Programmes for Students:
Accelerating Learning in Literacy
and Mathematics
Theory of Action
2014
(Abridged version for literacy Feb 2014)
Please note that the numbering system in this document relates to the 2014 entire ‘Theory of Action’,
so this abridged version is not in numerical order.
1. Introduction
1.1 Programmes for Students – What is it?
School inquiry and knowledge building programme that accelerates progress for target group of
students, and sustains cycles of inquiry for breadth and coherence (refocus)
Short & intensive inquiry to supplement classroom programme.
Two expected outcomes:
• Acceleration for a target group of students
• School curriculum and achievement programme (includes plan)
The 2014 design for the Programmes for Students (PfS) is described as a Theory of Action1. It has
four inter-related components.
1. The theory of action for programmes that accelerate progress for students. These are the
long-term outcomes.
2. The BES quality schooling dimensions as described in the Quality Improvement Plan for the
Initiating Supplementary Supports Framework. These describe the guiding principles for all
supplementary support for students, teachers, leaders and schools and ensure
improvement focus is coherent with other foci.
3. The intervention logic describes how accelerating progress for students within a school
context is due to particular instructional and leadership practices. The focus of Programmes
for Students (PfS) is to improve both the instructional practices and the school
organizational practices.
4. The conditions of implementation. These ensure the outcomes are met in the range of
school contexts involved in the programme.
The theory of action builds on the 2010 – 2011 pilot studies, the intervention logic of the 2012
programmes, the evaluations of the impact and success of these programmes, and conversations
with national and regional MoE personnel, providers and schools about the impact, suggested
improvements and successes. System level improvement theories based on student outcomes were
used in the sense making process. They included:
 Whole system improvement and capability building e.g. Iterative Best Evidence Synthesis/ He
Kete Raukura (BES)2 programme messages, the 8 principles of system-wide improvement3,
acceleration of whole systems as described in the 2010 McKinsey report4.
 Sense making across a range of contexts e.g. pedagogy of travel (Stein)5, tight but loose
(Thompson and Wiliam)6, designing for sustainability from the beginning (Wiliam and Leahy)7,
learning design (Cobb and Jackson)8, chain of influence (Timperley and Parr)9.
1
Fullan, M., (2009) describes a theory of action as a ‘way of understanding the world that identifies insights and ideas for effectively
improving it.’
2 See http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/topics/BES
3 System-wide change in education. Education Policy Series (forthcoming). International Academy of Education, International
institute of Educational Planning, UNESCO.
4 Mourshed, M., Chijioke, C., & Barber, M. (2010). How the world’s most improved school systems keep getting better. Available
from http://ssomckinsey.darbyfilms.com/reports/EducationBook_A4%20SINGLES_DEC%202.pdf
5
Stein, M. K., Hubbard, L., & Toure, J. (2008, March). Travel of district-wide approaches to instructional improvement: How can
districts learn from one another? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New
York.
2|Page
The PfS Theory of Action places the Intervention Logic at the core of the design and describes how
it is linked to the school and education system’s drive to improve outcomes for all students in a way
that aligns with the public policy principles of equity, effectiveness, efficiency, coherency and
transparency. The key finding from the 2012 draft report of the evaluation of the PfS term 3 and 4
2011 schools was that the group mean score showed that the overall samples of students in
mathematics, reading and writing improved their achievement to an extent that could be
considered accelerated. A second outcome was improved agency - teachers because they now
knew their students, and students because they were experiencing success. Agency is the 6th
principle that underpins the MoE design and implementation of supplementary supports so any
change in the PfS design needs to ensure that agency is enhanced and not lost.
1.2 Terms used in the document
Acceleration
Acceleration is described as the learner’s progress showing; a noticeably faster, upward movement
than might otherwise have been expected by the trend of their own past learning; and is faster
than classmates progressing at expected rates in order to catch them up. This rate of progress
brings the learner achievement level to that consistent with, or beyond, a set of benchmarks or
standards (NZ Curriculum Mathematics, Reading and Writing Standards).
