Our research

This national report is ERO’s seventh report about international students. This evaluation included 95 schools (both primary and secondary) and focused on five aspects in relation to international students – integration, progress and achievement, education programme, pastoral care, overall approach and self review.

This ERO evaluation reports on primary schools' progress in relation to the Government's Success for All policy. Success for All is about getting all schools to demonstrate inclusive practice for students with special needs.

All children deserve the right to an education including those with special education needs. Through its Success for All policy, the Government expects all schools to demonstrate inclusive practice for children with special education needs by the end of 2014. This report presents the findings of a questionnaire where schools assess their own provisions for students with special education needs. It follows on from a similar report produced in early 2012.

This report, Including Students with Special Needs: school questionnaire responses presents the findings from a questionnaire completed by schools reviewed in the first two terms of 2011. It is based on schools’ own views of how well they include children with special needs.

In this evaluation Partnership with Whānau Māori in Early Childhood Education, ERO focused on the extent to which:

• services understood and valued the identity, language and culture of Māori children and their whānau, particularly when the child and whānau enter the service
• managers and educators built positive relationships with the whānau of Māori children; and
• each service worked in partnership with the whānau of Māori children. 

ERO evaluated how well schools included students with high needs. Approximately three percent of the student population have significant physical, sensory, neurological, psychiatric, behavioural or intellectual impairment. ERO’s evaluation showed that approximately half of the schools in the study demonstrated inclusive practice, while 30 percent had ‘pockets of inclusive practice’ and 20 percent had few inclusive practices.