A2: An analysis of baseline data

Strand 1: An Analysis of Baseline Data Available to the Parties on

Current Staffing Delivery and Patterns of Class Size Distribution

Subgroup report to the Secondary Schools’ Staffing Group

1 What is staffing currently provided for in schools?

Staffing is currently provided to secondary schools by formula through the annual Education
(School Staffing) Order in Council (the Staffing Order) for distributing the available resourcing to:
Deliver the national curriculum, ensuring effective teaching and learning and assessment
and that students have access to qualifications on the qualifications framework
Provide for the pastoral and guidance needs of students
Provide for the management and administration needs of schools
Specialist functions e.g. special education and specialist classroom teachers
Meet applicable collective agreement provisions.

Staffing use in schools may be:

Prescribed e.g. the requirement to have a principal
Driven by regulation e.g. the requirement to deliver the compulsory curriculum up to year
10 or to meet the pastoral needs of students
Driven by practical requirement e.g. the need to have management structure and a
principal‟s nominee
Driven by parental expectation e.g. senior subject option range.

The subgroup envisages that the case studies will provide some indication of the current uses of
staffing in secondary schools and the drivers behind that pattern of use. It will also provide new
insight into the differing frameworks for class size decision-making used in a range of schools.

1
CONTEXT IN WHICH NEW ZEALAND SECONDARY SCHOOLS ARE RESOURCED

2 How is staffing provided to secondary schools?

Staffing is provided to secondary schools by formula in the Staffing Order as detailed in the
Ministry of Education‟s Schools‟ Resourcing Handbook.

The primary purpose of the Staffing Order is, “in accordance with section 91H of the Education
Act 1989, to limit the financial liability of the Crown arising out of its obligation under section 91C
of the Act to pay the salaries of all regular teachers employed at payrolled schools”.

To that end, “this order prescribes limitations on the number of regular teachers who may be
employed at payrolled schools during the school year to which this order applies”. In this
manner entitlement staffing is generated.

Entitlement staffing as stated in the annual Staffing Order is provided as:

curriculum delivery allowance staffing (a base component of up to six full-time teacher
equivalents (FTTE) generated by the number of secondary year levels and per student
staffing generated at different rates according to year level, the lower the year level the
higher the ratio)
management time allowance staffing (a base component of up to one FTTE and a roll-
generated component weighted for each year level)
additional guidance1 allowance (a base component of up to 2.3 FTTE generated by the
number of secondary year levels).

Base staffing components proportionately form a significant part of the staffing for smaller
schools (to seek to ensure the provision of reasonable curriculum width and accommodate lack
of economy of scale). Proportionately the base staffing components become an increasingly
less significant component of the overall staffing entitlement as school roll size increases.

There is some limited ability for “the Secretary for Education to exempt a board, in respect of a
school it administers, from the limitations imposed by (this) order if there is a special reason for
an exemption for the school, being a reason that applies only to the school or to some other
schools, but not being a reason that applies to all other schools” (also see section 91H(2)(d) of
the Education Act 1989).

Boards of Trustees have some flexibility in timing the use of their staffing entitlement. Within
each year, individual schools can choose to anticipate up to 10% of their staffing entitlement
(using it in advance or going into overdraft) save it up for use later in the year, or operate
staffing usage on a full year basis, with no saving and no overdraft in each pay period. This has
not been investigated in terms of the influence it might have on class size management.

The current staffing formula traces its history back to the mid 1940s. There were minor
modifications to the staffing formula in the 1980s in response to the recommendations from the
Secondary School Staffing Group (SSSG).

In 1994 the primary and secondary staffing formula were amalgamated into a unified staffing
formula at the recommendation of a Ministerial Reference Group (the MRG Staffing Formula).

In response to the recommendations in the report of the 2000 Secondary Staffing Review Group
(SSRG) the staffing formula was further modified by the addition of 1668.1 FTTE (provided to
secondary schools) over and above roll growth over the period 2001 to 2006. Representatives
of the organisations represented on the current SSSG all supported the SSRG
recommendations.
1
Prior to 1994 there was a separate guidance and pastoral staffing component in addition to components for
curriculum, non-contact, management and other staffing. The MRG formula amalgamated this guidance component
into the curriculum entitlement. When a new guidance element was added in response to one of the SRG
recommendations as a third separate staffing component, it became known as the ‟Additional Guidance
Entitlement‟ to acknowledge that the revised curriculum entitlement already incorporated guidance staffing.
2
The remainder of section two deals specifically with the (entitlement) staffing provided to
schools by the Ministry.

Subsequent sections include consideration of the additional staffing provided from other
sources.

The subgroup determined that the base measure for comparison purposes would be the 2010
March 1 Funded roll and the 2010 Entitlement Staffing allocated to secondary schools. One
alternative method, of using the total roll and all secondary school staffing (both entitlement and
board funded), would produce similar patterns but slightly different numbers.

3
STAFFING ENTITLEMENT BY ROLL SIZE

Graph 1 (Source – Ministry base data)

2010 Secondary school staffing entitlement by roll

size

All Entitlement
180 Curriculum Entitlement
Management Entitlement
160
Staffing Entitlement (FTTE)

Guidance Entitlement

140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
1 301 601 901 1201 1501 1801 2101 2401 2701

March 2010 funding roll

Curriculum staffing makes up the largest staffing component and remains proportionate to roll
size as school roll size increases. It becomes an increasing larger proportion of the total staffing
allowance provided to schools.

The management staffing is a relatively small component of total staffing, becoming

proportionately smaller as roll size increases, reflecting the recognised need for base
management provision in smaller schools.

The additional guidance allowance is a very small part of the staffing resource. For all but the
smallest schools or for schools without senior secondary year levels it has a fixed value of 2.3
FTTE or 0.45 FTTE for each of the five secondary year levels.

PATTERNS IN ENTITLEMENT COMPONENTS

Curriculum Entitlement Staffing

The curriculum staffing entitlement component (combining the base and per student
components) by roll size is approximately linear. The base loading provides support for smaller
schools to provide for breadth of curriculum in those schools, which larger schools can provide
through their larger staffing component. However, it remains proportionate to the roll size for
schools above roll size 200.

4
 Graph 2 (Source – Ministry base data)

2010 Ratio curiculum staffing to total staffing

entitlement

0.95
Ratio Proportion of total entitlement

0.90

0.85

0.80

0.75

0.70
1 301 601 901 1201 1501 1801 2101 2401 2701

March 2010 funding roll

As the school roll increased the curriculum staffing entitlement increased from 77% to 90% of
the total staffing entitlement.