Supplementary programmes for students
These programmes supplement the core classroom programme. They enable students to access
the curriculum and have success similar to their peers by accelerating student progress in learning
the knowledge, skills and strategies important to the school and classroom curricula. Learning
programmes are sometimes called Tiers - Tier 1 effective classroom is the foundation for all
learning, Tier 2 short and intensive school based intervention inside and/or outside of the
classroom for some learners, and Tier 3 long-term specialist interventions necessary for a very small
number of students.10 Tier 2 and Tier 3 are the supplementary programmes.
Adaptive teaching
Adaptive teaching is teaching that deliberately responds to moment-by-moment and day-by-day
interactions with students in ways that enhance the learning experience for the students.
Student agency
Assess to learn principles are the basis of student agency. This is when students have been
supported to participate in the decisions about what is important to learn, how to learn, how to
know how they are going and how they are going.
6Thompson,
M., & Wiliam, D. (2007, April). Tight but loose: A conceptual framework for scaling up school reforms. A paper presented
at the Annual American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
7Wiliam, D., and Leahy, S. (2008) From teachers to schools: scaling up professional development for formative
1
assessment. Downloaded from http://www.dylanwiliam.net/
8
Cobb, P., & Jackson, K. (2011). Towards an empirically grounded theory of action for improving the quality of mathematics teaching
at scale. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 13(1), 6-33.
9 Timperley, H., & Parr, J. M. (2009). The chain of influence from policy to practice in the New Zealand Literacy Strategy. Research
Papers in Education, 24, 135–154.
10 See Curriculum Updates 2 & 17 http://nzcurriculum.tki.org.nz/Ministry-curriculum-guides/NZC-Updates, and Smith, P., and Philips,
G. (2002). Hope for the Hardest-to-Teach. NZ Principal March 2002 pp28-30.
3|Page
1.3 Key design aspects
The changes to the design are to ensure there is fidelity from policy to practice in the
implementation; to link the design closely to school self review and curriculum processes and to
involve more than one cycle to support transfer and sustainability from day one; and, to link to the
purpose of the suite of supplementary supports for schools to improve school capability and
improve outcomes for diverse (all) students. The key aspects are:
 The school inquiry into supplementary programmes occurs over 1 – 3 years with the school
improving their coherence across the school curriculum and supplementary programmes over
the years.
 Schools with effective classroom pedagogy in many classes and effective leadership are
invited to participate. These schools will have areas of underachievement (particularly in the
target areas) and are willing to focus on Tier 2 support to supplement their classroom teaching
(Tier 1 support). Effective classroom pedagogy occurs in classrooms where the teacher has
evidence of accelerating the progress of priority group students. Evidence would be from
classroom observations and student achievement data. Effective leadership occurs when
student achievement data is disaggregated, responses are well resourced and monitored for
impact and there is acceleration of progress for a high proportion of at risk students. Evidence
would be from school documentation.
 The Self Review Tool for Schools: Focus on student achieving below curriculum expectations
in literacy years 1 – 8 is used to guide the school wide development of a curriculum and
achievement map.
 School mentors have expertise in the focus areas for acceleration and are employed through
the PLD providers.
 A leadership team has the responsibility to drive the programmes and sits across both the
mathematics and literacy programmes.
 A Theory of Action for Programmes that Accelerate Progress for Students underpins the
programmes.
2. Theory of Action for Programmes that Accelerate Progress for Students
The Theory of Action for Programmes that Accelerate Progress for students11 is embedded within
system improvement. These programmes supplement effective classroom teaching and accelerate
progress for students.
Supplementary programs can neither substitute no compensate for poor-quality classroom
(reading) instruction. Supplementary instruction is a secondary response to learning
difficulties. Although supplementary instruction has demonstrated merit, its impact is
insufficient unless it is planned and delivered in ways that makes clear connections to the
child’s daily experiences and needs during (reading) instruction in the classroom. (Snow et al,
1998, p327)12
11
Often described as interventions in NZ literature (see Borderfields Consulting, 2008, A National System of Literacy Interventions)
or supplementary in overseas research (see Cobb and Jackson 2011). Acceleration is used here to focus on the outcome not the
process.
12 Snow, C.E., Griffin, P., and Burns, M.D., eds. (1998) Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children. Washington DC: National
Academies Press.
4|Page
Therefore, supplementary programmes for students are placed right at the heart of effectiveness.
