at or above the standard. The

proportion achieving above the standard has averaged 50.3% over the last three years, with a

further 36% achieving at the standard during the same time-frame. In 2011 the proportion at

and above the standard was very similar (42% at, 44% above) but the break-down has swung

more to the above the standard level since 2012 – 55% above and 30% at in 2012, and 52%

above and 35% at this year. By raising the number achieving above the standard from being

at the standard would confirm that we are teaching to all children’s needs to progress their

achievement, rather than only focusing on the under-achievers to ensure they reach the

standard.

Boys and their reading needs will continue to be a focus to reduce the proportion failing to

achieve the standard. Boys are often significantly over-represented at the below the standard

level, compared to the girls. A particular boys’ focus will be the 2013 Y7 group which

numbers five (25%). This is an increase of two individuals since 2012 taking the proportion

from 20% to 25%. Prior to that, in 2011 the group numbered five and constituted 33% of the

boys at the Y5 level. There are smaller numbers of boys (2 – 3) at the Y4-Y6 levels and after

one and two years at school which will also need to be monitored to ensure their progress is

accelerated.

There are four girls at the after two years at school level (25%) who also have not reached the

standard in reading. This group has reduced in number since last year (2012) when as the

after one year at school group they numbered six and accounted for 38% of the cohort group.

WRITING

Writing has traditionally been the area of literacy which the school has not been able to

reduce the proportion significantly of those who are below the standard, or to increase

significantly the proportion of those achieving above the standard. There are extremes at the

different year levels regarding achievement above the standard. At the upper end of the

spectrum, 63% of the Y4 class, 52% of the Y5 class and 44% of the Y6 class achieved above

the standard. At each of these year levels it was the girls’ performance which lifted the

overall percentage – ten girls (62%) at Y4, nine at Y6 (56%) and eight at Y5 (73%) with a

significantly smaller number of boys. In fact the highest proportion of boys to achieve above

the standard was at Y4 where four of the boys actually accounted for 67% of the total.

23

Boys have been identified as significant under-achievers in writing for some time. There

were twenty-four boys below the standard overall, compared to only nine girls. There are also

more boys represented at the standard - fifty-three (56%) compared to forty-one (47%) girls.

The greatest difference however is above the standard where there were seventeen boys

(18%) compared to thirty-seven girls (43%).

Longitudinally, the 2013 Y4 class achieved 63% above the standard. As the 2012 after three

years at school cohort group, they achieved 68% above the standard, but as the 2011 after two

years at school, only 24%.It is noted that three new pupils started in this class at the

beginning of 2013, while three also left during this year. The question posed is the validity

and consistency of overall teacher judgements in writing, which is a much more subjective

and interpretative process. There is a similar pattern with the 2013 Y6 cohort group. 44%

achieved above the standard this year, and as the 2012 Y5 group 44% achieved above the

standard, but as the 2011 Y4 group only 16% achieved above the standard.

NUMBER

The school has maintained a fairly consistent achievement profile since 2011 – 16-19%

below, 51-55% at, and 29-32% above the standard. Girls tend to be over-represented at the

standard rather than above the standard and this has been a consistent pattern. 17% above in

2011 compared to 40% of the boys; 21% above in 2012 compared to 38% of the boys, and

27% above in 2013 compared to 37% for the boys. There has been a small increase in the

proportion of girls achieving above the standard since 2011, but there is potential for an even

greater increase in numbers.

A similar longitudinal pattern is evident at the after one year at school level. This year 36%

achieved above the standard for number, compared with 4% in 2012 and 0% in 2011.

Conversely, at the after three years at school level, the proportion achieving above the

standard has reduced significantly this year from 67% in 2011, 37% in 2012, to only 13% in

2013. The number achieving below the standard at the after one year at school level has

reduced accordingly – 21% in 2011, 39% in 2012, and 7% in 2013. From four learners to

nine leaners in 2012 and then only one in 2013.

Tracking the 2011 after one year at school cohort group shows progress has been made. 21%

achieved below the standard in 2011 and as the 2012 after two years at school group 20%

achieved below the standard, but as the 2013 after three years at school group only 12%

achieved below the standard. Conversely the proportion above the standard from 2011 has

risen from 0% to 13% as the original group has progressed up the school.

NAG2A (b)(iii) Planned actions for lifting achievement

READING

The further implementation of the future-focused teaching and learning programme with the

establishment of two-year group hubs with explicit group instruction on specific needs of the

learners will enhance the teaching and learning, raise the level of engagement, and facilitate

the development of greater self-management, self-motivation and confidence in reading.

Reading will be hub-based and the programme of instruction will be determined using start of

year assessment data performance, previous progress profiles, and hub-based collegial

discussions. One of the advantages of a two-year hub means that there will be the

opportunity for specific programmes to be developed over a two-year period with the same

teachers so anecdotal notes will be shared, and consistency of programme delivery will be

sustained over a two-year period.

24

The flexible learning programme will also allow the learners to prioritise their task

completion to their individual preference and give them greater ownership and therefore an

incentive to maximize their engagement with the learning. The need for supplementary or

follow-up activities will be reduced significantly as the learners develop greater

independence with their learning. Often teachers have needed to ‘occupy’ their learners in

work-sheets so they could complete group instruction, but with a flexible learning

programme this requirement is eliminated. Authentic follow-up activities that reinforce or

allow the children to apply the concept or skill being taught can be implemented. Because

the activity is authentic to the group instruction, and can be completed at the learner’s

discretion regarding time or priority, there is greater likelihood that the activity will be

completed well and may reinforce the previous learning more effectively.

Target groups will be identified and provided with reading tuition to meet their particular

needs. The literacy-resource teacher will liaise with the hub-leaders to determine the most

appropriate strategies to be implemented to accelerate the necessary progress. Greater and

more effective use will be made of support-teacher personnel to ensure that daily, explicit

teaching and learning occurs, and that all follow up work is monitored.

The literacy resource- teacher will be utilised school-wide, wherever the need is greatest. In

the past the priority has been for school entry and first three years at school national standards

testing has been administered by the literacy resource-teacher, but this will be devolved more

to the hub-teachers so that they are able to identify any trends or patterns in the data and have

access to the ‘big picture’ of particular children’s learning style and needs while analysing the

data.

There is a need for the school to research further and deeper into the particular causes that

some children have that inhibits their progress in reading. There needs to be more explicit

and closer scrutiny of assessment data to help to identify the impediment to progress that the

under-achievers currently have, and implement new and different strategies to support the

learning. Too often time and energy is put into one-to-one intervention and tuition for a finite

period of time without any significant improvement in performance. There seems to have

been an assumption that if there has been intervention then the issue has been addressed.

Anecdotally, we have groups of children that progress through the year-levels but do not

make any accelerated progress even though intervention has occurred.

Target groups will include: the Y7 group of boys who failed to meet the national standard in

reading: the group of seven after two years at school who failed to reach the standard; those

children who are currently achieving below the standard at the other year levels; and

accelerating those who are currently at the standard to be above the standard at the end of

2014.

WRITING

It is important that there is a re-focus on writing and the writing programme in 2014. The

comparison is often made that literacy is reading and writing and that they should be

integrated but often teachers have separate times for their focus on reading specifically, and

then writing. When teaching the skills of reading the groups have a common text which is

investigated collaboratively by all members. Once the reading instruction is completed the

group may have some follow up work to reinforce and embed the new skill learned, and then

they can apply that skill in their personal reading. Many children enjoy reading – perhaps not

always the instruction or the follow-up activities, but certainly their personal or own-choice

reading. Future-focused teaching and learning is a vehicle for personalising all learning and

25

so there is an opportunity to critically analyse the current teaching of the writing format, and

provide greater personalisation and flexibility.

Unfortunately, reading allows the learner to be the recipient of the creativity on the page, and

once immersed in that creativity, the child is often self-motivated to manage their own

reading. Writing on the other hand requires an audience for the writing to be authentic, and

the writer becomes the active component of the process, creating ideas, images and concepts

through print. In writing there are well established conventions which have to be learned and

memorised, supposedly, so the audience can understand the symbols and a reluctant writer is

constantly bombarded with corrections and those conventions; often the focus is on the

surface features rather than the pupil’s voice or the craft of writing; and often the writing is

assessed on the length of the story. A ‘next learning step’ on reports is often to be able to

write more words… The number of words should not be the critical factor. The quality

should be the focus.

Just as reading has to interest the reader, so writing must interest the writer, so unless their

imagination or motivation is ignited, the writing process can become very tiresome and

monotonous, and children easily become disillusioned with the writing process. There needs

to be explicit teaching of skills and concepts to provide the learner with a writer’s tool-kit,

but there also needs to be authenticity – an authentic context and a real need or requirement

to actually apply the learned skill or concept (the split infinitive is now perfectly acceptable).

