New school reports score from A+ to Fail

Review panel of parents finds mid-year focus on the three Rs too narrow. Photo / Martin Sykes

Parents who reviewed four of the new school reports for the Weekend Herald say they are surprised at the wide range on offer - from very poor to wonderfully informative.

The panel of six were shown the reports - which had the names of schools and the child blanked out - and asked to give their opinion on how easy they were to interpret, how informative they were and what overall rating they would give them.

Of the four reports, the panel members felt those from Belmont Primary and Murrays Bay were the best.

Belmont's was popular because of the information it contained about all subjects and the fact that it was fairly easy to understand.

Parents also liked the general comments section at the bottom which gave personalised information about the child's personality and how they were getting on at school.

"I like the amount of information," said panel member Christina Patii. "It's got a lot of subjects and covers the next steps as well as attitude. You can see what's expected."

The only criticism was that so much was crammed on one page and some language was a bit technical.

Principal Bruce Cunningham said he had had great feedback from parents on the report, which was similar to previous formats. The school had included other parts of the curriculum so parents knew how a child was doing in all areas. Any problems could be addressed later in the year.

The Murrays Bay School report was also popular as it was easy to understand and well presented. It lost points, however, because it was limited to just maths, reading and writing.

Principal Ken Pemberton said the school had canvassed parents and found high levels of satisfaction.

Commenting on the fact that it covered only the three key areas, he said the end-of-year report would cover "all essential learning areas".

Mr Pemberton also stressed the report was only one way staff communicated with parents and more detail was available at interviews.

The panel felt Edendale Primary's report was too complicated at first glance, especially as the key was on a different page.

It also lacked general comments about the student and other subjects, but the panel did like the school attendance section.

Principal Rosemary Vivien said this was the school's first go at a mid-year report so it was a work in progress. The school also didn't want to be negative about students, which was difficult given what national standards reporting required.

Ms Vivien said the report contained only maths, reading and writing because that was all the new standards required for mid-year reports. The end-of-year report was required to cover other subjects.

The panel felt Chelsea Primary School's report needed the most work, saying it looked as if the teacher couldn't be bothered filling it in, just highlighting appropriate sections.

There was no personalised information about behaviour and it focused only on reading, writing and maths.

Principal Sue Mulcahy said the school sent two reports, one focusing on national standards reporting and the other the actual mid-term report.