Module 7: Te Whakamahi Pūrongo (Data Driven Leadership): This module focuses on using data effectively to inform decision-making, assess progress, and drive continuous improvement.
“He aha te take? He aha te pūtake?”
“What is the cause? What is the root cause?”
Module Objectives:
- Understand the importance of data-driven decision-making in education.
- Identify and collect relevant data to inform school improvement initiatives.
- Analyse and interpret data effectively to identify trends, patterns, and areas for improvement.
- Use data to inform and evaluate school programmes and initiatives.
- Communicate data effectively to stakeholders, including teachers, students, parents, and the wider community.
- Develop a data-driven improvement plan for a specific area of school focus.
Data are crucial for improving student achievement. By revealing gaps in student learning and instructional practices, they guide teachers and leaders in identifying areas for improvement and tailoring instruction to meet individual student needs.
However, data alone do not provide solutions. They serve as a valuable tool for understanding student learning and informing decision-making. Interpreting data is paramount; it involves uncovering the ‘story behind the numbers’ by identifying patterns and relationships. This process requires ongoing analysis, reflection, and the collection of further evidence to refine understanding and inform continuous improvement.
Types of Data:
- Demographic data: Information about students, staff, and the school community.
- Student achievement data: Standardised tests, classroom assessments, and student work samples.
- Perceptions data: Information gathered through surveys, questionnaires, observations, and student voice.
- School processes data: Information about programs, classroom practices, and assessment strategies.
When gathering data, focus on relevant information that serves a specific purpose. Avoid collecting excessive data, which can be time-consuming and difficult to analyse.
While student achievement data provides valuable information about outcomes, it doesn’t explain the underlying causes. To understand these, utilise formative assessment data, classroom observations, student voice, and other relevant sources.
Analysing Data:
Start by posing a specific question about your data, focusing on differences, gaps, or the impact of teaching practices. Look for unexpected findings and identify patterns, trends, and categories.
Avoid jumping to conclusions; explore the data deeply, considering multiple perspectives and questioning your assumptions.
Evaluate data quality using the 4 Cs: Completeness, Consistency, Comparison, and Concealed information.
Create a concise data overview and share it with colleagues to gain diverse perspectives.
Generate inferences and potential explanations, remembering that correlation does not equal causation.
Develop a range of data stories to identify areas for further investigation.
Recognise that data may not tell the whole story and that further data collection may be necessary to confirm findings.
Resources:
https://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1317&context=research_conference
Task: Developing a Data-Driven Improvement Plan
- Select a specific area of school focus (e.g., literacy, numeracy, student well-being).
- Identify relevant data sources and collect the necessary data.
- Analyse the data and identify key trends, patterns, and areas for improvement.
- Develop a data-driven improvement plan that outlines specific goals, strategies, and action steps.
- Post your data-driven improvement plan on the online forum for peer feedback and discussion.
Assessment:
- Completion of all readings.
- Participation in the online forum discussion.
- Development and submission of a data-driven improvement plan.
- Demonstration of the ability to analyse and interpret data effectively.
27 Responses
As a Dean, I have a particular interest in the wellbeing of our students, as this has a strong connection to attendance, which in turn impacts academic achievement. In conjunction with the Director of Counselling Services, I analysed data around the use of our Counselling Department over the last two years (2023–2024).
2023 Data:
Individual sessions held: 1,701
Number of clients: 386
Gender distribution of clients:
Male: 125
Female: 249
Non-binary: 12
2024 Data:
Individual sessions held: 1,879
Number of clients: 472
Gender distribution of clients:
Male: 147
Female: 312
Non-binary: 7
This represents a 19% increase in client referrals year on year. Staffing was increased to meet the growing demand, moving from two full-time and two part-time staff in 2023 to three full-time, one part-time, and an additional part-time staff member joining mid-2024 to support the workload.
Referral Patterns:
Dean referrals decreased from 33% to 19%, suggesting students are increasingly accessing support through other pathways.
Self-referrals rose from 28% to 35%, indicating growing confidence and awareness among students to seek support independently.
Referrals from other schools increased significantly from 4% to 15%, reflecting greater sharing of wellbeing information when students transfer between schools.