A recent report comment highlighted this when the teacher identified that the child best

writing still comes from her personal experiences rather than dictated topics. We need to

switch the writers on rather than switch them off.

There will need to be a focus on writing as part of the professional learning programme with

a willingness from teachers to abandon past practices that have not realised positive changes

to children’s attitudes to and completion of writing. The dispositions inherent in the school’s

vision need to be the vehicle by which change can be implemented. The evaluation of the

learners’ level of literacy, self-motivation, self-management, confidence and responsibility

needs to inform the decisions about the writing process and programme. All writing needs to

be authentic, and requires an audience.

Target groups will include those children who are achieving below the standard, but

specifically the group of eight boys at the end of Y7, the six children after two years at

school, and the five children at the end of Y4. There also needs to be a focus on the children

achieving at the standard to accelerate their progress so they are achieving above the

standard. To achieve a similar proportion achieving above the standard to the reading result

would be the aim.

NUMBER

The implementation and development of a two-year cross grouping structure has meant that

mathematics tuition can be targeted more effectively to a greater number of learners within a

hub environment. Two teachers, with teacher-support personnel, plan and evaluate teaching

and learning programmes collaboratively, and learners are able to transfer between

instructional groups depending on their particular needs. The future-focused teaching and

learning programme allows greater flexibility for the teacher and learner and maximises the

teachers’ time at actually teaching explicitly. All mathematics’ teaching is completed in

small groups on a daily basis with appropriate and relevant follow-up, consolidation and

extension activities provided for the learners. The learners are able to complete the set tasks

at a time and place that suits them, so they assume greater ownership of their learning and

26

develop greater self-management, self-motivation, and confidence as a result The traditional

‘maths time’ can now occur at any stage of the school day as the children are working

flexibly and independently so they are available for specific instruction and tutorials. The

need for lengthy, repetitive work-sheets is eliminated. This, in turn, makes mathematics

more interesting and exciting for the learners.

The two-year cross-grouping has also created much more homogeneous groups which work

well because all the group members know they are at the same level and do not feel

intimidated by others who may be more advanced because the groups were also based on an

optimum number as well as the level of ability. Children are empowered to work with each

other and to ‘teach’ concepts to one another. Progress is now able to be monitored across a

wider range of learning levels and learners requiring extension or remediation can be catered

for effectively within the teaching and learning programme, rather than having to be

withdrawn.

Target groups will include the six pupils achieving below the standard after two years at

school (one boy (9%) and five girls (31%)); the five children at the end of Y4 (one boy (17%)

and four girls (25%); the five boys (25%) at the end of Y7. All other pupils currently

achieving below the standard will be focus learners to accelerate their progress so they

achieve at the standard.

A further target will be to raise the proportion of girls, and of those achieving at the standard,

to achieve above the standard.

NAG2A (b) (iv) Progress Statement

READING

The school has sustained a consistent level of achievement in reading during the last three

years as evidenced by the national standards’ data. There have not been any learners

achieving well below the standard and an average of only 14% achieving below the standard

during the last three years. Conversely, on average, over 50% of the school achieves above

the standard each year. This peaked at 55% in 2012 and is 52% this year. The school

operates a daily, explicit, group-based reading programme at all year levels. Group

instruction, utilising the teacher-support personnel, has meant the teacher-pupil ratio at the

Y2 – Y4 levels, for example, was reduced from 1: 24 to 1: 12 for much of 2013. In 2014, the

further implementation of the hub-structure will provide a longer, more consistent, child-

centred, teaching and learning programme which is anticipated to enhance the learning

experience for the children.

WRITING

The school’s achievement profile in writing for national standards has been an area of

concern because it does not mirror that of reading, the other component of literacy. The

proportion difference at below the standard has ranged from 1% to 6% since 2011, but at the

above the standard level the writing proportion has been up to 24% different. There have

never been any pupils achieving well below the standard. Boys have always been over-

represented at below the standard and under-represented at above the standard, compared to

the girls. They have averaged 24% below the standard over the last three years compared to

the girls’ average of 10%, and averaged only 18% over the last three years above the standard

compared to 44% for the girls. There has, however, been an improvement in the number

achieving above the standard overall – 20% in 2011, with a jump to 43% in 2012, and a

decline to 30% in 2013.

27

2012 was the most positive year for writing achievement with 87% achieving at or above the

standard compared to 82% in 2013 and 80% in 2011. The 43% achieving above the standard

in 2012 was an exceptional result which has not been sustained. A comparison of the 2012

and 2013 cohort groups highlights some anomalies. The proportion achieving above the

standard can be compared (2012 as the first percentage with the 2013 percentage second).

After one year at school 4%/43%, after two years at school 40%/4%, after three years at

school 67%/12%, at the end of Y4 68%/63%, at the end of Y5 44%/73%, at the end of Y6

48%/44%, at the end of Y7 28%/8%, and at the end of Y8 32%/15%. There have been staff

changes at the after one year, after two years, after three years, and at the end of Y5 which

may highlight a degree of difference in the moderation and assessment processes completed

by the teachers.

There is always change to numbers at different class levels, and this can lead to fluctuations

and changes to proportions, especially at the Y7 level. This is evident in the class’s profile

since 2011 – as the 2011 Y5, 20% achieved above the standard while 40% achieved below.

In 2012 as the Y6 48% achieved above the standard (an increase of 28%) while only 12%

were below. A significant change of the class demographics in 2013 resulted in only 8%

achieving above the standard while 40% were below. Of the fourteen who had been a part of

the cohort group since 2011, eight (57%) maintained their same level (one above, five at, and

two below), while one regressed from at to below, and four from above to at (43%). The new

pupils who joined the class in 2013 all achieved below the standard.

NUMBER

The school has maintained a high level of consistency in its achievement profile in number

since 2011. In fact, the first data was collected in 2010 as part of the trial phase, and even

then the staff seemed to have a clear understanding of the moderation of the overall teacher

judgement in mathematics. The NUMP programme does provide a well-structured diagnostic

and assessment component that provides valuable information for teachers. As well it is an

oral interview so any literacy difficulties usually associated with a test are eliminated. Using

other assessment tools such as PATs allows teachers to triangulate the assessment data to

inform their decisions regarding levels of achievement. In 2010 the school identified 14%

below the standard, and since that date the average proportion at this level has been 16%.

This has meant that we have not been able to reduce the overall proportion that is not

achieving the standard by accelerating their progress. This is in spite of implementing target

group foci and providing extra support and intervention. The level of cognitive capability of

many of the learners at this level may preclude any sustainable acceleration of progress.

The proportion achieving at the standard has also been relatively consistent – 52% in 2010,

51% in 2011, 55% in 2012, and 52% in 2013. That in turn creates consistency of levels of

achievement above the standard – 34% in 2010, 30% in 2011, 29% in 2012 and 32% in 2013.

The most significant increase is the proportion of girls achieving above the standard – from

17% in 2011 to 27% in 2013.

28

2013 National Standards Reporting

Number: 4104

Name: Hadlow Preparatory

Reading Well below Below At Above Total

Number Proportion Number Proportion Number Proportion Number Proportion Number

All students 0 23 12.7% 63 34.8% 95 52.5% 181

Māori 0 3 60.0% 1 20.0% 1 20.0% 5

Pasifika 0 0 2 66.7% 1 33.3% 3

Asian 0 1 11.1% 5 55.6% 3 33.3% 9

MELAA 0

Other 0

European/Pākehā/ Other European 0 19 11.6% 55 33.5% 90 54.9% 164

Male 0 18 19.1% 34 36.2% 42 44.7% 94

Female 0 5 5.7% 29 33.3% 53 60.9% 87

Reading Well below Below At Above Total


After 1 year at school 0 2 14.3% 2 14.3% 10 71.4% 14

After 2 years at school 0 7 25.9% 10 37.0% 10 37.0% 27

After 3 years at school 0 0 2 12.5% 14 87.5% 16

End of Year 4 0 2 9.1% 7 31.8% 13 59.1% 22

End of Year 5 0 2 8.0% 6 24.0% 17 68.0% 25

End of Year 6 0 4 14.8% 7 25.9% 16 59.3% 27

End of Year 7 0 5 21.7% 12 52.2% 6 26.1% 23

End of Year 8 0 1 3.7% 17 63.0% 9 33.3% 27

29


Number: 4104


Writing Well below Below At Above Total


All students 0 33 18.2% 94 51.9% 54 29.8% 181

Māori 0 4 80.0% 0 1 20.0% 5

Pasifika 0 0 3 100.0% 0 3

Asian 0 1 11.1% 4 44.4% 4 44.4% 9

MELAA 0

Other 0


Male 0 24 25.5% 53 56.4% 17 18.1% 94

Female 0 9 10.3% 41 47.1% 37 42.5% 87

Writing Well below Below At Above Total





End of Year 4 0 5 22.7% 3 13.6% 14 63.6% 22

End of Year 5 0 3 12.0% 9 36.0% 13 52.0% 25

End of Year 6 0 4 14.8% 11 40.7% 12 44.4% 27

End of Year 7 0 8 34.8% 13 56.5% 2 8.7% 23

End of Year 8 0 1 3.7% 22 81.5% 4 14.8% 27

30


Number: 4104


Maths Well below Below At Above Total


All students 0 29 16.0% 94 51.9% 58 32.0% 181

Māori 0 4 80.0% 1 20.0% 0 5

Pasifika 0 0 2 66.7% 1 33.3% 3

Asian 0 2 22.2% 6 66.7% 1 11.1% 9

MELAA 0

Other 0


Male 0 14 14.9% 45 47.9% 35 37.2% 94

Female 0 15 17.2% 49 56.3% 23 26.4% 87

Maths Well below Below At Above Total





End of Year 4 0 5 22.7% 8 36.4% 9 40.9% 22

End of Year 5 0 4 16.0% 5 20.0% 16 64.0% 25

End of Year 6 0 3 11.1% 13 48.1% 11 40.7% 27

End of Year 7 0 5 21.7% 15 65.2% 3 13.0% 23

End of Year 8 0 3 11.1% 16 59.3% 8 29.6% 27

31

National Standards Target Groups 2014 The National Standards achievement data has highlighted groups of learners who have not