The BES Quality Schooling Dimensions13 guide the vision of effective practice as it describes a
coherent set of dimensions across leadership, professional learning and development, and teaching
that lead to improved outcomes for diverse (all) students.
2.1 Improvements needed
The MoE has developed a goal for the sector of 85% of students at or above the reading, writing
and mathematics National Standards by 2017. The system improvements needed include the way
supplementary supports for students are coherent with the practices of “what makes a bigger
difference”.
PfS primary focus is on accelerating the progress of students who are achieving below and well
below the standards.
The MoE contracted a review into literacy interventions in 2008 and found that there were a
number of issues associated with disparate services in the sector. The review14 found there was:
 An absence of common expectations for student outcomes at every level in the system;
 A culture of dependency on “second wave” interventions;
 Uncertainty about how to respond to the numbers of students that were not making progress;
 A lack of capability at the classroom level to assess and provide intensive explicit literacy
instruction;
 A confusing clutter of mismatched, sometimes counter-productive interventions.
This theory of action is a response to this review and to the school contexts since 2012.
13
BES website http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/topics/BES
See p. 31-31 Borderfields Consulting (2008), A national system of Literacy interventions: A conceptual framework, report to
Ministry of Education.
14
5|Page
2.2 Levers for change
The BES model for systemic improvement that leverages
evidence and expertise to make a bigger difference for
valued outcomes for diverse (all) student (Alton-Lee, 2012)15
provides a map for improvement that will lead to this vision.
The model has four components that are the levers for
change: effective pedagogy for valued outcomes for diverse
(all) learners, activation of educationally powerful
connections, leadership of conditions for continuous
improvement, and productive inquiry and knowledge
building for professional and policy learning.
From the BES programme and from the work of other
researchers focused on system improvement (e.g. Cobb & Jackson, 2011; Fullan, 200916; McKinsey
Report, 2010) a number of guiding principles have been identified for the development and use of
supplementary programmes that supplement effective classroom teaching.
2.2.1 Effective pedagogy for valued outcomes
 The aim of any supplementary programme for students is to support students to access the
school curriculum and reach the valued educational goals i.e. it is a matter of equity.
 The assessment used to inform decisions about who needs access to, how successful the
teaching and learning is, and the ongoing monitoring of student progress aligns with the school
curriculum and the educational goals.
 The curriculum of these programmes is coherent with the school curriculum and is based on
high impact pedagogies17 – i.e. the ‘what’ and ‘how’ focus is not on low-level skills.
 Curriculum resources and tools are ‘smart’.
 Learning occurs within socio-cultural contexts.
 As groups of students, Māori, Pasifika, students with special education needs and students from
low socio-economic backgrounds are under-represented in the student population reaching the
valued student outcomes, the curriculum of accelerated teaching and learning needs to be
cognisant of and responsive to their strengths, needs and aspirations. For example a significant
number of students have diverse language backgrounds.
15
Alton-Lee, A., (2012). The use of evidence to improve education and seve the public good. Paper prepared for the Ministry of
Education and the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Vancouver, Canada (April 2012).
16 Fullan, M. (2009) Have theory, will travel: A theory of action for system change. In Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2008).
17 The “What works clearninghouse” states that there is strong evidence that the following works for short intensive interventions in
maths. Instruction during the intervention should be explicit and systematic. This includes providing models of proficient problem
solving, verbal- ization of thought processes, guided practice, corrective feedback, and frequent cumulative review. Interventions
should include instruction on solving word problems that is based on common underlying structures. (page 27) Assisting Students
Struggling with Mathematics: Response to Intervention (RtI) for Elementary and Middle Schools
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/practiceguide.aspx?sid=2 See Appendix 2 for further comment on pedagogy and curriculum.
6|Page
2.2.2 Activation of educationally powerful connections
 The success of a supplementary programme for students is determined by the quality of the
educational interactions between and amongst student - student; student - teacher; teacher parent/whānau/family; student - parent/whānau/family; teacher-teacher; teacher-school
leaders/visiting leaders.
 Generally people need to learn how to engage in deep constructive talk that focuses on
improving learning (for example see Alton-Lee et al, 201218 for student talk, Timperley, 201119
for teacher talk).