Issues Identified:
The top four presenting issues remained consistent:
Anxiety (25–24%)
Family relationships (20–16%)
Mental health (18%) – depression, eating disorders, psychosis
Peer relationships (11–14%)
Key Findings:
There has been an increased demand in the following areas:
Referrals overall
Complex mental health and high-risk cases
Collaboration within pastoral care systems
Engagement with caregivers
Advising and supporting staff
Supporting Howick College staff wellbeing
Facilitating multi-disciplinary meetings
School-wide wellbeing initiatives
Accessing community support services (which remains a challenge)
Reflection and Next Steps:
A key theme emerging from this data is that referrals are only part of the picture. Many young people do not ask for help in the way adults might. Some feel too anxious to come forward, while others may not recognise that their struggles are issues the wellbeing team can support them with. This highlights the need to proactively ask the right questions to identify at-risk students early.
This is where collaborating with GoodSpace, an external provider, could play a vital role. GoodSpace focuses on early identification and best-practice support for schoolwide student wellbeing, with a clear aim of improving attendance, engagement, and academic outcomes. Screening is recognised as the best-practice method to identify and prioritise students who may require additional support.
This screening would take place during a designated class, where students use the GoodSpace platform to answer questions about lifestyle and health-related issues. This process is integrated into the learning environment in a way that protects students’ comfort and confidentiality. The collected data not only supports individual intervention but would also help shape the delivery of our health curriculum, ensuring it responds to the real needs of our students.
As the whakataukī reminds us:
“Better the ambulance at the top of the hill than at the bottom.”
Proactive support, early identification, and effective collaboration are key to ensuring our students thrive both in their wellbeing and in their learning.
In my Across School Lead capacity, I have chosen to use data from across our Kāhui Ako Yrs 0-10 in Literacy.
Assessments used: PAT’s, STAR, Running Records, OTJs, E-Asstle Writing
Analysis: What patterns are we noticing?
Ethnic Trends:
– Māori students are overrepresented (as a percentage) in low writing achievement in years 4, 5, 6 and 7, 8, 9 and 10 although the numbers of students are low. Māori students students were also over represented in years 5, 6 and 9 reading.
– Pacific students may need extra support in the year 3 – 4 transition with a 37% of students underachieving in writing. Pacific students were also over represented in year 4 and year 10 reading.
Pakeha students struggled with writing in years 3 and 9.
– Boys are overrepresented in lower achievement in writing in years 4, 5, 6 and 7, 8, 9 and 10.
– Boys are overrepresented in lower achievement in reading in years 4, 5, 6 and 7, 8, 9 and 10.
General Trends:
In general there are expected fluctuations in the achievement data corresponding to the natural transition points as students move in to new curriculum phases as to be expected.
There seems to be a drop in achievement across the year 6 – 7 transition.
– This may highlight differences in marking; the result of new student intake; or the need to work on combining ‘higher expectations’ with intermediate pedagogical approaches.
In general there are patterns of lower achievement for Māori students in students in writing starting from year 4 and reading starting from year 7.
There are patterns of lower achievement for Pacific students in the year 3 – 4 transition and sporadically for reading.
Boys are struggling with literacy when compared with girls from year 4 onwards.
This helped to guide us in developing new strategic goals and some of the drivers including initiatives such as:
– Supporting teachers in their preparation and implementation of the new Literacy Curriculum
– Facilitaing working groups to unpack and map out progress outcomes
– Align schools’ current practices and assessments to the Literacy Curriculum
– Kāhui Ako wide Literacy Unconference – various workshops unpacking different aspects of literacy practise
– All schools shared their Structured Literacy implementation to the wider KA
– Across school observations were made with teaching staff to observe best practice.
– Working groups with secondary teachers to unpack the CAA’s and align with the English Curriculum – backmapping
– Within School teachers have a Literacy focus on their inquiries. These are shared with teachers across KA
Curriculum Area: Writing
Data Source: School Wide data teacher recording student levels on ETap Mid-year for curriculum level (at, above, below)
Writing exemplar done Start of the year, Mid-year and End of year, overall teacher judgement, samples of work from books
Data Trends:
Year 1 and Year 2 – 90% at or above, 10% below (Expected- Level 1)
Year 3 and Year 4 – 40% at or above, 60% below (Expected- Level 2)
Year 5 – 80% at or above, 20% below (Expected- Level 2)
Year 6 – 60% at or above, 40% below (Expected- Level 3)
Possible factors:
Teacher knowledge of levelling writing. New teachers on staff.