reached the standard in the particular areas of testing. Of concern are the children who have

not accelerated their progress in the previous year to reach the standard.

After Two Years at School

This group is made up of seven children who failed to meet the standard, three who also

failed to meet the standard after one year at school, one who regressed from being at the

standard after one year at school, and three who were new entrants to the school at the start of

the year. Three of the children were classified as Year 2 and four were classified as Year 3.

The children were in learning environments where the teacher had qualified teacher support

personnel and the teacher-pupil ratio for instructional reading was reduced to 1: 12 for much

of the 2013 school year as a trial initiative of the future focused teaching & learning

programme.

Five of the named children who failed to reach the standard in reading also did not meet the

standard in writing, and four of them did not meet the standard in mathematics. This is of

grave concern and requires further and deeper analysis of their particular learning needs and

potential learning barriers. There needs to be a detailed assessment and analysis of their

current reading performance to determine what particular difficulties they experience.

The seven children are members of Hub 2 which is made up of the Y3&Y4 children and

inhabits two traditional classroom spaces which will be connected internally as the first stage

of creating a modern learning environment. All the Y3&Y4 children in the hub (irrespective

of their base class) will be cross-grouped for group instruction teaching utilising three

personnel, thus creating a teacher-pupil ratio across the hub of 1: 15. As well the hub is

initiating a flexible learning programme which will foster self-motivation, self-management,

confidence and independence and allow the children to choose the order and type of activities

they will complete. By engaging the learners more explicitly in their learning it is hoped that

the level of engagement will improve significantly, and that will result in a lift of

achievement.

At the End of Year 7

This group of five boys failed to achieve the standard at the end of 2013. Of the five boys in

this group, only one has been at the school since age five – the remainder were new entrants

at the Y7 level at the beginning of 2013. A positive aspect of the longitudinal data is that as

the at the end of Y6 there were four below the standard, and that figure increased to five as

the at the end of Y7 group in 2013, but only one of the original four of the 2012 group

remained. This meant that the proportion of those who didn’t meet the standard actually

reduced from 20% to 6.7% if you consider only those pupils who were a part of the cohort

group over two years. The inevitable intake at the beginning of Y7 does create a less positive

32

picture of achievement overall. Only fifteen of the at the end of Y6 group remained as part of

the at the end of Y7 group (65%).

The five members of this cohort group are all also in the writing target group, and three of

them are also in the mathematics target group. Of the one remaining longitudinal member,

his literacy standardised assessments tend to be at the stanine 3 or 4 level over a number of

years. PAT listening average is a 3, reading comprehension a 3.5, reading vocab a 3.8, STAR

3.75. This highlights specific barriers in literacy learning are apparent and the goal is to

identify what strategies need to be implemented to accelerate progress.

The cohort group is part of a two-class hub at the Y7&8 level which has been operating in a

future-focused teaching and learning model with collaborative teaching across both year-

levels. The hub operates a flexible learning programme which allows the learners to be self-

managing regarding their own learning and maximises the teacher-contact with instructional

groups. This has meant that more of the school-day can be dedicated to reading, writing, and

mathematics instructional groups, while the children pursue their own individual interests.

This programme has now been in operation at this level for two years and this has resulted in

a significant decline in off-task behaviour and the need for behaviour modification

programmes.

Significant use will be made of the school’s literacy resource person to intervene as a

specialist to interrogate the achievement performance profile to identify what strategies are

successful, and these will be implemented to sustain and accelerate progress. There will be

professional development opportunities for the teachers regarding reading and boys.

At the End of Year 4; At the end of Year 5; At the end of Year 6.

There are small numbers of individuals at each of these levels who also failed to meet the

standard in reading. There are two boys at the end of Y4, two boys at the end of Y5, and

three children (two boys and one girl) at the end of Y6. These represent 9.1% at Y4, 8.0%

atY5, and 14.8% at Y6. One child has been at the school for a minimum of two years while

the remainder have been at the school since five years of age.

For the two Y4 boys one achieved below after two years at school, achieved at the standard

after three years at school, but then regressed to be below the standard at the end of Y4. The

other boy has failed to reach the standards each year since starting. The same pattern is

evident at the end of Y5 – one who has failed to meet the standard each year, and one that

had his achievement accelerated but then regressed at the end of Y5. At Y6, of the three

pupils, two have failed to meet the standard but one had achieved the standard at the end of

Y5 but regressed at the end of Y6. One of the pupils is classified as special needs and did

receive ORRS funding for the first three years at school for teaching and learning support.

She was deemed to be independent and ineligible for teacher-aide funding from Y4.

Targets

to accelerate the progress of the seven pupils who failed to reach the target after two

years at school;

to provide a teaching and learning programme that meets the particular needs of the

learners so that they are able to reach their potential, and meet the standard;

to analyse the particular learning patterns to determine the barriers to learning – to

investigate what inhibits their learning and progress;

33

to accelerate the progress of the five boys who failed to reach the standard at the end

of Year 7;

to provide an explicit teaching and learning programme personalised to their

particular needs to maximise the opportunities to reach the standard at the end of Y 8;

to closely monitor the identified pupils who failed to reach the standard at the end of

Y4, 5 & 6, and provide a personalised teaching and learning programme which

identifies and highlights the barriers to their learning, and the strategies used to

facilitate the necessary progress;

to report against targets regularly at hub-leader meeting level to access the collegial

support of peers;

to reduce the number of pupils who are achieving below the standard.

The school’s National Standards achievement data profile for writing had the highest

proportion achieving below the standard – 18% overall. It also had the smallest proportion

achieving above the standard (30%) compared to reading (52%). The proportion achieving

below the standard increased from 13% from last year, and the proportion achieving above

the standard decreased from 43% last year. Writing will be a professional learning

development priority for this year.


Seven pupils who failed to reach the standard in writing – six of the same cohort group as for

reading, with one addition. Four (57%) were new to the school, while the remaining three

(43%) started at the school at five years. Of the three, only one has achieved below the

standard after one, and two years at school. The other two achieved the standard after one

year at school, but failed to meet the standard after two years at school.


Five pupils (two boys & three girls) failed to reach the standard in writing. Of the five, two

are new to the school and have no achievement history, while one has consistently failed to

reach the standard, two have a ‘be, at, be’ profile for the previous three years. This would

indicate that there is potential to accelerate their progress through explicit teaching and

learning to meet their needs.


There are a significant number of boys who failed to reach the standard at the end of Year 7.

The eight learners make up 34.8% of the class, and 40% of the boys. Once again, the group

is made up of new entrants to Year 7 for whom there is no achievement history. 50% of the

group are the new entrants. Of the remainder of the cohort group, two have consistently

achieved only below the standard while the other two had achieved at the standard at the end

of Y6 but were assessed as below the standard at the end of Y7.

At the End of Y5; At the End of Y6

There are three boys at the end of Y5 and two boys and one girl at the Y6 level who did not

achieve the standard. Of the three at the end of Y5 boys, only one has achieved below the

standard each year or annual milestone. The other two have fluctuated between below and at

during the three-year period (at, at, below; below, at, below). The Y6 girl is a special-needs

pupil who has delayed development which impacts on her gross and fine motor co-ordination

and intellectual capacity. She has not met the standard in the past. The two boys have met

the standard previously.