Management Staffing Entitlement

Graph 3 (Source – Ministry base data) Graph 4 (Source – Ministry base data)

2010 Management staffing entitlement 2010 Management staffing ratios

15
15
12 12
Management staffing

FTTE 'other entitlement

staffing' per FTTE

9 9
management
entitlement

6
(FTTE)

6
3 3
0
0
0 1000 2000 3000 0 1000 2000 3000
March 2010 funding roll March 2010 funding roll

The data indicates that while the management staffing entitlement increases as the roll
increases the ratio of management staffing to „other entitlement staffing‟, i.e. to the sum of the
guidance and curriculum entitlement staffing components, reduces as schools get larger, and
increases as schools get smaller.

The subgroup has no information on whether such a pattern of management time ratios is
appropriate in secondary schools.

There is no baseline data on how schools allocate and structure their management staffing and
the degree to which they may cross-subsidise management staffing entitlement with other
entitlement staffing or vice-versa.

5
Additional Guidance Staffing Entitlement

Graph 5 (Source – Ministry base data) Graph 6 (Source – Ministry base data)

Guidance staffing entitlement 2010 Student:Guidance entitlement

staffing ratios
3
1400
1200

Students per FTTE

Guidance Staffing

2
1000

entitlement
Entitlement

800

Guidance
(FTTE)

600
1 400
200
0
0
0 1000 2000 3000
0 1000 2000 3000

March 2010 funding roll March 2010 funding roll

The data indicates that the ratio of additional guidance entitlement per student reduces as
schools get larger.

The pre-MRG secondary school staffing formula had a separate per student guidance time
allocation which was amalgamated into the curriculum entitlement of the current formula. This
subsumed guidance staffing averaged approximately 0.003 FTTE per student.

For the past 15 years, secondary schools have had a proportion of their curriculum entitlement
staffing which is provided for guidance and pastoral purposes. By convention, guidance staffing
(inherent within curriculum staffing and from the additional guidance allowance) provides some
release time for staff such as deans, form teachers, senior administrators with guidance
responsibility, and guidance counsellors.

If that original guidance provision of 0.003 FTTE per student is considered alongside the
additional guidance base provision to schools then it generates the pattern of student:guidance
staffing ratios shown in graph 7 below:2

Graph 7 (Source – Ministry base data with the added notional pre-MRG guidance provision)

2010 Notional Students:Guidance ratios

400
guidance contact

300
Students/total

200
FTTE

100

0
0 1000 2000 3000

March 2010 funding roll

When the approximate average guidance staffing of 0.003 FTTE per student (from the pre-MRG
formula) is added to the entitlement in the current formula the student:teacher contact ratio of
the combined guidance component (additional guidance allowance and curriculum-incorporated
guidance) also increases as schools get larger.

2
When the SRG recommendations of 2000 were implemented an „additional guidance‟ component was added.
6
There was no information available to the subgroup on whether either of the above patterns of
guidance time allocation is appropriate in secondary schools or on what ratio of students to
guidance hours is most appropriate either generally or by decile3.

The subgroup had no baseline data on how schools use and allocate their guidance staffing
entitlement and the degree to which they may cross-subsidise guidance staffing entitlement with
other entitlement staffing or vice-versa, noting that schools are free to use staffing to suit their
own requirements.

Changes in secondary schools since 1995

Since the development of the MRG formula in 1994 there have been changes in the student
profile, retention, curriculum and pedagogy, assessment and the school roll size profile. There
have also been changes in pastoral and guidance expectations and demands on management
and administration of secondary schools.

Curriculum and pedagogical changes

Pedagogical change is ongoing as the evidence base about effective practice develops.There is
an expectation that professional educators will maintain currency of practice drawing on the
evidence and research as it emerges.

The expectation on schools to meet the needs of every learner has been increasingly signalled
in government policy over the last twenty years.

Since 2003, the Best Evidence Synthesis (BES) programme has provided a sound base for
initial teacher education, professional learning and development and classroom practice on
effective teaching in schools.

Assessment changes

Whilst schools have always undertaken internal assessment of student learning, since 2002
secondary schools have moved from a system of largely external examination and moderation,
to one in which there is a significant level of externally moderated internal assessment. This
has been accompanied by the provision of professional development, best practice workshops,
teacher guidelines, and additional staffing including that provided for reductions in class-contact
requirements.

3
Schools are ranked in relation to each other for each of five factors:
the percentage of households with equivalent income in the lowest 20% nationally,
the percentage of employed parents in occupations such as all labourers, all machine operators and assemblers, and other
occupations at these lower skill levels,
the percentage of households with an equivalised crowding index greater than one,
the percentage of parents with no tertiary or school qualifications, and
the percentage of parents who directly received a Domestic Purposes Benefit, Unemployment Benefit or Sickness and Invalid's
Benefit.

They receive a score according to each factor. The five unweighted scores for each school are added together to give a total which
gives the overall standing of a school in relation to all other schools in the country. They are then placed into ten decile groups, each
having the same number of schools. Decile 1 schools have the highest proportion of students from families represented by the five
factors, decile 10 have the fewest.

7
PROFILE OF SECONDARY STUDENTS

There are more secondary students: 220,891 in 1995 compared to 275,945 in 2010.

The ethnic proportions of secondary students have changed, as outlined in table 1 below:

Table 1
Year Roll Pakeha Māori Pasifika Asian Other
4
1995 220,891 64.87% 16.87% 6.88% 6.87% 0.91%
5
2010 275,945 57.55% 20.10% 9.65% 10.31% 2.39%

Graph 8 (Source – Table 1) Graph 9 (Source – Table 1)

Secondary school students by Secondary school students by

Ethnic Group - 1995 Ethnic Group - 2010
6.9% 0.9% 2.4%
10.3%
6.9%
Pakeha Pakeha
9.7%
Māori Māori
16.9% Pasifika Pasifika
20.1% 57.6%
64.9% Asian Asian
Other Other

There were 3,340 foreign fee paying students in 1995 compared to 6,792 in 2010. Relative to
total rolls this equates to 1.5% in 1995 compared to 2.5% in 2010.

Student retention has changed since 1995 with more students staying in school beyond year 11
as per table 2.