Outdated school exemplars against new curriculum.
Not consistent with delivery of exemplar testing across school.
No moderation across school.
Goal: How to gather more robust data from student work across the school in writing.
SL set parameters to gather data across the school (genre, week for exemplars, how to instruct writers ie modelling on the day of writing samples, time limit, teacher/TA support)
Staff meeting on how to run an exemplar lesson so students know what their task is and what their writing should include.
Students should be aware of what levels are and what writing at each level should look like or include. Being able to self-assess their work against indicators could become part of gathering data.
Moderating in syndicates and then as a staff so there is consistency across the school. Eg A Year 6 teacher may moderate a piece of writing at Level 1 where a Year 2 teacher may look at that piece of writing and compare it to a piece from their class and level in higher.
Using exemplars to inform teaching. Rather than just put in the data for reporting, identify what are the writers doing well and what do we need to teach them to get to the next level?
Working towards refreshing the school exemplars and identifying what each level should look like for us. Making sure the difference between Level 1a – Level 2b is clear as this seems to be where the cusp of between being below and at for Year 3 and 4.
Future goal: To develop a school-wide writing assessment framework that works for us and makes teachers look beyond the data to improve student writing through their teaching and which includes an aspect of student self-assessment.
Year 3 across school Maths Achievement
Assessment information collected from a mixture of formative and summative assessment (PATs, Jam, Oxford tests) and Over Teacher Judgements. Data collected from teachers using HERO.
Key Findings:
A greater number of learners are achieving at or above the expected level at this time of the year, 50 learners, than in Term 1. A large number of learners are below where they are expected to be by the end of the year (72%). There is still a lot of growth needed for students to be able to achieve by the end of the year.
Improvement Plan:
Goal: Increase achievement for Year 3 learners working at Early Level 1 and At Level 1 in mathematics.
Strategies:
See what teachers are currently doing.
Find out what has/hasn’t worked in the past.
Focused intervention for the Year 3 learners working at Early Level 1 in mathematics.
Continued focus on teaching using Oxford resources consistently. This will allow full coverage of the new curriculum. Same maths language used across the school.
Possible Action Steps:
Teachers to create a front loading lesson for learners on a Friday, to introduce key concepts for the following week.
Have learners do lots of fun maths activities to get them engaged and excited about maths learning.
Hands on maths experiences.
Use Matific as a follow-up activity.
Teachers to become more confident using the New Curriculum – more PD on this.
In future I would like to create more opportunities for teachers to look at their assessment and construct their key findings and what their next steps could be to include in their planning and preparation for learning.
Data-Driven Improvement Plan: Numeracy Focus
Based on assessment data showing 80 students (15.47%) performing below benchmark level out of 517 total students, this plan targets numeracy improvement through evidence-based interventions and systematic monitoring.
Data used:
Formative Assessments: Weekly number fact fluency checks
Summative assessments: JAM, maths snapshots, Oxford post tests, OTJs.
Classroom Observation Data: Teaching practice effectiveness
Student Voice Surveys: Learning preferences and barriers.
Data Analysis and Key Findings:
Critical Patterns indicate systemic interventions needed
Foundational Skills: suggests gaps in basic number operations and mathematical reasoning.
Possible factors: differing maths teaching experience and confidence.
Areas for Improvement:
Number Operations: Basic arithmetic fluency
Problem-Solving: Mathematical reasoning and application
Mathematical Language: Vocabulary and communication skills
Conceptual Understanding: Moving beyond procedural knowledge
Evidence-Based Improvement Plan:
Goal Statement – Increase the percentage of students meeting numeracy benchmarks from 84.53% to 90% within 12 months, reducing the below-benchmark group from 15.47% to under 10%.
Strategy: Systematic Explicit Instruction
Evidence Base: Research shows explicit instruction with feedback and manipulatives is highly effective for students with mathematics difficulties.