34

Targets

to accelerate the progress of the seven pupils who failed to reach the target after two

years at school;

to provide a teaching and learning programme that meets the particular needs and

interests of the learners so that they are able to reach their potential, and meet the

standard;

to analyse the particular learning patterns to determine the barriers to learning in

writing – to investigate what inhibits their learning and progress;

to critically interrogate the teaching & learning programme to ensure that it is

addressing the needs of the learners.

to accelerate the progress of those who failed to reach the standard at the end of Y4;

to provide an explicit, needs-based writing programme that captures the interest of the

learner;

to monitor and report on progress and through reflection, identify the potential causes

of the learning difficulties which inform the rate of progress of the group:

to accelerate the progress of those who achieved below the standard at the end of Y7;

to provide an individualised programme for the special-needs pupil to ensure that the

basic skills and knowledge are applied sustainably and progress is made;

to reduce the number of pupils achieving below the national standard.


There are six pupils who failed to meet the standard after two years at school in 2013. There

are five girls and one boy. All but the one boy have been at the school since five years of

age. Of these five, three have been in the Y3 class where the majority of the children have

completed three years at school. In fact, all of the after two years at school pupils in the Y3

class failed to meet the standard compared with only two out of twenty-three in the Y2 class.

Four of the pupils also failed to meet the standard in reading and writing – these children

were in the Y3 class grouping. The implementation of the hub structure and the composite

nature of the groups may reduce this anomaly. The majority of the group that failed to reach

the standard also were below the standard at their previous anniversary milestone.


This group of six contains one pupil who achieved below the standard in mathematics,

reading and writing, and three girls who achieved below the standard in writing as well as

mathematics. One is new to the school in Y4 while the others all have a below, at, below

achievement pattern. This would potentially indicate that their progress can be accelerated to

reach the standard. There may also be a discrepancy with the overall teacher judgement at

one year level.


Two boys and two girls failed to meet the standard in mathematics. The two boys also were

below the standard for reading and writing. One boy has a three-year achievement profile of

below, below, below; one of the girls has below, at, below, and the other two have at, at,

below. The boy who has consistently failed to reach the standard has some cognitive

deficiencies and has received significant support and intervention in the past. This has not

resulted in accelerating his progress. The two pupils who achieved at the standard for two

35

years need to be monitored closely to ensure that any specific gaps in their learning are

addressed.


There are five boys who appear on the below the standard list, three of who also appear on

the same list for writing and reading, and two on the writing list. Two of the boys are new to

the school in Y7 while the other two have an achievement profile of below, below, and one of

at, below. Of the three, their PAT achievement profile shows a correlation with listening

comprehension as well as mathematics so there may be difficulties with processing concepts

through both the oral and written media. With the implementation of the NUMP programme

much of the assessment is oral which means a literacy difficulty does not compromise their

score, but in this case it is perhaps the lower ability to process abstract concepts that causes

the confusions and inability to apply a learned skill or concept in different contexts.

Targets

to provide a personalised mathematics programme that meets the needs of the target

group children;

to accelerate the progress of the learners so that concepts are sustained and able to be

applied in different contexts;

to investigate the apparent barriers to learning currently and implement alternative

strategies and programmes to remedy this;

to provide an individualised programme for the special-needs pupil to ensure that the

basic skills and knowledge are applied sustainably and progress is made;

to critically interrogate the teaching & learning programme to ensure that it is

addressing the needs of the learners;

to reduce the number of pupils achieving below the standard.

36

STRATEGIC PLAN 2012 - 2015 MISSION: To foster learning by educating for excellence through academic, physical, cultural, and spiritual challenges in a caring and safe environment.

VISION: A Hadlow pupil will be literate, self-managing, self-motivated, confident, respectful, and responsible.

STRATEGIC FOCUS

Goal 1

To identify, preserve &

celebrate the values &

special character of the

school

Goal 2

To develop & implement

systems & programmes to

improve pupil

achievement, with

emphasis on numeracy &

literacy.

Goal 3

To ensure all pupils are

provided with a variety of

opportunities to enable

them to become self-

motivated & self-

managing learners.

Goal 4

To develop, implement &

review a school-wide

programme for sport

development.

Goal 5

To ensure all staff

maintain a high quality of

teaching practice and

build sound parent/teacher

relationships

2012

Embedding the Maori

culture (te reo & te ao

Māori) into the school curriculum and

environment

te reo Māori action plan

development

Review National

Standards testing &

reporting Review timetable for

numeracy & literacy

Pupil Engagement

Maintain the embedding

of the NZ curriculum principles

Anti bullying programme

implementation

Review and assess the

strategic programme and implement changes.

Teacher self review to

inform teaching; identifying best practice

pedagogy for effective

teaching & learning

2013

Developing ways to enact

more fully the special

character of the school via

the vision attributes –

evaluating the attribute

progress

Reporting review

Assessment review

Implement changes from

timetable review to ensure

a relevant curriculum is

being delivered

Anti bullying programme

embedded in the school

culture

Investigate opportunities

for pupil voice to inform

all decisions

Consolidate a school wide

approach to sport.

Review electronic

environment for teaching

& learning.

Electronic Reporting

E-Portfolios

2014

Review the spiritual

programme, chapel

programme, and religious

connections to special character.

Community consultation

re reporting and interview

process, and feed-back re

innovative programmes to improve pupil

achievement.

Educating for the future to

ensure learners are self-

managing & self-

motivated.

Sport survey to evaluate

community satisfaction

with strategic direction of

sport at the school.

Teacher self-review to

inform decisions

regarding best practice in

a future-focused teaching and learning environment

Community consultation to determine the future, strategic direction of the school

2014 – 2018: developing a future focused teaching and learning environment to prepare the children for the 21st century.

2015 Develop the school’s

special character so that it

fits within the future focus

of the school.

Implementing future-

focused teaching and

learning programmes to

facilitate greater pupil

achievement.

A future-focused teaching

& learning programme

incorprating flexibility,

personalised learning and

opportunities for pupil

independence

To embed a diverse sport

programme to encourage

maximum participation by

all children.

Best pedagogical practice

in the 21st century, digital

learning environment.

37

Goal 1: To identify, preserve, and celebrate the values and special character of the school.

Focus

Developing ways to enact more fully the special

character of the school – what makes Hadlow different

from other schools in the Wairarapa – incorporating the

Anglican ethos and role of the Church.

Completed by / Comments Special Character Committee of the BOT & TSTB. The Special Character committee of the TSTB met regularly during the year to discuss and debate the meaning of special character er in relation to the three schools. The school’s special character is enshrined in the integration deed of agreement. The key elements of the special character definition are: being a part of the Trinity system, its affiliation to the Anglican tradition of the Church, the provision of an RE programme as an integral part of the

curriculum, the requirement for pupils to participate in worship, the upholding of a strong moral code based on Christian standards, and the unity of day & boarding components through a programme of religious, cultural, academic and recreational pursuits in which all pupils participate. The special character statement has been identified as:

regular prayer, worship and liturgy in keeping with the Anglican Prayer Book;

a programme of religious studies within the curriculum, and

interpersonal relationships which are founded on the values of the Gospel.

For the children, this means that they are trying to follow the example of Christ by praying and taking part in chapel services, learning about our religion and others in class, and treating each other with love, just as Jesus did. The other aspects of school life that are perceived to be special character technically are not. They are part of the tradition of a private boarding & day preparatory school based on the English model. The traditions of the school are not necessarily special character components and are not enshrined in any deed. It is the over-arching Christian perspective that should inform all decisions that are made at the school. The

traditions that need to be protected are primarily the religious education programme, the regular worshipping as a community, and the upholding of a strong moral code based on Christian values to inform how everyone should behave towards one another. This includes all members of the school community – pupils, staff, and parents. Because of the time taken to identify the core of the special character, there has not been any communication with, or education of, the school community to date. The place of special character does need to have a higher profile to ensure that it is acknowledged as a significant

aspect of school culture. The school chaplain, the archdeacon, and other diocesan representatives were involved in the review process.

Target

Present Situation

To have clarified the special character of the school in

such a way that it is understood by the school

community.

There is confusion of what constitutes the special

character of the school and teachers, parents and pupils

are unsure of what it entails and what it really means.

Action

review all special character statements to

determine the core of the school’s special

character statement;

differentiate between the legal special character statement that links to the integration

agreement and the procedures and practices that

make the school special;

clarify the expectations of the special character

for staff, pupils, and parents;

identify and document those established

traditions of the school that need to be

protected;

educate the school community about the special

character and its significance in the school

culture;

report regularly, through the weekly bulletin, under the heading of ‘special character’;

provide opportunities for regular feed-back

from parents;

involve the school chaplain and diocesan

representatives.

Resources

Integration Agreement

Policies & procedure documents which encapsulate

special character

Budget:

38

Goal 2: To develop and implement systems and programmes to improve pupil engagement in a future-focused learning environment.