Table 2
Year School roll – students Age 16+
1995 93,003
2010 103,812

The proportion of New Zealand students staying on at school to age 17, by ethnic group, is
outlined in table 3 below:

Table 3
Ethnic Group 2008 2009 2010
Māori 67.0% 68.9% 70.3%
Pasifika 85.4% 87.7% 87.0%
Asian 95.8% 95.5% 96.1%
European/Pākehā 81.6% 83.8% 85.3%
6 and 7
Total 81.0% 82.8% 83.7%

4
New Zealand Schools Statistical Annexe 1995
5
Ministry of Education website, (Education Counts) 2011
6
NZAID students (foreign students sponsored by the New Zealand Agency for International Development - a
branch of MFAT) and foreign fee paying students are excluded
7
Includes 'Other' ethnic group
8
The total number of school leavers and from that, the number of those leaving without a formal
qualification (the number in brackets) in 1995 compared to 2009 is outlined in table 4 below.

Table 4
Year All Pakeha Māori Pasifika Asian
1995 53,819 / (9,744) 36,328 / (4,666) 10,073 / (3,566) 3,528 / (856) 3,175 / (465)
2009 52,626 /(9,008) 39,074 / (6,014) 12,035 / (4,607) 5,974 / (1,627) 5,714 / (653)

PROFILE OF SECONDARY SCHOOLS

Since 1995 the number of large schools and very large schools has increased as indicated in
table 5 below:

Table 5
School roll size
Largest
Year 1- 301 - 601 - 901 - 1200 - 1501 - 1801 - Total
2001+ March roll
300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2000
1995 45 93 89 53 28 8 2 1 319 2003
2001 49 104 74 49 26 10 3 4 319 2547
2011 41 87 72 50 31 19 6 13 319 2871

Graph 10 (Source – Ministry base data based on table 5)

Secondary schools by roll size

120 1-300
301-600
601-900
100
901-1200
Number of schools

1200- 500
80 1501-1800
1801-2000
60 2001+

40

20

0
1995 2001 2011
Year

Table 6 outlines the number of secondary schools in each decile in 2005, the year the current
mechanism to establish a school‟s decile was used, and 2010.

Table 6 (Source – Ministry base data)

School Decile
Year Total
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
8
2005 19 30 25 39 39 36 38 31 24 33 314
2010 19 31 31 35 38 43 32 35 33 22 319

8
The differences in the total schools is because two schools did not have a decile allocated and three current
secondary schools were not established in 2005
9
Graph 11 (Source – Table 6) Graph 12 (Source – Table 7)
2005 Secondary schools by decile 1 2010 Secondary schools by decile
1
2% 4% 2 2
3 7% 6% 3
18% 5%
4 10% 10% 4
7%
5 5
10%
9% 6 11% 6
16%
7 11% 7
11% 10%
8 8
15% 13% 13% 12% 9
9
10
10

The number of teachers employed in secondary schools in 1995, 2004 and 2011 are outlined in
the table below:

Table 7
Teacher Full-time Teacher Secondary
Year
Headcount Equivalent students
1995 15,841 14,801 220,891
2004 19,192 17,281 264,522
2011 20,728 18,970 275,524

The SSRG staffing improvements increased the overall staffing available to schools by 1668.1
FTTE between 2000 and 2006. The 2002-2004 and 2004-2007 Secondary Teachers‟ Collective
Agreements introduced formal provision for non-contact time.

The sub group noted that there is a possibility that the current staffing entitlement components
may not reflect accurately the current requirements or expectations on secondary schools,
although this is doubtful given that the actual use of staffing is not tagged in any way (other than
the principal position).

In addition, changes to the way schools are expected to operate in future may also not be best
supported by the current staffing formula. Current and future changes to government policy
may also have implications for the delivery of staffing to schools.

Conclusions from the data

1 As school size increases:

(a) Curriculum entitlement becomes a larger proportion of its entitlement staffing.
recognising the base staffing support provided to small schools and that economies
of scale operate to provide curriculum breadth in large schools.
(b) The ratio of management entitlement staffing to the combined curriculum and other
guidance entitlement staffing reduces.
(c) The student:teacher ratio for guidance and pastoral staffing increases.

2 Since staffing entitlement is focused on curriculum staffing, management and additional

guidance staffing entitlements have always been proportionately smaller components of
the overall staffing entitlement.

3 Schools can cross-subsidise between staffing entitlement components. There is

increasingly less capacity to cross-subsidise curriculum staffing entitlement from other
entitlement components as school size increases.

10
4 There is no information on whether the pattern of guidance entitlement is appropriate in
secondary schools or on what ratio of students to guidance hours is most appropriate
either generally or by decile.

5 There is no information on whether the pattern of management entitlement is appropriate

to the actual needs of secondary schools.

6 Further to the findings of the case study schools, it may be useful to request from ERO a
national report on staffing use in the delivery of the curriculum, management and pastoral
and guidance in secondary schools and the ability of schools to use the staffing
entitlement provided to meet the purposes for which the resource is supplied. They have
not been asked to do so to date.

7 It is expected that the case studies will illuminate patterns of the delivery of staffing and its
use in schools and the implications of that.

11
3 Student teacher ratio and notional average class sizes

The curriculum resourcing student:staff ratio can be calculated from the curriculum staffing
entitlement and the number of students generating that entitlement.

PPTA also presented the subgroup with a model for generating notional contact ratios/average
class sizes from the curriculum resourcing ratios.

There are differing views between the parties as to how accurately this reflects the pattern of
average class size distribution by roll size.

The subgroup considered three patterns for ratios drawn from the baseline data, illustrated in
the following graph.

Graph 13 (Source – Ministry base data and calculated ratios as outlined below)
2010 Notional curriculum staffing ratios
35

30
Students per teacher

25

20

15

10

5
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
March 2010 Funding Roll
Stud en t: teach er curriculum resourcing ratio
No tio nal Stud ent:teacher co ntact time ratio
No tio nal Stud ent:teacher co ntact time ratio (exc incorporated g uidance)

The student:teacher curriculum resourcing ratio – the secondary student March funded roll
number/curriculum entitlement FTTE. This ratio is shown for each secondary school in the
lowest (orange) curve on the graph above.

The curve itself reflects the declining impact of the base staffing component as a proportion of
the overall curriculum entitlement as the roll size increases.