Action Steps:
Implement daily 30-minute small group instruction (groups of 4-6 students)
Use explicit teaching sequence: model, guided practice, independent practice
Incorporate concrete manipulatives and visual representations
Provide immediate corrective feedback
Timeline: Immediate implementation, ongoing for 1 term.
Resources: Manipulative materials, structured lesson plans, training for staff, interactive youtube tutorials, and retrieval practice based on the Science of Learning, lower cognitive loading by using set routines and connecting new learning to old.
Curriculum Area: Literacy – Reading Achievement
Goal: Increase the percentage of Year 3 students achieving Within or Above curriculum expectations in Reading. To increase the percentage of students performing “Within or Above” the benchmark from 72% to at least 90% by the end of 2025. A secondary goal would be to move all students out of the “Well below” category.
Data Summary:
Data Source: Class reading assessments (End 2024, Mid 2025
Cohort: Year 3 reading group in the kainga
Key Trends and Patterns:
Achievement increased from 44% (End 2024) to 72% (Mid 2025) for students at Within or Above.
Reduction in Towards students, indicating effective interventions.
No students in Well Below, showing stable foundational reading skills.
End 2025 Targets:
85% or more of students at Within or Above.
20% or more at Above.
Towards reduced to less than 10%.
Strategies and Actions:
Targeted Guided Reading:
Four sessions per week for Towards students focusing on decoding, fluency, and comprehension.
Collaborative teaching approach, drawing on insights from the refreshed curriculum and structured literacy PD.
Structured Literacy Approach:
Follow the I do, We do, You do model.
Use Joy Alcock’s Scope and Sequence as the core framework.
Enrichment for Above-Level Students:
Provide higher-level texts and critical thinking activities.
Parent Engagement:
Maintain home reading programmes.
Share progress and specific gaps with parents, along with strategies to support at home.
Data-Driven Grouping:
Review running records each term to adjust reading groups.
Cross-Kainga Collaboration:
Share strategies and best practice during kainga meetings an discuss the live PTO tracker document to target learner needs.
Continue monitoring students currently reading Within to ensure sustained progress.
I like this part of your plan Tazmeen:
Parent Engagement: Maintain home reading programmes.
Share progress and specific gaps with parents, along with strategies to support at home.
Data-Driven Grouping:
Review running records each term to adjust reading groups.
I didn’t think to have parental involvement or a data driving group – which would be good to have tuakana teina where more experienced Math teachers could support younger kaiako!
Curriculum Area: Reading
Data Source: Mid-Year Teacher Judgements – Triangulated data (e.g. Reading responses & independent activities, Teacher Observations, student voice and PROBE/Running records)
Focus Group: Year 5 cohort in my wharau (Kowhai – Mamaku)
Key Trends:
Mid-year teacher judgements indicate a positive shift in reading progress for the Year 5 cohort, with several students moving from lower curriculum levels into Early and At Level 3. Despite this, a significant number remain stagnant at Level 2, below the expected standard. As well as Early Level 3 to extend and challenge.
Goal:
To extend students at Early Level 3 towards Level 3 who have remained unchanged across milestones.
To monitor and accelerate progress for students currently working at At Level 2 or below to within expectation
Term 3 Focus:
1. Data Analysis and Reflection
Continue to share the data of our priority and target learners with kaiako in our kainga meetings. We are in collaborative spaces and share rich perspectives on students we share.
Use the data to reflect on impact:
Students that are not accelerating
Are they on our achievement tracking tool or were any unexpected?
What teaching strategies have helped move students? What hasn’t worked?
How can we build on what’s already working?
Home partnerships – open and reciprocal?