2.2.3 Leadership of conditions for continuous improvement
 The supplementary programme for students is designed for success. This means leadership
needs to monitor for improvement and undertake leadership tasks so that the programme is:
o Underpinned by effective classroom teaching
o Coherent with and embedded within school curriculum, i.e. designed as part of a
school’s curriculum and achievement map that covers 3 - 5 year as per the school review
cycle
o Embedded within school self review, monitoring and assessment practices - including
contracted reporting
o Resourced by effective teachers who are professionally supported to provide high
impact pedagogies for accelerated progress, i.e. there is efficiency and urgency in the
practice
o Transparent to ensure there is reciprocal learning for teachers and students across a
range of setting supplementary and classroom.
2.2.4 Productive inquiry and knowledge building
 Systems that support school self review, monitoring and assessment are underpinned by the
concept of improvement rather than ‘to prove’.
 An ethic of care underpins the notion of collective responsibility and individual accountability to
ensure that there are no unintended consequences of these programmes.
 Smart tools are used for monitoring progress so that the effort can be placed on the response
rather than the gathering and analysing of information.
2.3 A school curriculum and achievement plan
At a school level the principles of these four levers for improvement can be articulated within a
school curriculum and achievement plan.
At the moment, schools develop a curriculum plan that starts as a school-wide plan about their
delivery of their local curriculum. This plan is the framework for coherent instruction. More detail
is added at syndicate level, and day-by-day detail is added at the classroom level. The classroom
plan is underpinned by ‘teaching as inquiry’ as teachers respond to student strengths and needs
adapting the classroom curriculum. Many schools have developed a graduate profile to describe
the valued outcome for all students.
18
BES Exemplar 1 - Ngā Kete Raukura - He Tauira 1 Developing Communities of Mathematical Inquiry
http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/topics/BES/bes-exemplars
19 Timperley, H.S. (2011) Realizing the Power of Professional Learning. London: Open University Press.
7|Page
At the same time schools monitor the progress of students using a range of formal and informal
assessments that provide teachers with information about what students can do independently,
with support, or not at all. Norm referenced assessment tools and the National Standards also
provide schools with signposts that they can use to check whether students are achieving as well as
their peers and whether they have the particular mathematics, literacy and language knowledge
and skills expected for their year group. The school assessment plan generally describes the
administration tasks rather than the response to the findings.
If schools put their curriculum and assessment plans together they would then have the beginnings
of a school curriculum and achievement plan that describes what is worthwhile learning, what is
achievement and how they will respond if students are not achieving. The programme would
describe the following:
 The expected improvements over time from one year to the next as described by particular
achievement signposts, e.g. the school wide plan would include the National Standards
signposts and Overall Teacher Judgment information and the classroom plan would include
signposts found in such documents as the Literacy Learning Progressions.
 What would trigger a need to instigate a supplementary programme, e.g. end of year data,
mid year data, classroom observation, for each year group and particular groups of students.
 The actual response needed to accelerate progress. This could be described by thinking
about the layers of support - Tier 1 (effective classroom), Tier 2 (short and intensive school
based intervention inside and/or outside of the classroom), Tier 3 (long term specialist
intervention).
 Monitoring within and beyond the supplementary support.
 When and how students move from one type of support to the next, e.g. a description of
what happens for the students whose progress does not accelerate after an initial Tier 2
support.
Timely reviews20 of the school curriculum and achievement plan would initiate discussions about
the impact of classroom curriculum and supplementary curricula, and which students has access to
what support so that there is ongoing improvement in the provision of all curricula.
Support to accelerate progress can be preventative or remedial21 therefore schools should plan for
both. Examples of planned preventative supplementary support at a school level include a 6
months to one-year-at-school programme for some students because of the known early literacy
and language experiences of particular students, or the focus on years two to four writing because
of the known ongoing low achievement in writing at years 6 to 8. At the school level planned
remedial explicit and intensive expert teacher support would be available at particular assessment
points-in-time as it may be expected that the need is greater than the classroom teacher can meet
(examples of this support are Reading Recovery, RT:Lits, MST). The school can also plan for the
specialist support needed for students who have not responded to the explicit and intensive
teaching. At the class level an effective teacher could plan for remedial supplementary support by
co-constructing independent group work and/or the way other adults support the rest of the class
20 Through the school’s strategic, regular and emerging self-review processes such as on-going monitoring and reporting of
curriculum in class and in acceleration programmes, and of student progress and achievement.