Focus

Future-Focused Learning Completed by / Comments The school completed significant initiatives in firther implementing a future-focused teaching and learning model. The Y5-Y8 classes implemented and trialled a flexible learning model which promoted self-management and independent

learning. Instruction in reading, writing, and mathematics was explicit and personalised to the individual pupil’s needs. This flexible learning, and more explicit teaching developed significantly greater engagement with the learners. The Y0/Y1 classes also operated a single, collaborative teaching environment which provided greater personalising of children’s learning. The community was regularly informed and educated through

on-line links, visiting experts, and rhetoric in the newsletter. Meetings and discussions were also held with parents. The school architect was tasked with developing a property development plan which would transform the existing buildings into modern learning environments. Stage 1 of this development is planned for 2014. All teaching staff were involved in professional learning

developed with the three teacher-only days with Mark Treadwell and two full days at Amesbury School. Other staff also visited Stonefields and Pt England Schools. The principal attended the CEFPI conference which focused on FFT&L and the physical environment. The academic prize-list was reviewed and those awards which were deemed no longer appropriate were deleted.

There is not a community of teachers across the family of schools, although TSTB does promote innovation in education. There is however a developing community of teachers across the Masterton primary school cluster. Pupil voice was utilised extensively in the FFT&L trials and informed decisions.

Target

Present Situation

To continue to investigate and implement a structure and programmes that address

future-focused teaching and learning to raise the level of engagement of the learners,

more effectively meet individual needs, and promote greater teacher collaboration.

The school has embarked on a journey of transformation from the traditional education model to one with a future-focus to ensure that the needs of the children

are being met.

Action

continue to enthuse and educate the staff, pupils and school community regarding

the need to, and benefits of , implementing a future-focused learning and teaching environment;

complete a scoping, feasibility study to determine the potential physical changes

required to the current physical environment;

to provide a robust, wireless digital environment for all learners to access with BYO

electronic devices;

provide on-going, professional learning opportunities for all teachers, support staff

and the school community to ensure there is a shared vision for the future;

continue to strengthen the professional relationship established with Amesbury and

Stonefields Schools, and educational leaders in this field;

maintain an objective, investigative focus to learn from the trials and initiatives of

these schools, and to trial flexible learning programmes, cross-year group and cross-curricular models of teaching & learning to determine the most effective model for the school;

critically evaluate the current level of engagement of the learners in the classroom

and implement strategies to maximise the level of engagement for all learners;

provide opportunities for greater ownership of learning by the learners through on-

line and independent learning opportunities;

ensure that the prize-list and awards recognise and acknowledge engagement and

future-focused learning achievements;

promote and nurture a community of teachers and learners across the family of

schools to ensure there is a seamless transition between the schools;

ensure that pupil voice informs all decisions in the school.

Resources

Professional Learning, Feasibility Study for Property Changes, TSTB Information

Systems Strategic Plan Budget:

39

Goal 3: To ensure all pupils are provided with a variety of opportunities to enable them to become self-managing learners.

Focus

Future Focused Learning/Pupil Voice Completed by / Comments The principal completed on-going research on FFT&L as his leadership inquiry as part of the principals’’ learning group programme. The staff were also involved in reading and discussing relevant research texts and articles during the year.

The current structure of the school had been identified as creating two separate ‘schools’ with priority allegiance by staff to ‘their’ school rather than the school overall. This was a result of senior leadership practices which stressed compliance rather than initiative. With the implementation of FFT&L with two-year group-integration, and the development of a collaborative teaching model, the concept of hub leadership was realised. This model provides a two-year ‘base’ with greater stability for the children. This will be fully implemented in 2014. The leadership model was researched and contemporary structures were evaluated.

The key roles will transform to curriculum leader, assessment leader, and organisational leader as over-arching management positions, and the introduction of hub team-leaders will distribute the leadership and create a ‘one school’ community. Pupil Voice was implemented at the Y5-Y8 levels during the evaluation of the different flexible learning initiatives, and the feed-back was collated to provide valuable information that informed decisions regarding further implementation. The school was surveyed on interpersonal relationships and personal well-being. The

responses were analysed and provided the impetus for the implementation of the health programme and a school-wide instructional programme. A ‘post-box’ was provided for pupils to feed-back areas of concern, and these were discussed at assemblies. The out-of-school learning was enhanced with class learning excursions to Te Papa and Te Manawa, the EOTC physical pursuits programme and through the passion-time activities as part of the FFT&L programme.

The Wellbeing at School survey provided a snap-shot of the level of mutual respect and support amongst the staff and children. This became a focus for development during the year, and incidents of bullying (staff/staff, pupil/pupil) were reduced. The development of collaborative teaching hubs and a ‘one-school’ focus will further enhance this aspect of school life.

Targets

Present Situation

To promote learner-initiated, independent, personalised learning

with flexible, cross-year-grouping opportunities.

The current teaching and learning programme tends to be

structured with the overview of teaching and learning programmes determined without pupil voice.

Action

1. On-going research, reading and discussion

2. Develop structures for a school-wide learning

community:

- change the school structure

- investigate and implement changes to the

senior management structures

- provide professional learning opportunities that

will encourage and strengthen collaboration

and peer support school-wide

3. Pupil voice:

- to develop opportunities for authentic pupil

voice… in classroom

- to investigate and implement opportunities for

pupil voice… outside the classroom

- formulate the most appropriate conduits to

receive voice in the classroom and outside etc

4. To provide opportunities for out of school

learning making positive… etc

5. To create a robust culture of mutual respect

and support amongst all the children and staff Resources Budget:

40

Goal 4: To develop, implement and review a school-wide strategic programme for sports development.

Focus

Consolidate a school-wide approach to sport. Completed by / Comments

There has been confusion regarding the board’s sport policy and the

board’s sport strategy, a document that is now in its tenth version,

having increased in size from four to six pages. The sport strategy,

although aspirational, is incredibly prescriptive and deals with the

minutiae of detail and does not allow flexibility of process in different

situations determined by numbers. This confusion over policy and

strategy has led to a further review of the strategy to ensure it addresses the needs of the school. This was one of a number of

strategic initiatives included in the sport administrator’s job

description.

The swimming survey provided valuable information and feed-back

from the children and parents. The board has established a minimum

standard for all swimmers, and those who can achieve this standard

will not be expected to participate in the swimming instructional

programme. This will better meet the needs of the children.

The parents have not been formally survey at the end of each sport

season but anecdotal, incidental, and conflict-response feed-back has

been received and informed decisions regarding sport policy. There

has been open dialogue with parents to ensure issues are addressed.

The year-plan has been developed which highlights seasonal activities

and requirements, but is not rigidly prescriptive. The focus has been on

accommodating as many children as possible in as many sport

opportunities as possible. The sports programme has also been

incorporated in FFT&L. This year there have been a greater variety of

sports promoted and offered than in previous years.

The feasibility of a cloud-based calendar to inform parents was

investigated, but each of the schools maintains its own calendar on

individual web-sites. There was not a willingness for the schools’ calendar of events to be coordinated.

Target

Present Situation

To have a fully operational, school-wide, strategic programme in place

for sport development.

The sport programme and level of participation has improved but there

still remains need for continuing progress.

Action

the sports administrator’s job description to include strategic

level initiatives and developments;

conform and ratify the final draft of the sports policy;

implement the recommendations from the swimming survey;

survey parents regularly with specific issues concerned with

the sport programme;

encourage open dialogue with the community;

develop a year-plan incorporating all sport opportunities and

commitments;

investigate the feasibility of a Trinity-wide, cloud-based calendar to inform parents of events and to avoid potential

clashes.

Resources

Budget:

41

Goal 5: To ensure all staff maintain a high quality of teaching practice and build sound parent/teacher relationships.

Focus

Future-focused teaching & learning in a digital environment Completed by / Comments The implementation of FFT&L has, as a consequence, lifted the level of professionalism and pedagogical practice of many staff members. Others who were already effective practitioners have also refined their skills and level of instructional practice. This has been evident from the regular observations & visits by the principal, and the self and

peer appraisal of teachers during term 1 & term 3. The implementation of an on-line reflective journal has also enhanced the professional growth of teacher and improved levels of collaboration. In the established hubs, planning and achievement monitoring is completed collaboratively. The flexible learning programme has allowed pupils to feed-back their learning needs more effectively so that their learning can be personalised. Currently 67% of teaching staff would be FFT&L advocates of FFT&L – the remaining staff members have yet to fully implement the programme, and this will be a priority for 2014. The redevelopment of the buildings will also provide a much more open and integrated teaching and learning space, and will promote much easier and freer access

for parents. Teachers and parents are now communicating more regularly and effectively as a result of the FFT&L. Teachers have advised parents of changes and parents have then responded with questions to ensure they are fully conversant with the process and outcomes. The report-writing and reporting of progress has evolved during the last year. The reports address the requirements of the national standards and are highly detailed. The three-way learning conferences have provided a forum for in-depth discussion regarding progress and levels of achievement.