2. Instructional Focus Based on Needs of students at each level:
Group A: Early Level 3 → At Level 3 (Within Expectation)
Implement Guided Reading and Reciprocal Teaching in small groups to help Year 5 students solidify comprehension and fluency:
Deepen comprehension and analysis using varied texts
Promote independent activities: accountable talk, peer discussion, projects
Integrate strategies (e.g: Depth and Complexity) to stretch thinking
Group B: At Level 2 → Early Level 3
Diagnose comprehension barriers (e.g. inference, vocabulary gaps)
Model reading strategies aloud; encourage oral rehearsal
Use high-interest texts repeatedly to build fluency and confidence
Embed discussion and summarising tasks into each session
Group C: Early Level 2 / At Level 1
Prioritise structured literacy: decoding, fluency, and confidence using decodable texts
Leverage visuals and shared reading experiences/strategies to build understanding
Scaffold oral responses using sentence starters
Incorporate targeted learning games to reinforce and deepen understanding of key concepts
Foster peer support and celebrate reading progress regularly
Next Steps:
We are on our Structured Literacy journey to:
Monitor/track progress for all target groups and share effective instructional strategies that promote acceleration for the above groups in our kainga meetings
Use guided reading-informed strategies consistently and revisit assessment to inform teaching.
Encourage teachers to continue to use reading data during progress report days to build whānau understanding and support
Data Analysis of Year 4 in my team (Korari) Curriculum focus: Reading
Sources – PAT Test (Term 1), Probe, Running record, observations and OTJ
– Our living document to track data and reflect on students’ progress at the end of each term, every team is required to complete the P.T.O to track student achievement in reading, writing, and mathematics. Students are identified as ESOL, Pasifika, and Māori to support the identification of target groups. The data used are based on end-of-year achievements and are carried over into the following year.
Year 4 data shows: (38 students)
Only 2 students (5%) are working below expected curriculum level.
95% of students are working at or above Level 1 of the curriculum, with a significant number progressing into Level 3.Key Trends
ESOL Learners:
Culturally and linguistically diverse (Chinese, Indian, South East Asian, Middle Eastern, Samoan, African, Fijian).
Strong progress: all are working at or above Level 2, with some achieving Level 3.
Pasifika and Māori Learners:
2 students identified as working below.
Now receiving targeted support through the Quick 60 programme with a dedicated TA.
Goal: All Students to solidify foundational skills and push them towards the next level.
Implementing Programs:
Previously, when the ESOL students were in Year 2/3, they were working below and with the implementation of Early words and a quick 60-classroom small group withdrawal program(by specialist TAs), which has been very beneficial and reflected in student achievement.
From this year, to support Pasifika and Maori students, we have a TA who works with these targeted students following the same quick 60 program.
– Benefits of working in a collaborative space, working as a team, we have unpacked the reading aspect of the new, refreshed curriculum.
Implementing structured literacy following the format of: I do, we do, and you do.
Identifying the term focus for teaching and modifying planning.
Individually analyse each target child to develop a deeper understanding of their unique literacy needs, such as decoding abilities, phonological awareness, phonics knowledge, sight word recognition, reading fluency, and comprehension strategies.
Students work in differentiated groups.
Providing Explicit and evidence-informed teaching.
Observations and feedback
Revisit and relook at the data on the live P.T.O tracker.
Kainga inquiry- based on structured literacy.
We are on an early structured literacy journey as a whole staff and are working on developing and strengthening our practice to support all learners to succeed.
Focus: Numeracy data.
Why?
– The implementation of the refreshed Mathematics and Statistics curriculum, change in pedagogy, and use of new resources this year.
– Struggle to align current assessment tools and practices to new curriculum guidelines.
– Teacher confidence and capability in the teaching of Maths.
Data Collection and Analysis:
We have conducted a school-wide review of numeracy teaching practices with the curriculum and resource changes. Team leaders led their teams through survey/review questions to understand what the impact is of the resources and strategies they are using (perceptions data tool). The Learning Leader team then analysed this data into a ‘Impact-Effort Matrix’ to prioritise key actions that came out of the review.
We are in the process of analysing the interim student achievement data more deeply, looking for specific patterns in misconceptions across different year levels.
The Improvement Plan:
– Establish a consistent whole school approach to numeracy. Create and implement a shared numeracy plan that is embedded in the curriculum, utilises appropriate resources, outlines core concepts, instructional strategies, and a common language for teaching mathematics.
– Enhance teacher capability in numeracy instruction. Provide targeted professional development and collaborative planning time for teachers to share effective strategies and analyse student work together.
– Develop a shared understanding of student progress. Establish a clear assessment schedule to track progress and inform teaching.