The notional student:teacher contact time ratio (based on model provided by the PPTA) -
reflecting the possible available teacher contact hours generated by the curriculum entitlement
FTTE. This is shown as the green (mostly middle) curve in graph 13 above.

Full time students are generally timetabled for 25 hours per week student contact. A full time
teacher equivalent will represent 20 hours per week timetabled student contact and five hours
timetabled non-contact for the non-teaching duties identified in part 5 of the Secondary
Teachers‟ Collective Agreement.

Each FTTE of curriculum staffing also generates 1.2 units which are generally associated with
an hour of non-contact time for the associated administration and other functions. Assuming this
non-contact time is resourced solely from the curriculum staffing entitlement, then each FTTE of
curriculum entitlement represents slightly less than 19 hours of teacher contact time.

When the student contact hours (i.e. the timetable hours) are divided by the curriculum contact
hours it produces a theoretical average class size for each school. While this is not the same as
the actual average class size for a school it may be closer to the actual average class sizes than
the student:teacher curriculum resourcing ratio.

12
The notional student:teacher contact time ratio, excluding guidance (based on the model
provided by the PPTA) - an adjusted model of the notional student:teacher contact time ratio
which takes out of the calculation the guidance time which was previously a separate element
but was combined, in the MRG staffing formula, into curriculum resourcing.

Prior to 1994 a guidance allowance of approximately 0.003 FTTE per student was a separate
component of the staffing entitlement. This was subsumed into the curriculum entitlement
staffing component of the MRG formula. Following the SSRG decisions the additional base
guidance staffing component was added.

If the net difference between these two components is considered in the resourcing available for
class contact then another theoretical average class size for each school is generated which
takes account of the expected use of some of the curriculum staffing entitlement for pastoral
and guidance purposes.

(Note: The Ministry does not support the logic of using the net difference of the additional
guidance entitlement, which is allocated to schools in addition to the curriculum entitlement and
a notional average guidance allowance that has been incorporated into the curriculum
entitlement in order to reduce the teacher contact ratios.)

It is important to remember that neither the range of actual class sizes nor the actual average
class sizes in any school can be determined from any of the above ratios. The latter two ratios
allow us to approximate what the average class size would be like if the curriculum staffing
entitlement was the entire and only resource applied to the curriculum classes.

Graph 13 shows the whole school ratios for each school. The table below applies the same
models to the per-student curriculum staffing at each year level.

Table 8: Comparison of per student:curriculum staffing ratios by year level

Curriculum Notional Student:teacher Notional Student:teacher contact time
staffing contact time ratio ratio, excluding the nett difference of
Year
entitlement (Students per contact hour pre-MRG guidance allowance and the
level
(students per based on 18.8 class-contact additional guidance entitlement
FTTE) hours per week) (Students per contact hour)
9 23.5 31.3 34.5
10 23.5 31.3 34.5
11 23 30.6 33.7
12 18 23.9 25.8
13 17 22.6 24.3

13
Table 8 shows the roll-based entitlement ratio for each year level.
The second column shows the number of students at each year level which generates one
FTTE – the curriculum staffing entitlement.
The third column derives a notional average student per teacher class-contact hour, at
each year level, assuming only 18.8 hours per FTTE is available for curriculum purposes.
The fourth column derives a notional average number of students per teaching hour if the
expected use of the incorporated guidance component (i.e. the net difference in the pre-
MRG guidance allowance and the additional guidance entitlement in the current formula)
and the five hours non-contact time per FTTE is excluded. The calculation appears to
result in higher teacher contact ratios in larger schools and lower ratios in smaller schools
than the formula used in the notional student:teacher contact time ratio outlined in column
three.

The two notional contact hour classroom ratios will be reduced by the base staffing which is
generated by each school for each year level, as well as by any additional staffing applied to the
curriculum delivery in the year level either through:
Transfer of staffing from management and/or guidance time entitlement into curriculum
staffing.
Transfer of curriculum staffing from senior year levels to junior classes.
Employment of additional staffing beyond the Ministry-funded levels.

The impact of the curriculum base staffing component (which is a fixed quantum for schools
above 200) will vary by roll size.

In smaller schools, where the base staffing component for each year level is a relatively large
part of the total year level curriculum staffing, the notional student:teacher contact ratios for
years 9-11 will be moderated and less than the figures shown in Table 8.

In larger schools, where the base staffing component for each year level is a relatively small
part of the total year level curriculum staffing, the notional contact ratios for years 9-11 get
closer to those shown in Table 8, though even in the largest schools the combined base and per
student curriculum staffing generates year level contact ratios of around 30 students per contact
hour.

As the notional contact ratio (and so the theoretical year level average class size) moves higher
the capacity of a school to avoid actual classes at those year levels which are over 30 is rapidly
reduced to zero unless the school employs one or more of the three mechanisms identified
above.

The subgroup notes that the capacity to transfer management/guidance staffing is likely to be
more limited in larger schools as the proportion of such staffing to curriculum entitlement
reduces with roll size (Refer to Graph 2).

The junior high schools illustrate the impact of the student:teacher contact ratios. They lack
senior students and therefore have no capacity to transfer staffing between senior and junior
secondary year levels. Their overall student:teacher contact hour ratio is therefore higher than a
similar sized year 9-13 school.

For example:

Junior High School A had a roll of 1125 in 2010 compared to 1118 for College B. The curriculum
staffing contact ratio (CSCR) for Junior High School A is 30.35 while College B has a CSCR of
25.28.

Junior College C had a roll of 506 and a CSCR of 26.98. (Contrast this with High School D - roll
512 and CSCR 20.12.)

14
The high CSCR of junior colleges to standard secondary schools arise because of the high
student:contact hour ratios generated by junior year level staffing which cannot be mitigated by
the better ratios of senior year levels.

The difference between the two junior colleges is due to the decreasing impact of the base
curriculum staffing component. With a CSCR of over 30 Junior High A can only maintain a class
average of under 30 by using management or pastoral staffing or hiring additional teachers.

Conclusions from the data

The sub group was not able to reach a firm conclusion at this time due to varying use of
terminology and differences over the extent to which the notional ratios accurately reflect the
pattern of average class size distribution by roll size.

However the data suggests the following:

1. Smaller schools have a smaller student:teacher curriculum resourcing ratio.

2. The smaller the school the lower are its notional student:teacher contact time ratios and its
theoretical average class size.

3. The notional roll-generated student:teacher contact time ratios generated at years 9-11
are greater than 30 students per teaching hour in large schools; for small schools the
ratios are much less, due to the influence of base staffing.