The Appraisal Connector tool has proved to be a robust and effective appraisal method. Utilising peer-appraisal and senior staff appraisal, along with self-appraisal has meant that teachers receive an accurate, honest picture of their practice. This has identified areas of development which have been developed as appraisal goals linked to the strategic plan. Staff have also been able to determine their professional learning requirements. I am not convinced that target groups are always closely monitored because the national standards identification can be superseded by in-class achievement analysis. There does

not seem to be documentation of the monitoring of these specific groups, and the review is often non-specific. Accelerating progress of learners who have long-term difficulties is not always achievable because they have reached their intellectual potential. Identifying problems early on and implementing specific programmes of instruction remains a priority.

Target

Present

Situation

To have a wireless, digital, pedagogical, and physical environment that

facilitates teaching and learning anywhere, at any time, at an individual’s

personalised pace.

There is a variance of pedagogical practice and physical constraints

across the school that inhibits future-focused learning development.

Action

develop a culture of openness between the teacher and learner about

the children’s learning & achievement through reciprocal feed-back and feed-forward, documented through the teachers’ self-reflection of practice;

continue the implementation of future-focused teaching and learning to ensure all staff are capable practitioners promoting personalised

learning for all learners;

create an open environment where parents feel welcome in all parts of the school at any time – open door policy;

encourage teachers and parents to communicate regularly and effectively with one another to report on pupils’ progress and learning

initiatives;

teachers are reflective practitioners focusing on teaching as inquiry as part of their appraisal process;

a staff appraisal programme targeted towards future-focused teaching and learning through self-reflection against the strategic goals and

NZTC teacher criteria;

fully implement the Appraisal Connector programme school-wide with self and peer review twice-annually;

seek feed-back from staff regarding their particular learning needs to ensure they are confident to trial initiatives to promote greater learner-engagement and future-focused learning

to ensure established target-groups are closely monitored and that individual needs are addressed with specific interventions and

strategies to accelerate progress;

early identification of learning needs with on-going learning support.

Resources

Professional learning

InterLead Appraisal Programme Budget:

42

SELF REVIEW ANNUAL PLAN 2013 TASK PERSONNEL TIME YES/NO

NAG 1 CURRICULUM REQUIREMENTS To set appropriate goals and targets in reading,

writing and mathematics to ensure that there is

accelerated progress for those who are not reaching

the standard.

Principal and senior

staff

Term 1 The collation of the National Standards and school-wide assessment

data identified areas of potential development that needed to be

addressed through explicit targeting of groups of pupils not reaching the

standard. The progress of individuals and groups were monitored

during the year and the teachers used their on-line reflective journal to

update any developments. The analysis of variance report at the end of

the year reported on the group’s progress.

To set goals and targets to ensure that all learners are

encouraged and challenged to reach their potential in

reading, writing and mathematics.

Principal & Staff Term 1 Goals and targets were confirmed in reading, writing, and mathematics.

Writing was identified as an area for further focus, especially for the

boys who were over-represented at below the standard. In mathematics

the focus was on lifting the level of girls’ achievement. In reading the goal was to lift the number achieving above the standard.

To evaluate the current the current school-day and

structure, and implement changes to maximise

opportunities for flexibility of teaching and learning

through a future-focused lens.

Staff Term 4 The staff reviewed the current structure to the school day as part as the

implementation of the future-focused teaching and learning model,

coupled with a more independent, child-centred, flexible learning

programme, based on two-year cross-grouping. This was consolidated

at the Y7&8 level and introduced at the Y5&6 level, and Y0&Y1. The Y2-Y4 implemented a cross-grouping programme for reading and for

mathematics.

Strategic Goal 2

To progress the implementation of a future-focused

teaching and learning environment which maximises

the engagement of the teachers and learners.

Board, principal &

senior staff

Term 4 The development of the future-focused teaching & learning environment

was progressed during the year. All teachers were able to visit

Amesbury School where they observed a FFT&L environment in action,

and were able to discuss the programme with the school’s staff. The

Y5-Y8 and Y0-Y1 areas developed flexible teaching and learning and

collaborative teaching practices. The Y2-Y4 classes initiated some

flexibility and cross-grouping, and this will be refined further in 2014.

NAG 2 SELF REVIEW

To review the strategic plan and set strategic goals to

address the strategic direction of the school.

Board of Trustees Term 1 The board met prior to the commencement of the 2013 school year and

reviewed the strategic plan, and set strategic goals that addressed special

character, sport, and teaching and learning.

To review the responses from the community

regarding the provision of sport at the school and implement agreed to recommendations

Sports Administrator Term 1 The sport administrator has addressed the concerns raised in the feed-

back from parents and has implemented the recommendations from the report wherever it was feasible with numbers to do so.

To review and respond to the community’s responses

regarding the delivery of a swimming programme at

the school, and implement recommendations

Sports Administrator Term 1 The board established a policy for swimming instruction as a result of

the responses from the community consultation. The board set a

minimum standard of ability which determined whether a child needed

43

to participate in the swimming instructional programme. Those pupils

who already exceeded the target length were not required to participate

in the programme. This was not communicated effectively and there

was some resistance from staff initially because of perceived logistical

issues.

To review the management structure of the school to

ensure personnel are fulfilling appropriate roles, and

that the model fits within a future-focused teaching

and learning direction

Principal, senior staff,

board of trustees

Term 3 The traditional management/leadership structure, based on the

hierarchical model was identified as creating a ‘two-school’ model,

rather than a unified, single, collaborative body The leadership

structure was seen as creating ‘fiefdoms’ and inhibited progress in the

implementation of a FFT&L model. After investigation it was

determined that the leadership model would be distributed and hub-leader positions would be created for 2014.

To review all school policies. Legislative Committee Terms 1 - 4 All school policies were reviewed by the board, but the board resolved

to review the requirement for some of the policies and to group the

manadatory policies under headings. Others would be redeveloped as

procedures.

Strategic Goal 3

To investigate and implement opportunities to

maximise pupil voice in decisions made at the school.

Principal & staff Term 4 The opportunities for pupil voice were maximised in the implementation

of the FFT&L programme. The pupils had the opportunity to reflect on

their week and feed-back to the teachers. The responses from the

children informed decisions made by the teachers. An opportunity to

include pupil voice in teacher appraisal is also being investigated.

Strategic Goal 4

To consolidate a school-wide approach to sport,

which meets the needs of the children and the school

community.

Sports Administrator Term 3 The school has a school-wide approach to sport, established and

developed by the sports administrator. Where numbers permit, all major

codes are addressed and a significant number of minor codes. The focus

this year has been on exposing a wide-range of sporting pursuits so that

children are aware of what is available and can then ‘have a go’. Specialist coaching is also now available during the school day.

NAG 3 PERSONNEL

To review all job descriptions to ensure specific tasks

are detailed and outcomes are clear.

Principal Term 1 The position descriptions were reviewed at the start of the school year

and then discussed with each staff member (teaching & non-teaching).

Changes to areas of responsibility and/or tasks were negotiated.

To fully implement the Appraisal Connector

programme with all staff and the reflective journal

with classroom teachers

Principal, Staff Term 4 The on-line appraisal programme was administered twice during the

year – at the end of T1 and T3. Teachers were required to self-appraise

and their assessment was compared with the principal’s and syndicate

leaders. The on-line reflective journal was also implemented in trial

form and teachers reflected on their personal appraisal goals.

To maintain the daily classroom visits and

observations, providing feed-back to the teachers and

children.

Principal, senior staff All year The principal completed regular classroom visits to observed the cross-

year grouping instruction, the independent learning opportunities, and

the level of engagement of the learners. The walk-throughs provided

valuable insight into the success of the FFT&L programme and

provided much anecdotal information.

To provide professional learning opportunities for all Principal Term 4 Future-focused education was the principal focus for professional

44

staff in future-focused education.

learning development this year. The staff read and discussed the MOE

publication on future-oriented learning, articles and other written

resources were distributed and discussed, and all teaching staff had two

days’ PD at Amesbury School, while others also visited Stonefields and

Point England Schools. The principal attended the CEFPI conference in

Auckland and the WRPPA conference in Wellington, focusing on

FFT&L.

NAG 4 PROPERTY & FINANCE

Strategic Goal 5

To have a future-focused, digital learning

environment.

IT Lead Teachers Term 1 The Y5-Y8 teachers implemented and trialled a number of cross-

grouping and flexible learning options during Term 1, with feed-back

provided by the children. The decision was made to create a Y7&8 and

Y5&6 hub with cross-grouping occurring within each one. With the opening of the Y0 class the Y0&1 teachers opted to develop a

collaborative hub in the former library space. The TSTB approved a

policy of BOYD which allows for optimum digital learning to occur.

The Y5-Y8 classes are all digital learning environments.

To install electric hand-driers in the pupils’ toilet

areas.

Principal Term 1 Electric hand-driers were installed in all of the pupils’ toilet areas. This

has eliminated the need for paper hand-towels and has minimised the

potential of sinks being blocked, and taps being left on to over-flow.

To introduce future-focused furniture in the Y8

classroom.