– Gather student voice about their attitudes and achievement in Maths through surveying our target students, and creating a school-wide ‘Maths Journaling’ prompt.
Kia ora Ashleigh – This is a thoughtful and strategic approach to addressing the shifts in the refreshed Maths curriculum. The use of perception data and the Impact-Effort Matrix looks like an effective way to prioritise next steps (love to see it myself!), and it’s great to see the focus on teacher capability and consistent practice.
As you dig deeper into student achievement data, I encourage you to keep linking patterns of misconception to specific teaching strategies. Gathering student voice through journaling is a powerful addition. It will give valuable insight into engagement and mindset as well as progress.
This looks like a wonderful piece of work that will develop over time.
Kia ora Ashleigh.
I’m not a primary teacher, however, I like the holistic approach to your data collection. Looking at the student and teacher capabilities to ensure all are on the same page to deliver the refreshed Mathematics and Statistics curriculum. You are also looking to qualitative and quantitative data which should provide you with richer outcomes to be able to move forwards as opposed to if you were using just one source.
Curriculum Area: Literacy (Reading & Spelling)
Data Sources: End of year handover (Year 5) data sheet with Instructional Reading Age/Level and Structured Literacy Stage/Spelling Level results.
Key Trends:
• Overall Strong Performance: Many students demonstrated instructional reading ages at or above their expected Year 5 level and achieved strong results in structured literacy/spelling, often scoring in the high 30s out of 40.
• High Comprehension within Expected Range: A small group of learners showed full comprehension at their instructional reading level, indicating strong understanding of texts.
• Identified Foundational Support Group: There was a distinct group of students who were significantly below expectations in both their instructional reading age/level and structured literacy/spelling scores, with some demonstrating very low spelling levels. Some in this group also required ESOL support.
• Varied Literacy Profiles: Some students exhibited a significant disparity between their reading comprehension and spelling levels, such as having good comprehension but very low spelling scores. Others had mid-range spelling scores despite being Year 5, suggesting a need for targeted development in this area.
Goal:
• To raise the instructional reading age/level and structured literacy stage/spelling level of the target group of learners who are significantly below expectations to working within or towards expectation by the end of 2025.
• Target group: Learners with instructional reading ages several years below their chronological age and/or spelling levels below 20/40, particularly those at the foundational stages of literacy development.
Key Actions:
• Share Data Analysis: Disseminate this data analysis with all teachers on the Year 5 team to ensure shared understanding of student literacy needs.
• Individualised Needs Identification: Identify and discuss the target children individually to gain a deeper understanding of their specific literacy needs, including decoding skills, phonological awareness, phonics gaps, sight word recognition, fluency, and comprehension strategies.
• Pattern Recognition: Collaborate to identify common patterns or trends among the target group learners that may inform group instruction or specific program needs.
• Team Meeting Agenda Item: Integrate a “Target Group Literacy” item into regular Year 5 team meeting agendas to facilitate ongoing discussions about successes, share effective instructional strategies, and decide on next steps for these learners.
• Targeted Monitoring and Support: Systematically monitor the progress of students not progressing in either reading or structured literacy domains, involving the SENCO / Literacy Lead as needed for specialised interventions and support.
• Diagnostic Assessment: Utilise snapshot assessments, diagnostic phonics screeners, and running records to gather precise data about specific reading and spelling gaps, misconceptions, and areas requiring explicit instruction.
• Explicit Instruction: Use pre-assessments before new teaching units to identify student prior knowledge and needs, then provide explicit and systematic instruction in phonics, phonological awareness, vocabulary, comprehension strategies, and spelling patterns.
• Foundational Skills Pre-Teaching: Provide “pre-teaching” on unfamiliar core concepts and foundational literacy skills for students who are significantly behind, ensuring they have the necessary building blocks before encountering new material.
• Engaging Activities: Incorporate explicit teaching through games and activities that are directly matched with the target group’s identified needs (e.g., 10 minutes daily of phonics games, word building, or fluency practice).
• Professional Development: Provide Teacher Professional Learning and Development (PLD) focusing on evidence-based structured literacy approaches, the developmental sequence of reading and spelling skills, and how to effectively use diagnostic data to inform instruction.