4. As the school roll gets larger and the base curriculum staffing at each year level becomes
a smaller part of the curriculum staffing for that year level the notional student:teacher
contact time ratio (and so the theoretical year level average class size) moves closer to
30. The capacity of such schools to avoid classes of more than 30 at those year levels
reduces rapidly to zero unless the school uses other staffing sources for curriculum
purposes, as most large schools do in practice.

5. There is a tendency for large schools to operate large classes.

6. The distribution of students across the year levels will impact on the total curriculum
staffing entitlement schools receive.

4 Actual average class sizes

Actual class sizes cannot be generated from resourcing ratios but comes from counts of the
number of students in each class. The subgroup generated the following summaries and
patterns from baseline data from the secondary school replies to the PPTA survey looking at
year 9-13 classes in term 1, 20119.
The median actual class size for the year 9-13 secondary school classes was 25,
The mean actual class size was 23.4,
The most frequently occurring actual class size was 28 students.

9
The survey was sent to 10,000 PPTA members. Responses were received from 26% of these. See Appendix for
details of the survey sample.
15
 Graph 14 (Source – PPTA base data) Graph 15 (Source – PPTA base data)

These actual class sizes will include foreign fee paying students and will also reflect the use of
both Ministry-funded and school-funded staffing.

Patterns in distribution of class sizes

There is a relationship between school size and class size distribution.

As schools get larger the proportion of the classes they have within identified class size bands
changes.

While the proportion of classes of 21-25 students is relatively consistent across roll bands, as
schools get larger the proportions of classes of 26-30 and those over 30 both increase.
Conversely, the proportions in class size in the bands of fewer than 10, 10 -15 and 16-20 all
decrease.

Graph 16 (Source – PPTA base data)

As this suggests, the mean and median class size increases as roll size increases.

16
 Graph 17 (Source – PPTA base data) Graph 18 (Source – PPTA base data)
Secondary schools 2011 - Median class
size Years 9-13

30

25

20

15

10

0
1-300 301-600 601-900 901-1200 1201- 1501- 1801+
1500 1800

Year 9-13 roll size

The trend line of distribution of average class sizes generated from actual class size distribution
in schools is very similar to the notional student:teacher contact hours models shown in graph
13. The pattern of actual class sizes shows a much more varied range of class sizes in schools
than is suggested by the notional student:teacher contact hours models.

NB. These actual average class size figures will include foreign fee paying students and reflect
the actual use of staffing available to the school, including any additional curriculum teaching
staff funded by the school.

Foreign fee paying students income will normally generate additional staffing, some of which
may be used for curriculum delivery and some of which is likely to be used for the pastoral and
guidance care of these students (and so will not impact on class sizes).

There are class size distribution patterns by year level

Median class size decreases with year level. The proportion of classes over 26 decreases with
year level and the proportion classes under 21 increases with year level.

Graph 19 (Source – PPTA base data) Graph 20 (Source – PPTA base data)

Graphs 19 and 20 show that the median class size and the proportion of classes over 30
students decreases by year level.

17
Graph 21 (Source – PPTA base data) Graph 22 (Source – PPTA base data)

Secondary schools 2011 - Mean actual class Secondary schools 2011 - Classes over 30 by
size by year level & year 9-13 roll size year level & roll size

30 20%
18%

(% year level classes)

25
Average class size

16%
(Students/class)

Classes over 30
1- 300
1-300
20 301-600
14% 301- 600
601-900 12% 601- 900
15 901-1200 10% 901- 1200
1201-1500 1201- 1500
8%
10 1501-1800
6% 1501- 1800
1801+
1801+
5 4%
2%
0 0%
All 9&10 11 12 13 mixed All 9&10 11 12 13 mixed
senior senior
Year level Year level

These patterns reflect the differences in the year level staffing ratios and the notional average
contact ratios. The larger the school roll, the larger the class sizes at each year level and the
higher the proportion of classes at each year level which exceed 30 students.

The proportion of classes that are over 30 students decreases at each year level in graph 21.
Graph 22 shows by roll size the proportion of all the classes at each year level which were over
30.

Class sizes vary by year level and subject.

The parties are aware that the findings for subjects with small number of classes are less
reliable.

Table 9: Class size by subject area, all year levels 9-13 combined (Source – PPTA base data)
Classes
Subject area Median Mode Max Over 30 Average STDEV
(n)
All 8248 25 28 51 8.5% 23.46 6.49
Business/Economics/Accounting 236 22 27 38 5.9% 21.7 7
Computing / Digital Technologies 328 24 30 33 4.3% 23.28 5.97
English 1265 26 26 37 11.2% 25.21 5.26
ESOL 41 12 9 29 0.0% 12.73 5.92
Health 130 28 28 33 16.2% 26.23 4.82
Home Economics 111 24 24 32 3.6% 21.75 6.45
Home room/Generalist 25 26 27 31 8.0% 24.32 5.42
Integrated studies 28 24 28 32 3.6% 21.96 6.77
Maths 1203 26 28 39 10.8% 24.36 6.04
Media Studies 76 25 30 34 7.9% 24.05 5.79
Other 295 24 28 46 11.2% 23.26 7.34
Other languages 270 21 25 35 5.6% 19.61 7.90
Pastoral/Guidance/Careers 54 26 26 51 16.7% 25.11 8.22
PE/Sport 463 26 25 38 10.8% 24.72 5.61
Performing arts 330 22 28 40 6.4% 21.66 6.75
Sciences (inc Ag/Hort) 1331 25 28 35 7.0% 23.36 6.29
Social sciences 1057 26 28 37 10.0% 24.66 5.82
Special education 37 11 11 33 2.7% 12.41 6.63
Te Reo Maori 83 16 8 33 3.6% 15.75 8.27
Technology (inc Graphics /Design) 615 22 24 39 3.4% 21.24 6.62
Visual Arts 270 24 27 36 6.7% 22.48 6.56

18
Class sizes vary by the reported ability level of the class.

Graph 23 (Source – PPTA base data)

Classes over 30 by year level and reported ability

level of class

25%
Proportion of classes over 30

20%
(students)

high
15%
medium
low
10% mixed

5%

0%
9&10 11 12 13
Year level

Students identified by teachers as „higher ability‟ are most likely to be in class sizes of over 30
students at most year levels.