21 Borderfields (2008) describe two types of interventions. Preventative provide a foundation ot avoid a later possible issue and
remedial addresses identified knowledge and skills weaknesses.
8|Page
so that the teacher can provide, in a timely and efficient way, an explicit and intensive programme
for the students who need extra support.
A Tier 2 response of a 15 week intensive teaching and learning programme may be appropriate for
particular students. The programme would include close monitoring, intensive planning and
evaluation, and the provision of many rich and intellectually rigorous opportunities for learning
provided by the teacher. Each student would experience being part of a learning community,
developing learning strategies and personal self-evaluation skills 22 along with the particular
knowledge and skills that had been identified to ensure they can engage with all aspects of the
school curriculum appropriate for their peer group.
Overall a school would have a school curriculum and a number of supplementary curricula to
accelerate student progress. These supplementary programmes would be triggered by particular
achievement results at either the classroom or school level. Each supplementary curriculum would
need to have a Plan B for the students who need further supplementary support, i.e. the plan can’t
be to keep giving more of the same. This is the school’s curriculum and achievement map. Each
student at risk of underachieving would have a number of supports over the time they are at a
school that would be contributing to their ongoing progress and success. This is shown in Figure 1:
A model of a curriculum and achievement plan.
Figure 1: A model of a curriculum and achievement programme
22
PISA 2009 found that there was a strong relationship between students who did not have these strategies and under-achievement.
9|Page





The school curriculum and achievement programme describes the process of what is worth
learning, progress and achievement in relation to the curriculum and the curriculum sign
posts and supplementary supports when students are not making expected progress.
The school curriculum and achievement plan describes the breadth and depth as well as the
annual improvements/progress that is expected for all students
An assessment tool gives frequent information about a particular aspect of the curriculum
A standard sits across the breadth of the school curriculum and acts as signposts of the
expected and real health of the system at particular times.
A supplementary support programme identifies
 when an intervention takes place e.g. students below expectation as shown above,
 what it would be – based on evidence of impact,
 monitoring during and after
 plan b for the students who do not accelerate learning, e.g. the students with “flat’’
progress
3.5
Intervention logic for schools
The intervention logic is based on a school’s capability to notice strength and need, design learning
programmes to accelerate learning where needed, to monitor impact of this learning for students
in both the short and long term, and refocus and adapt practices as a response to the monitoring.
Because of the short nature of the supplementary component of the programme, schools in 2010 –
12 did not have much opportunity to evaluate current practices before designing something new,
or to refocus and undertake a second cycle of implementation in response to any monitoring. One
of the key aspects of the 2013 design is to extend before and beyond the short and intensive
supplementary programme for the selected students to promote the concepts of evaluation and
refocus within a school’s self review process. The intervention logic draws on all four levers for
improvement – effective pedagogy, activation of educationally powerful connections, leadership of
conditions for continuous improvement, and productive inquiry and knowledge building. The
redesigned intervention logic is shown in Figure 3.
10 | P a g e
Figure 3: Intervention Logic
Supplementary
Inquiry Design
Evaluation
Curriculum &
Achievement
What works in
our school, for
whom and why?
What does the
research say
works faster for
whom and why?
Selection of
students


Organisation
How best do we
resource this for:
 Powerful
connections
with
family/whānau
 Classroom
teaching
 Supplementary
inquiry team
Implementation
of supplementary
programme
Based on school
and national
targets
Particular focus
on equity –
Māori, Pasifika,
SEN, and
students from
lower socioeconomic
backgrounds
Iterative
programme
design


Based on what
works
Includes
monitoring and
evaluation
processes
Teaching as
inquiry


Highly effective and
culturally
responsive teaching
based on what
works
Develops
educationally
powerful
relationships with
parents/whānau
Inquiry and
knowledge
building cycles
 Monitors, reviews
and adjusts
practices, and
develops
educationally
powerful
connections with
community
Refocus
Outcomes
For students
For students




Acceleration of
progress
Knowledge and
skills to engage
with classroom
curriculum
Self-directing
learning strategies
Agency


For teachers


Improved pedagogy
and practice
Agency
For
supplementary
inquiry team



Improved evaluative
capabilities
Improved
pedagogies
Improved
educationally
powerful
relationships
What do we
need to do
differently for
the students who
didn’t accelerate
progress?
