|
|
|||||||||||
Questions/instructions:
|
|||||||||||
%
responses 2006 ('02) |
|||||||||||
y4 |
y8
|
||||||||||
focused on after school care |
25 (32) |
52 (49) |
|||||||||
contact details included |
16 (15) |
52 (47) |
|||||||||
Approriateness of
language style: |
strong |
9 (3) |
24 (34) |
||||||||
moderate |
36 (28) |
53 (41) |
|||||||||
weak |
55 (69) |
23 (25) |
|||||||||
Suitable heading included: | 16 (17) |
48 (44) |
|||||||||
Described the kind of
person required: |
very well |
16 (10) |
31 (30) |
||||||||
moderately well |
38 (44) |
42 (31) |
|||||||||
poorly |
46 (46) |
27 (39) |
|||||||||
Described the kinds of
things they would do: |
very well |
10 (4) |
6 (14) |
||||||||
moderately well |
34 (36) |
35 (38) |
|||||||||
poorly |
56 (60) |
59 (48) |
|||||||||
Addressed the need for proper care: |
very well |
4 (5) |
7 (18) |
||||||||
moderately well |
25 (22) |
36 (30) |
|||||||||
poorly |
71 (73) |
57 (52) |
|||||||||
Total
score: |
7–11 |
6 (1) |
22 (27) |
||||||||
5–6 |
14 (10) |
29 (33) |
|||||||||
3–4 |
29 (30) |
27 (16) |
|||||||||
1–2 |
31 (44) |
14 (14) |
|||||||||
0 |
20 (15) |
8 (10) |
Subgroup Analysis: |
Year 4 |
||
Year 8 |
Commentary: |
Few students handled this challenging task really well. In general, girls did a little better than boys at both year levels but there were only minor differences in performance between Pasifika, Mäori and Pakeha students. |
MID RANGE EXEMPLARS: | HIGH RANGE EXEMPLARS: |
|
||