While 22% of year 9 and 10 classes identified by teachers as higher ability are over 30 students
in size, slightly less than 3% of low ability year 9 and 10 classes have more than 30 students.
The difference is less marked at year 12, where there are relatively few classes over 30. At year
13 those classes identified by teachers as low ability are more likely to be over 30.

These patterns reflect in part decisions made through the timetabling policy of individual schools
within the constraints placed on them by the resourcing available to them.

Conclusions from the data

1. The trend line of distribution of average class sizes (Graph 17) generated from actual
class size distribution in schools is similar to the notional student:teacher contact hours
models shown in Graph 13.

2. The pattern of actual class sizes (Graph 17) shows a much more varied range of class
sizes in schools than is suggested by the notional student:teacher contact hours models
(Graph 13).

3. The median actual class sizes by year level (Graph 19) appear to be lower than the
notional student:teacher contact time ratios from table 1, one explanation for which could
be the additional staffing employed by schools.

4. Median class size decreases with year level. The proportion of classes over 26 decreases
with year level and the proportion classes under 21 increases with year level.

5. The average/median class size across all schools at 25/23.46 is below the “best
endeavours” level in the STCA for each individual teacher with more than one class. Many
teachers in larger schools have individual average class sizes which exceed these
medians and averages.

6. At each year level the median and average class sizes and the proportion of classes over
30 increases with school roll size.

19
7. Graphs 16 and 18 show an increase in the proportion of classes over 30 by roll size when
all year levels are combined. However, by year level when all schools are combined the
median class size and the proportion of classes over 30 decreases (Graphs 19 and 20).
Graph 21 appears to have a similar pattern to the other year level graphs, i.e. that the
median and average class size decreases with year level.

8. The larger the school roll, the larger the class sizes at each year level and the higher the
proportion of classes at each year level which exceed 30 students.

9. Students identified by teachers as „higher ability‟ are more likely to be in class sizes of
over 30 students at most year levels.

10. At each year level the median and average class sizes and the proportion of classes over
30 increases with school roll size (Graphs 16 and 18).

5 Above entitlement teacher staffing

Schools can employ teaching staff beyond their entitlement from locally raised funds, foreign fee
paying student income or operational funding. School-funded staffing is important to the class
size discussion because these teachers supplement the entitlement staffing provided by the
Ministry and will tend to reduce class size in schools in which they are appointed.

While the amount of additional staffing varies from school to school, there are patterns amongst
schools.

There is a roll-size link to the amount of additional staffing employed by schools.

There is an exponential increase in school-funded staffing with roll size. While schools with roll
size of under 301 employ 2.6% more staffing than their entitlement, schools of 1801+ employed
9.5% more staffing than their staffing entitlement.

Graph 24 (Source – Ministry base data)

Teaching staff 2010 by roll size -

Funding source: Bulk grant
20
18
funded staffing term 1-4

16
Average operations

14
12
(FTTE)
2010

10
8
6
4
2
0
0 1000 2000 3000

March 2010 Funded roll

20
 Graph 25 (Source – Ministry base data) Graph 26 (Source – Ministry base data)
2010 Average school-funded 2010 Average school-funded
staffing by roll size staffing relative to entitlement
staffing by roll size
12 12%

funded staffing (%
entitlement FTTE)
Average school-funded

Average school-
10 10%
staffing (FTTE)

8 8%
6 6%
4 4%
2 2%
0 0%
1-300 301- 601- 901- 1201- 1501- 1801+ 1-300 301- 601- 901- 1201- 1501-1801+
600 900 1200 1500 1800 600 900 1200 1500 1800

March 2010 funding roll Roll size

There is a decile link to the amount of additional staffing employed by schools.

Decile 1 schools employ on average 1.9 FTTE above entitlement while decile 10 schools
employ 5.6 FTTE of additional staffing on average. As a percentage of their entitlement staffing
each decile block from decile 1-6 employs an average of approximately four per cent above its
total entitlement. From decile 6 to decile 10 there is then a general increase in the proportion of
additional staffing employed by decile.

Graph 27 (Source – Ministry base data) Graph 28 (Source – Ministry base data)

2010 Average additional staffing by 2010 Average additional staffing as

decile proportion of entitlement staffing by
decile
7
6 8%
Average school-funded

Average FTTE school-

5
funded staffing (%
entitlement FTTE)
staffing (FTTE)

6%
4
3 4%
2
2%
1
0 0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Deciles Deciles

There is school-type link to the amount of additional staffing employed by schools.

It is noted that the proportion of additional staffing across all the various school types is less
than six per cent of entitlement staffing.

Main urban schools employ the highest proportion of additional staffing relative to their
size. Rural schools employ very few locally funded teachers, about one eleventh the
number that main urban schools do relative to size. One explanation for this trend could
be the higher proportion of foreign fee paying students in main urban schools compared to
rural schools.
State-integrated schools employ about 10% more additional staffing relative to their size
than do state schools. It is likely that this can be explained in part by the fact that nearly
all the students additional to the funded roll in integrated schools are foreign fee paying
students.
Boys‟ schools employ on average 25% more additional staffing relative to their size than
either co-ed or girls‟ schools (which employ similar levels of additional staffing).

21
 Graph 29 (Source – Ministry base data)

2010 Additional Board funded staffing by school type

7%
School funded Staffing (%

6%
5%
4%
entitlement)

3%
2%
1%
0% n

l
n

te

s
ed

d
ra
n

irl
ba

oy
ba

oe
ba

ta
ru

at

G
B
ur
ur

C
ur

gr
or
n

te
y
ai

ar
in

In
M

nd
M

te
co

ta
S
se

School type

Conclusions from the data

1 The employment of additional staffing above entitlement differs by roll size, with larger
schools employing proportionately more additional staffing than smaller schools. These
schools also have higher numbers of foreign fee paying students compared to smaller
schools which is likely to account for the higher additional staffing numbers.

2 The employment of additional staffing above entitlement differs by school decile, with
deciles 1-7 having similar levels of additional staffing relative to roll size, and deciles 8-10
having proportionately more additional staffing relative to their size. This is consistent with
the higher proportions of foreign fee paying students in decile 8-10 schools.

3 Main urban schools employ the highest proportion of additional staffing relative to their
size. Rural schools employ very few locally funded teachers which replicates the trend in
the number of foreign fee paying students in main urban schools compared to rural
schools.

4 State-integrated schools employ about 10% more additional staffing relative to their size
than do state schools. It is noted that almost all the students additional to the funded
student roll are foreign fee paying students.