• ESOL Collaboration: Collaborate closely with ESOL (English for Speakers of Other Languages) support staff for students identified with ESOL needs, to ensure their language acquisition is supported alongside literacy development.
Using collaboration to identify patterns is such a great use of many brains. Ongoing PLD is also key in supporting kaiako to support ākonga. Getting the key strategies understood across the school encourages conversation and brings more brains to the table. Teachers often have valuable experience of and information about individuals and other year levels that could help build learner profiles and bring expertise.
Kia ora Alix! This is a comprehensive demonstration of your knowing your learners through detailed data analysis. Great to see such clear identification of both strengths and target needs. Your plan shows a well-balanced approach that combines individualised support, collaborative team structures, as well as explicit instruction. All key elements to ensure our learners thrive in literacy! Well done too on the integration of diagnostic tools and ongoing team discussions to inform responsive practice. As you implement / embed these actions, you will continue to leverage the strengths in comprehension and build from what’s working well to lift foundational skills for your target learners. Pretty dam good alright.
Curriculum Area: Maths
Data Sources: End of year handover (year 4) data sheet with Gloss testing results, knowledge testing results and teacher OTJs.
Key Trends:
Overall positive outcome with most students consistently achieving or beyond expectations
Strong alignment between strategy and knowledge stages for many students
Small group of learners well below in both knowledge and strategy
Small group of learners well below in strategy only
Small group below in knowledge only
Goal:
To raise achievement of target group to working within expectation by the end of 2025
Target group: learners who are well below in both knowledge and strategy domains
Key Actions:
Share data analysis with teachers of the Year 5 team
Identify and discuss the target children to better understand them as learners and their needs
Look for patterns or trends among the target group learners
Add a target group item to the team meeting agendas to unpack successes, share ideas and decide on next steps
Monitor and focus on students not progressing in either domain (involve SENCO)
Use snapshot assessments and observation to provide data about gaps or misconceptions
Use pre-assessments before new teaching units to identify student needs and then provide explicit instruction
Provide “pre-teaching” on unfamiliar core concepts
Teach and play games and activities explicitly matched with target group needs (10 mins daily)
Provide Teacher PLD on the NZ Mathematics curriculum sequence statements to enhance understanding of what target students need and any gaps/misconceptions may be hindering progress.
Use hard and soft data to inform whānau about progress and home support opportunities
Adding a target group item to team meeting agendas provides a purposeful structure for collaborative inquiry. It creates a regular opportunity to unpack successes, share effective strategies, and collectively decide on next steps—ensuring that support for learners remains responsive and data-informed.
“Add a target group item to the team meeting agendas to unpack successes, share ideas and decide on next steps / Look for patterns or trends among the target group learners / Monitor and focus on students not progressing in either domain (involve SENCO)” – I really like and appreciate these action steps as the involve the collaboration of many to help students, focuses on small targets which are achievable and being regular means it will become habit to talk about and stay at the forefront of teaching/learning decisions.
Kia ora Caroline! So good to see strong overall achievement and alignment between strategy and knowledge stages, as well as a clear plan to address the needs of your target group. Your planning and actions reflect a really thoughtful and structured response, especially the focus on diagnostic assessments, explicit instruction, and collaborative team discussions. Maintain that focus of progress monitoring and continue using both hard and soft data to adjust instruction responsively. Nothing matters more! The inclusion of whānau engagement and targeted PLD is a great way to build collective capacity and support sustained progress – and someting we don’t focus on nearly enough!
I find value in sharing the data – but I am interested in it, whereas not everyone may have the same views. That is why I’m interested to see how you have found sharing the data analysis with teachers of the Year 5 team has gone – did they find it beneficial or not and what the outcomes were.
5-6 Year Old Literacy Achievement
Background: Students have been ‘tested’ on a range of skills, at five years of age (after one month at school) and at six years of age (after 1 year of schooling).
These foundational skills showed significant gains, yet a notable proportion of students remain below expected levels. These skills are critical for early writing fluency and spelling development, especially in a structured literacy approach.