Principal, senior staff Term 1 The Y8 classroom trialled different levels of furniture to determine the

range of furniture that would be required in a FFT&L environment.

One consequence of a modern learning environment is that there is no

longer a requirement for a seat and desk for every child so the furniture

was eventually shared with the Y7 class.

To provide a contingency sum for the

investigation/feasibility study into building

modifications to create a 21st century learning environment.

Board of Trustees Term 1 The board of trustees allocated a contingency sum which allowed the

school to engage the school architects in developing a concept plan as to

how the existing buildings could be modified to create modern learning environments. The school now has an updated property development

plan which will transform the school as a modern learning environment.

To redecorate the walls & ceilings of the junior

school block.

Principal Term 4 The board’s decision to create a FFT&L environment has superseded

the planned upgrade of the junior rooms. This has been amended to

demolishing the current locker-room/toilet spaces and creating a glazed

break-out space.

Upgrade the school’s wire-less network to ensure it is

robust enough to provide anytime, anywhere, any

pace learning potential.

IT Lead-Teachers Term 1 The school initiated an upgrade of the wireless network to ensure it was

robust enough for the school’s needs. This was achieved, although the

school was then advised that it would be Snupped, and now has had all

the infrastructure modernised to accommodate ultra-fast broad-band

connectivity.

Recarpet the school library.

Principal Term 2 This was deferred as the library was moved to the former Y1 classroom,

and the library space became the Y0/Y1 trial hub.

Replace the black-out curtains in the school hall. Principal Term 1 The hall black-out curtains were replaced.

Replace the lighting in Sedgley Hall. Principal Term 2 The lighting in Sedgley Hall was deemed to be satisfactory and met the

45

particular needs of the dance/drama and music programmes.

Install the playland. Board of Trustees,

Friends

Term 1 The installation of the playland has not progressed for a number of

reasons. The former board was uncertain as to the appropriateness of

the structure within the school grounds, and then once they had resolved

to install it nobody was able to find the plans. The Friends had

incorporated the playland into their grounds development but internal

conflict meant that it did not proceed during the year.

NAG 5 HEALTH & SAFETY

Install sun-shade blinds in the Literacy & RE rooms.

Principal Term 1 Sun-shade blinds were installed in the Literacy & RE rooms in the

prefab classrooms. The sun-shade blinds provide a much more effective

sun barrier than the existing drapes.

To initiate contracts with maintenance companies to

ensure the school is a safe environment.

Principal Term 2 Maintenance contracts exist for grounds, care-taking, electrical work,

plumbing, gutter-cleaning, windows and doors, glazing, and exterior

painting. Minor maintenance and repairs has also been confirmed on a case by case requirement.

To review the school’s emergency, safety, and

pandemic plans.

Principal Term 1 The school’s emergency evacuation plan and the pandemic plan have

been reviewed. As part of the review it was identified that Sedgley Hall

was not a part of the school’s fire-alarm system, so a separate

evacuation plan had to be put in place.

To investigate the threat of emergency situations such

as ‘lock-downs’ and determine the need for specific

plans.

Principal, Board of

Trustees

Term 2 The threat of emergency situations requiring the school to go into lock-

down was not deemed likely. The exterior speakers (on the staff-room

building) were linked to a microphone in the principal’s office which

allows an emergency call to be made. This can then be reinforced with

a telephone call to each classroom.

To complete an evacuation drill each term, and

regularly complete earth-quake drills.

Principal Terms 1-4 A fire drill was completed each term. A separate drill may need to be

completed at Sedgley Hall as it operates on a different alarm.

NAG 6 LEGISLATION

To submit the updated school charter by the due date.

Board of Trustees 1 March The 2013 school charter was completed by the due-date and was

submitted to the Ministry of Education as required. The annual report

was not submitted by the due date because of complications created

with the centralisation of TSTB Accounts.

To submit the national standards report by the due

date.

Principal, Board of

Trustees

1 March The national standards data and report was submitted to the Ministry by

the due-date.

To ensure that the school is inclusive in its approach

to, and care of all children and personnel.

Principal, staff Term 4 The school accepts any child whose family is prepared to uphold the

special character of the school. There are no non-preference pupils

enrolled at the school. The schools does not discriminate any child, and

endeavours to support each learner with their needs.

SPECIAL CHARACTER

Strategic Goal 1

To clarify the special character of the school in such a

way that it can be explained to the school community,

The TSTB Special Character Committee spent much of its meetings in

2013 discussing what special character actually is. Although it is

enshrined in the integration agreements, the detail often includes aspects

46

and understood – what makes Hadlow, Hadlow.

of the school character that are not linked to the Anglican nature of the

school. The TSTB committee established that it is primarily to do with

the religious ethos and the association with the Church. The aspects that

make Hadlow different to other schools is not necessarily part of it.

To continue to integrate te reo Māori and tikanga

Māori into the school culture.

Staff Term 4 Te reo Māori continued to be integrated into the class and school

culture. It is firmly embedded in the RE, music and art programmes.

47

STRATEGIC PLAN 2014 - 2016 MISSION: To foster learning by educating for excellence through academic, physical, cultural, and spiritual challenges in a caring and safe environment.

VISION: A Hadlow pupil will be literate, self-managing, self-motivated, confident, respectful, and responsible.

STRATEGIC FOCUS Goal 1 To identify, preserve &

celebrate the values &

special character of the

school

Goal 2 To develop &

implement systems &

programmes to improve

pupil achievement, with emphasis on numeracy

& literacy.

Goal 3 To ensure all pupils are

provided with a variety

of opportunities to

enable them to become self-motivated & self-

managing learners.

Goal 4 To develop, implement

& review a school-wide

programme for sport

development.

Goal 5 To ensure all staff

maintain a high quality

of teaching practice and

build sound parent/teacher

relationships

2014

Review the RE, chapel programme, and

religious connections to

special character

through an inquiry into best practice in a FFTL

context

Inquire into best practice to inform our

reporting and interview

process and seek feed-

back re innovative programmes to improve

pupil engagement and

achievement.

Educating for the future to ensure learners are

self-managing & self-

motivated with a special

focus on implementing a dynamic and leading-

edge IT plan

To embed a diverse sport programme to

encourage maximum

participation by all

children.

Investigate and support collaborative

relationships to support

the learning

environment and improve the monitoring

and reporting of priority

learners

Community consultation to determine the future, strategic direction of the school

2014 – 2018: developing a future focused teaching and learning environment to prepare the children for the 21st century.

2015 Develop the school’s

special character so that

it fits within the future focus of the school

based on the outcomes

from the 2014 review.

Embed future-focused

teaching and learning

programmes across the school to facilitate

greater pupil

achievement and review and refine reporting and

interviewing processes.

A future-focused

teaching & learning

programme incorporating

flexibility, personalised

learning and opportunities for pupil

independence is the

expectation of all.

Review the school’s

sporting infrastructure

and identify resource requirements to

facilitate identified

changes.

Review collaborative

learning environments

and the monitoring and reporting process to

ensure the level of

engagement and achievement is reported

accurately.

2016 Embed the schools special character to

ensure it informs all

that happens at the school.

Future-focused teaching and learning is accepted

as the school’s

pedagogical practice.

Review and modify as informed by community

consultation.

Review and assess the sport strategy and

implement changes.

Create an open environment where

parents feel they are an

integral & significant part of the school.

48

Goal 1: To identify, preserve, and celebrate the values and special character of the school.

Focus

Relevant and engaging spiritual programmes Completed by / Comments

Target

Present Situation

Complete a review of religious programmes

(the RE and chapel programmes, and connections to the Church) through an inquiry into best practice and a set of

recommendations for implementation

The current religious programmes are disconnected from the

school curriculum programme and a future-focused teaching

and learning pedagogy

Action

collect feed-back on the current religious

programmes from key stake-holders using

Survey Monkey (including pupils, staff, parents,

diocesan representatives, and the Anglican

Schools’ Office (EOT1);

review and evaluation of the present religious

programmes (EOT2);

investigate best practice delivery of religious

programmes with special consideration given to

a FFT&L context (including consultation/visits

to NZ schools of special character (EOT3);

present findings and recommendations for

implementation of a best practice FFT&L

religious programme (EOT4). Resources

PD funding, Anglican Schools’ Office, Survey Monkey

Budget:

49

Goal 2: To develop and implement systems and programmes to improve pupil engagement in a future-focused learning environment.

Focus

Best practice reporting and interview processes Completed by / Comments

Target

Present Situation

Develop a best practice reporting (to parents) and learning conference

framework that aligns to FFT&L, facilitates collaborative parent-teacher

partnerships, and leads to improved pupil engagement and achievement.

The present reporting framework is not easy for parents to translate into plain English and the learning conference needs to be reviewed for consistency to

meet the needs of parents and pupils to ensure alignment with FFT&L.