5 Boys‟ schools employ on average 25% more additional staffing relative to their size than
either co-ed or girls‟ schools (which employ similar levels of additional staffing).

6 Foreign fee paying students

Foreign fee paying students are important to the class size discussion because they both
increase roll numbers and provide resourcing for the additional staffing schools employ to
supplement the entitlement provided by the Ministry.

There is an exponential relationship between school size and the number of fee paying
students.

There is also a relationship between the number of fee paying students and decile. Generally,
the higher the decile of schools, the greater is the proportion of fee paying students relative to
their roll.

22
Graph 30 (Source – Ministry base data) Graph 31 (Source – Ministry base data)
2010 Foreign Fee Paying Students by 2010 Foreign Fee Paying Students as a
roll size proportion of the funded roll by Decile

Proportion of Foreign Fee Paying

Foreign fee-paying additional
300 6%

Students to the March roll

250 5%

200
Students

4%
150 3%
100 2%
50 1%
0 0%
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2010 March Funded Roll Decile

The ratio of additional students other than foreign fee paying students, to the roll is small.

Graph 32 (Source – Ministry base data) Graph 33 (Source – Ministry base data
Non-Foreign Fee Paying additional 2010 Non-Foreign fee paying addtional
students by roll size students as a proportion of the funded roll

Paying student to the March roll

by Decile
Proportion of Non-Foreign Fee
Non-Foreign fee-paying additional

150
1.2%
120
1.0%
90 0.8%
students

60 0.6%
0.4%
30
0.2%
0 0.0%
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2010 March Funded Roll Decile

Graph 34 (Source – Ministry base data) Graph 35 (Source – Ministry base data)
Foreign Fee Paying and Additional Ratio of Foreign Fee Paying and
Students by roll size Additional students to Roll
1800 5%
1500 4%
1200
Students

Students

3%
900
2%
600
300 1%
0 0%
1-300 601-900 1201-1500 1801+ 1-300 601-900 1201-1500 1801+
Roll size based on 2010 March Funded roll
Roll size based on 2010 March Funded roll
Foreign Fee Paying Students
Foreign Fee Paying Students
Additional students other than Foreign Fee Paying Students Additional students other than Foreign Fee Paying Students

There are correlations between the number of fee paying students and school type.

23
Graph 36 (Source – Ministry base data)
Additional students as a proportion of the roll by school type

4.0%
3.5%
3.0%
Students

2.5%
2.0%
1.5%
1.0%
0.5%
0.0%
Main Urban Minor Urban Secondary Rural State State
Urban Integrated
2010 March Funded Roll

All additional students Foreign Fee Paying students Other additional students

Relative to roll size main urban schools have nearly four times the number of fee paying
students compared to rural schools. State schools have higher proportions of fee paying
students than integrated schools.

Table 10 – Number of secondary schools by roll size and decile

School decile
Roll size 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1-300 5 6 10 5 4 3 3 2 3
301-600 6 13 9 10 11 13 6 7 4 6
601-900 4 8 9 10 8 9 9 6 7 4
901-1200 2 2 1 5 7 5 8 8 8 2
1201-1500 2 1 1 5 6 4 3 5 2
1501-1800 1 2 2 5 4 3 3
1801+ 1 1 2 1 2 2 5 3 5

24
Graph 37 (Source – Ministry base data)
2010 Average BG staffing as a proportion of
Average Entitlement FTTE by Funded roll size
and decile
to
g 16%
n
if
f g 14% 1- 300
a
ts n
if
f 12%
d a 301 - 600
e ts 10%
d t 8% 601 - 900
n n
u
f e 6%
d
r m 901 - 1200
e 4%
a
o tlti
b n 2% 1201 - 1500
f e 0%
o 1501 - 1800
io
t 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
a 1801+
R
Decile

The average board-funded teachers as a proportion of the average entitlement teachers do not
show a discernible pattern based on the funded roll size and decile. The sub group found that
there is variation between individual schools in the proportion of foreign fee paying students and
board funded staffing.

The sub group disagreed about the utility of the above graph. The basis of the concern is
about whether or not disaggregating data from the 319 schools into 70 subsets, which range in
size from 0 to 13, takes us so close to a representation of individual school data that those
individual variances obscure the underlying patterns across the decile groups and across roll
size bands.

The contribution of foreign fee paying students to board-funded staffing

It is possible to estimate the relative contribution foreign fee paying students make towards the
additional staffing in schools within each decile10.

Our estimates on the relationship within deciles show that:

In decile 5 schools all of the additional staffing could be explained by the additional
funding generated by fee paying students.
In decile 10 schools the additional staffing could be accounted for by only two-thirds of
their fee paying students.
In decile 1 schools only half of the additional staffing could be accounted for by fee paying
students.

10
Average income per school within the decile = average number of fee paying students per school times a
representative fee for that decile (from website information) times a standard net profit figure (50%).
Average staffing cost per decile = Average ftte of additional staffing times a standard salary rate (step 11).
The ratio of net income to cost gives an indication of the degree to which additional staffing can be explained by
the fee paying income. The ratios are standardised against decile 5 (which is closest to an income:cost ratio of
1) so that comparisons can remain valid for adjustments in assumptions) in the FTTE cost used or in the
average net income figure selected.
25
Graph 38 (Source – Ministry base data)

Estimated relative input from FFPS funds

into additional staffing by decile for 2010

1.6
1.4
Ratio of potentially FFPS

staffing (Proportional to
1.2
funded additional

decile 5 schools)
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Deciles

Conclusions from the data

1. Fee paying students are found in proportionately higher numbers in larger schools, in higher
decile schools and in main urban schools.

2. In higher decile secondary schools collectively, it is estimated that foreign fee paying student
income can more than fund all of the additional staffing employed by those schools.

3. In lower decile schools fee income from foreign students is estimated to account for only a
proportion of the additional staffing employed which is consistent with the lower numbers of
foreign fee paying students. The remainder of the extra staffing in lower decile schools
generally must be funded from local resources or operations grant funding.

4. In low decile schools the number of additional staffing employed is on average less than 2
FTTE or about four per cent as a proportion of entitlement staffing.

5. Mid-to-low decile schools are estimated to be at greatest risk of above-entitlement staffing

reduction caused by falls in fee paying student income.

7 Roll stability and class size impacts

There is a link between roll stability through the year and school size.