Goals:
Reduce % of students in Stanine 1-3 for Letter ID to 10% next cohort
Increase the number of students achieving Stanine 7–9 in Hearing & Recording Sounds from 18% to 30%
Ensure 100% of students on Tier 2 interventions show at least 1 stanine shift by 12 months.
Strategies/Action Plan:
Evidence-Informed Teaching
Use one-to-one data alongside classroom formative assessment to pinpoint individual learning needs/
Prioritise Teacher PLD in Structured Literacy, with a focus on phonemic awareness
Collaborative Teacher Enquiry
Facilitate teams to meet fortnightly to analyse data trends
Peer coaching: teachers to observe one another with a focus question
Strengthen Tier 2 Interventions
Continue 10-week targeted BSLA sessions, monitoring progress with mid and end intervention data
Review groups every 5 weeks to ensure needs-based support
Involve RTLB if progress stalls
Student and Whānau Partnership
Share student progress with whānau early
Invite parents to workshops on supporting phonemic awareness at how
Summary
The data showed strong progress for most students, validating the BSLA approach and early Tier 2 interventions. Continued focus on targeted skills like Letter Identification and Hearing & Recording Sounds, alongside high-quality teaching and home-school partnerships, will ensure even greater gains for our newest ākonga.
Whānau involvement is so important. I agree that involving them in a partnership to support students is vital. Often I think this means not letting our assumptions or previous experiences hinder our efforts to connect.
Kia ora Susie – This is a really well-structured, data-informed approach that clearly builds on what’s already working, particularly the impact of BSLA and Tier 2 interventions. Your focus on lifting foundational skills like Letter ID and Hearing & Recording Sounds is spot-on for supporting long-term writing and spelling success (that’s not new either!). Great to see the integration of teacher PLD and collaborative inquiry to strengthen classroom practice. Keep building those whānau partnerships – they’re a powerful lever for sustaining early literacy progress and something we all need to get better at!
Curriculum Area: Reading
Data Sources: Mid-Year Interim Teacher Judgements (triangulated judgements from assessment data such as: easTTle reading, BSLA assessments, Running Records, Teacher observation, Independent tasks)
Key Trends: Poor achievement of Pasifika students in Year 2. A larger number of children in Year 5 and 6 achieving below expectation.
Goal: Improve the number of children achieving ‘at’ or ‘above’ in Year 5 and 6 Reading.
Term 3
Share data analysis with teachers of the Pohutukawa (Year 5 & 6) team.
Make it clear that we are using the data for continuous improvement rather than as an accountability tool.
Discuss the data as a measure of our teaching and learning programme NOT a measure of student capability.
Identify and monitor the underachieving Year 5 and 6 learners and discuss at a team level.
Who are the underachieving children?
Are they identified on our School-Wide Achievement Tracking document, or are they surprises?
How have we contributed to the current student outcomes?
What do we already know that we can use to promote improved outcomes?
What do we need to learn to do to promote these outcomes more effectively?
What sources of evidence or knowledge can we utilise?
As our senior school is beginning structure literacy PD:
Support Pohutukawa Team teachers in learning and implementing BSLA strategies to strengthen fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension.
Support Pohutukawa Team teachers to complete necessary BSLA assessments and how they can be used to inform teaching and learning in line with the BSLA programme.
Track the progress of underachieving Year 5 & 6 students closely and celebrate the wins.
Monitor any ‘tracked’ students who are not progressing
Encourage the use of reading assessment data in 3WC conversations to deepen parent and whānau understanding of achievement.
I agree with your focus on finding out more about who the children are and working as a team to gather info. We all have our own interactions with and backgound knowledge of children so I think putting our heads together is always a wise move.
Kia ora Nathalie! This is a really reflective and constructive approach toward data use, which sets a strong foundation for meaningful change in Year 5 and 6 reading outcomes. I like the focus on shifting the narrative from student deficit to programme improvement – this mindset is critical for lifting achievement, especially for our Pasifika learners! Enough of that deficit theorising already!
The integration of BSLA into senior classes is timely and offers a clear pathway to strengthen fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. Keep fostering open team conversations, using data to guide teaching decisions and ensuring regular checkpoints to celebrate progress and adjust support where needed. Be great to see the impact of this over time…