Action

collect feedback on the current reporting and learning

conference framework from key stakeholders (parents & staff)

using Survey Monkey (EOT1);

review and evaluation of the present reporting and learning

conference frameworks (EOT2);

investigate best practice delivery of reporting and learning

conferences, with special consideration given to the FFT&L

context (such as start of year meetings with parents (EOT3);

consultation with/visits to NZ schools of special character to

scope the current practice of reporting and learning conferences

(EOT3);

present findings and recommendations for implementing a best

practice reporting and learning conference framework for 2015

(EOT4).

Resources

PD Funding, Survey Monkey Budget:

50

Goal 3: To ensure all pupils are provided with a variety of opportunities to enable them to become self-managing learners.

Focus

State-of-the-art technology supporting best practice blended

learning pedagogy

Completed by / Comments

Target

Present Situation

Develop a dynamic and leading-edge IT plan to support our goal

of self-managing, self-motivated & confident pupils, and to

improve pupil engagement and achievement.

Blended learning is not fully integrated across the school, IT planning is not visionary and IT resources are not leading-edge.

Action

assemble a team of passionate & interested teachers

and investigate best practice blended learning

technology and practices (EOT3);

visit schools that demonstrate best practice blended

learning in New Zealand;

attend conferences, seminars and workshops with a

focus on blended learning and IT;

seek input and professional development from

experts and leaders of blended learning (such as

CORE Education);

identify relevant international research & practice;

develop a customised blended learning plan for

Hadlow to meet the individual needs and goals of

the school and TSTB (including vision, strategy,

expenditure plan (EOT3);

present the visionary IT plan & recommendations

(EOT4).

Resources PD Funding, TSTB IT Strategy, Core Education, U-Learn,

CEFPI Budget:

51

Goal 4: To develop, implement and review a school-wide programme for sports development.

Focus Refine and embed the school-wide sports programme that focuses on fun, variety and participation Completed by / Comments

Target

Present Situation

All children actively participating and enjoying sporting success.

A varied and participation-focused sports programme has been developing over the last four years. The policies and procedures that underpin this programme need to be aligned to FFTL and enacted throughout

the school.

Action critically review the school’s sports policy to ensure alignment with FFTL pedagogy

(EOT1) and the school’s curriculum policy, i.e., personalised, inclusive, engaging,

anywhere/anytime, assessment driven, collaborative, continuous learning for teachers

and students, partnerships (EOT1);

ratify the sport policy as the guiding document for sport development and sporting

opportunities at the school (EOT1);

work collaboratively to develop and disseminate a school sports procedure which

includes the roles and responsibilities of teachers and the Sports Co-ordinator in the

sports programme (EOT2);

review the existing fixtures, school-wide sports programmes (i.e., cross country,

athletics), and team/individual coaching and make recommendations to ensure a best

practice FFT&L sports programme (EOT3)

promote sporting and physical activities to children that aligns to the sports policy

and procedures;

investigate and trial new ways to recruit, train and retain high-quality sports coaches

and managers from our community (parents, secondary students, etc);

gather feedback and participation statistics from key stakeholders (pupils, staff

parents, coaches) regarding their satisfaction with the sports programmes (at the end

of the summer and winter season) (EOT1 and T3);

Report findings and make recommendations to the BOT twice a year (EOT1 and T3). Resources

Sport Administrator/Principal/Hub Leaders, Hadlow Active, Sport Wairarapa, Sport Wellington, Sports

Coordinators Cluster,

Sport NZ ;Good Practice Principles, Coaching Resources

Budget:

52

Goal 5: To ensure all staff maintain a high quality of teaching practice and build sound parent/teacher relationships.

Focus

Raising the achievement of priority learners Completed by / Comments

Target

Present

Situation

Accelerate the achievement of priority learners through improved

internal monitoring and reporting, and the development and implementation of Māori and Pasifika education plans.

Internal monitoring of priority learners is not regular and is

reported only at year-end. The school does not have a Māori or Pasifika education plan.

Action

identify priority learners from National Standards data

and start-of-year assessment and develop specific targets

and programmes to accelerate progress (EOT1);

establish regular hub-based reporting of priority learners’

progress via hub-leader meetings (EOT1);

report termly to the BOT on the progress of priority

learners;

consult the school community of Māori & Pasifika

parents to establish a whanau committee (EOT1);

develop a plan for Māori & Pasifika to address the

aspirations and priorities of the parents (EOT2);

research and implement the focus areas of Ka Hikitia and

the MOE Pasifika Education Plan (EOT2);

as a staff, review, develop and implement the practices

of Tātaiko as part of the education plans (EOT3);

Resources

MOE documents & plans: Tātaiko, Ka Hikitia, seminars & workshops,

professional development Budget:

53

SELF REVIEW ANNUAL PLAN 2014 TASK PERSONNEL TIME REVIEW

NAG 1 CURRICULUM REQUIREMENTS

Strategic Goal 2: Develop a best practice reporting to

parents and learning conference framework that aligns to

FFT&L, facilitates collaborative parent-teacher partnerships,

and leads to improved pupil engagement and achievement

Principal

Hub-Leaders

Staff

EOT4

Strategic Goal 4: to embed a dynamic, diverse sports

programme to encourage maximum participation and

excellence.

Sport

Administrator

EOT4

Strategic Goal 5: to accelerate the achievement of priority

learners through improved internal monitoring and reporting

procedures.

Principal

Hub-Leaders

EOT4

To set appropriate goals and identify target groups of priority

learners in reading, writing and mathematics

Principal

Hub-Leaders

EOT1

To develop a Māori Education Plan to ensure that Māori can

achieve success as Māori

Principal

Hub-Leaders

Staff

EOT2

To develop a Pasifika Education Plan so Pasifika can achieve

success as Pasifika

Principal

Hub-Leaders

Staff

EOT2

To embed the Future-Focused Teaching & Learning (FFT&L)

as a flexible, independent, child-centred pedagogy

Curriculum

Leader Staff

EOT4

NAG 2 SELF REVIEW

To review the strategic plan document and set strategic focus

for each goal to address the desired strategic direction of the

school

BOT

Staff

EOT1

To review all policies. BOT

EOT4

To develop a port-folio of policies & procedures to ensure

that all legislative requirements are covered.

BOT

EOT3

NAG 3 PERSONNEL

To review all job-descriptions to incorporate all areas of

responsibility and the expectations of this responsibility as

outcomes

Principal

EOT1

54

To develop position descriptions which identify the outcomes

for the allocation of management units.

Principal EOT1

To review all aspects of position responsibility and create a

distributed leadership/management structure which promotes

collegiality.

Principal

EOT1

To further strengthen the hub concept as a seamless, two-year

demographic unit for teaching and learning

Hub-Leaders

EOT4

To provide explicit professional learning development school-

wide and hub-based to address the needs of the school and

teachers

Principal

Curriculum

Leader

EOT3

To fully implement all aspects of the Appraisal Connector,

incorporating the student voice category, and the reflective

journal

Principal

Hub-Leaders

EOT1

NAG 4 PROPERTY & FINANCE

Strategic Goal 3: develop a dynamic and leading-edge IT

plan to support self-managing, self-motivated & confident pupils

Staff IT Group

EOT4

To develop the senior veranda as an integral learning space

for Hubs 3&4

Principal

Board

Architect

EOT3

To remove part of the internal walls within the two spaces

that currently make up Hub 2, 3, and 4

Principal

Architect

EOT1

To create a variable teaching & learning space in Hub 1 by

removing part of the wall

Principal

Architect

EOT1

To provide future which aligns with modern learning

environments in FFT&L

Staff

EOT3

To install electric hand-driers in the staff toilet areas Principal EOT2

Upgrade the school’s signage to provide a welcoming and

accurate directory of facilities

Principal EOT2

Upgrade/refurbishment of admin offices: principal, sport

administrator, admin

Principal EOT4

NAG 5 HEALTH & SAFETY

To develop a bus-parking bay to improve the safety of the

pupils and improve traffic flow

Principal

Architect

EOT2

To install a raised foot-path along the front of the homestead

building to improve the safety of the pupils

Principal

Architect

EOT2

To complete fire and earthquake emergency evacuation drills each term

Principal Staff

T1-4

To review the school’s readiness procedures for a disaster

such as an earthquake

BOT EOT1

55

NAG 6 LEGISLATION

To submit the school’s updated annual charter by the due date BOT 01/03/14

To submit National Standards achievement data summaries

and analysis by the due date

Principal 01/03/14

To comply with any legislative requirement by the Ministry

of Education as gazetted

BOT T1-T4

SPECIAL CHARACTER

Strategic Goal 1: review the religious education and chapel

programmes, and the connections to the Church.

EOT4

To strengthen the relationship with the Church of the

Epiphany by maintaining a reciprocal association.

Principal

Chaplain

T1-T4

Date post:	04-Oct-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

HADLOW SCHOOL CHARTER 2014 - 2016

Documents