Schools tend to lose students through the year, but the larger the school, the greater the
proportion of its roll it retains through the year. Large schools tend to be higher decile.

26
 Graph 39 (Source – Ministry base data)

Change in roll numbers term 1-4 2010

Roll variation April '10 to 10

OCtober '10 (% change)
5

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-5

-10

-15

-20
April 2010 roll

There is a link between roll stability through the year and school decile.

In general terms, all deciles tend to lose students through the year, but the lower decile schools
experience a greater proportion of roll losses through the year.

Graph 40 (Source – Ministry base data)

April 2010 - October 2010 average variation on roll by
decile

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 All
APril '10 to OCtober '10

-1
Average roll variation

-2
-3
(%)

-4
-5
-6
-7
Decile

The sub group noted that while schools may lose students through the year this is unlikely to
free teaching resources as they do not leave in class cohorts. Most losses from the secondary
system will also be from senior secondary students, from smaller schools and from lower decile
schools.

Combining this information with actual class size distribution patterns suggest that roll variation
during the year will have minimum impact on the number of large classes in our secondary
schools.

It is possible to estimate the impact of quarterly funding on school income within each decile for
2010 from existing data11.

11
For each school:
The change in roll number relative to term 1, 2010 is calculated term by term.
The net change in per student-generated operational funding for each term, relative to term 1 is calculated
using the operational grant component rates applicable to the school type, size and decile.
The sum of the net funding changes over terms 2-4 is calculated.

Decile calculations:
The schools are ordered by decile and the sum of the funding changes calculated.
The total funding change is divided by the number of schools in the decile (average change per school) or by
the number of students represented by the schools in the decile group in the first term roll count (average
change per student).
27
 Graph 41 (Source – Ministry base data)
M ode lle d pe r stude nt impact of quarte rly funding
mode l on 2010 ope rations grants by de cile group

$0
-$2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Average funding

($ per student)
-$4
change

-$6
-$8
-$10
-$12
Decile block

Graph 42 (Source – Ministry base data)

Modelled per school impact of quarterly funding on

2010 operations grants by decile group

$20,000
$0
Average change in

-$20,000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
($ per school)

-$40,000
funding

-$60,000
-$80,000
-$100,000
-$120,000
-$140,000
Decile block

The modelling above of quarterly operational funding, using base data from 2010, suggest that,
while individual schools would have gained some funding, across each decile, schools would
have had reduced funding for the year. That reduction would have been greatest for low and
mid-decile schools.

These modelled patterns of impacts can be tested against the Ministry data for the final 2011
funding allocations.

28
Conclusions from the data

1. Reduction in operations funding may have implications for board-funded teaching staff,
particularly in the low decile schools, where only a proportion of the additional staffing is
accounted for by fee paying students. It is noted that in low decile schools (where there
are fewer foreign fee paying students) the average board-funded teacher FTTE was less
than two in 2010.

2. When considering the link between size and decile and the contribution of foreign fee
paying students to above entitlement staffing employed by schools along side this, we can
suggest that small and low decile schools are most vulnerable to above-entitlement
staffing reduction through loss of operational funding through roll variation.

8 Individual teacher average class size

There is a correlation between school size and the proportion of teachers who have an average
class size of 26 or less.

The larger the school the smaller the proportion of staff with an average class size of 26 or
fewer. The relationship is quite linear, approximating an 8.5 percentage point increase in the
proportion of teachers exceeding an average of 26 students per class for every 300 student
increase in secondary roll across the roll blocks.

Table 11: Average individual class size for teachers with two or more classes
Proportion of those teachers with more than one class by roll size
Unweighted
All 901- 1201- 1501-
Average class 1-300 301-600 601-900 1801+
schools 1200 1500 1800
size
≤26 69.3% 96.6% 83.7% 74.7% 71.7% 60.1% 53.7% 42.6%
>26 10.6% 1.1% 6.0% 9.9% 11.3% 15.6% 15.8% 15.4%
>27 8.2% 0.6% 4.8% 7.0% 5.7% 12.2% 14.3% 13.8%
>28 6.0% 1.1% 2.2% 4.3% 4.9% 6.5% 8.4% 15.1%
>29 3.6% 0.6% 1.2% 2.1% 5.3% 3.4% 4.9% 8.3%
>30 2.3% 0.0% 2.2% 2.1% 1.1% 2.3% 3.0% 4.8%

In schools in the 1801+ range more than 57% of teaching staff have an average class size in
excess of 26 and 13% have average class sizes of 30 or greater.

29
Graph 43 (Source – PPTA base data)

Average class size per teacher by roll size 2010

100%
Proportion of those teachers with two or more

90% >30
80% >29
70% >28
60%
>27
classes (%)

50%
>26
40%
≤26
30%
20%
10%
0%
All 1-300 301-600 601-900 901- 1201- 1501- 1801+
1200 1500 1800

Secondary school roll size

There is a correlation between school size and the proportion of teachers with two or more
classes who have an unweighted average class size of over 30.

Across all schools 2.3% of teachers with more than one class had an average class size in
excess of 30. The percentage of teachers with an average class size in excess of 30 ranged
across the school roll size bands from 0% in schools of roll size 1-300 to 4.8% in schools of
roll size 1801+.
The findings of the case study strand correlates with this pattern.

Conclusions from the data

1. The larger the school roll the greater the proportion of teaching staff who have average
class sizes in excess of 26.
2. The smaller the school the greater the proportion of teaching staff who have average
class sizes below 26.
3. The larger the school the more likely it is to have a proportion of staff with average class
sizes of more than 30.
4. In schools above 1800 students, 4.8% of teachers surveyed reported an average class
size of more than 30, whereas the proportion across all school is 2.3%.

Appendix

Details of PPTA Survey sample

Coverage Responses as
Roll School FTTE of All FTTE
of schools proportion of all
in sample in roll size Responses
Year 9-13 in size staffing in roll
sample schools bands
band band
1-300 52 89.7% 1241.8 95.1% 200 16%
301-600 85 92.4% 3192.2 93.3% 536 17%
601-900 65 90.3% 3453.5 92.3% 536 16%
901-1200 34 87.2% 2221.2 87.3% 365 16%
1201-1500 24 82.8% 1953.5 81.9% 372 19%
1501-1800 14 77.8% 1332.3 78.2% 211 16%
1801+ 17 94.4% 2086.9 93.8% 326 16%

30