What do
classroom
teachers need to
do differently to
support those
who have
accelerated?
For the
supplementary
inquiry team


What do we
embed and what
do we improve?
Which teachers
should try an
acceleration
programme
next?
School leadership self review – monitoring long term impact, improving school curriculum
and achievement map, transferring to new contexts, communicating with parents/whānau,
BoT, community/iwi/hapū, MoE
11 | P a g e
2.4 Supplementary programme alerts
There appears to be a lot of research about the impact of particular supplementary programmes
but very little research about how they supplement the classroom learning and ensure all students
can access the curriculum and have success.
Table 1: Supplementary programme alerts, summarises the key aspects as described in sections 2.1
– 2.3 for schools and providers to use as a quick check to ensure the supplementary programmes
really do accelerate progress and supplement the curriculum within effective classroom teaching.
Table 1: Supplementary programme alerts
What it is…
Identifying
students
who
need support to
accelerate
progress
Developing a
curriculum that
accelerates
progress and
supplements
effective
teaching
Monitoring
impact
Developing
student agency
Socio-cultural
learning
environment
Cohesive use of
adaptive expert
teachers and
specialists
Responsive
to
need
Through the use of curriculum based tools to identify
the initial need.
This could be supported through the use of specialist
assessment tools to identify most suitable response.
Explicit and intensive teaching and learning
programmes based on the school curriculum that
involves all 4 levers for change – effective pedagogy,
utilization of powerful connections, instructional
leadership, inquiry and knowledge building.
What it isn’t…
Through the use of very
specific
non-curriculum
assessment tools e.g. BURT or
very low level knowledge and
skills assessment tools.
A replacement for effective
classroom teaching and the
socio-cultural
aspects
of
learning.
A separate entity from the
school/classroom curriculum.
Focus on improving.
Using smart tools to monitor impact of programme in
both the short and long term to make adjustments for
the student/s and to the programme/s.
Monitoring includes monitoring for unintended
consequences on students within or outside of the
programme.
Students know they will be supported to achieve.
For future success they also know that they are
expected to develop high-level learning strategies and
self-directing strategies during the intervention.
Focus on ‘proving’ that the
programme
made
a
difference.
Lack of overlap between what
is assessed during and after
the programme and what is
assessed in the classroom.
Low level learning with a
focus on knowledge.
Students able to negotiate their learning and
understandings with peers along with explicit teaching
with the teacher.
Through the use of deliberate professional
conversations about curriculum and achievement and
the roles each play to support learning
Only
individualised
programmes or personalized
learning
Working in silos
Timely
Reliant on expert teachers
 each teacher is able to respond and develop a and specialists outside of the
supplementary programme within the classroom classroom
environment
 school has system response for particular points of
concern (both remedial and preventative) based on
school achievement data
12 | P a g e
The Theory of Action for Programmes that Accelerate Progress for Students is the foundation and
ambition for schools that participate in PfS.
A key factor of a theory of action is the description of the line of sight to student outcomes.
Professional learning and development programmes that have impacted on valued student
outcomes within the New Zealand context23 have paid attention to the whole of schooling including
policy decisions, project and school leadership, school structures, teacher beliefs and their
combined impact on changing the core of teaching interactions and improving the outcomes for
diverse (all) students.
There are a number of organizational factors that these programmes share:
 A leadership team to describe the goals and articulate the theory to reach the goals, focus on
learning and improvement, engage in constructive learning conversations, create educationally
powerful connections, use smart tools, and, allocate resource.
 Expertise at all levels
 A chain of influence that supports all layers of the system to describe and use the theory of
action within their own context
 Inquiry and knowledge building processes that include ways to track the theory-in-use
 Sense-making of policy and practice in all contexts of the system
 Research and evaluation that focuses on accountability for student outcomes and the
development of new knowledge.
Programmes for Students (PfS): Accelerating Learning in Literacy and Mathematics is specifically
designed for schools with effective classroom practices and strong school leadership to undertake a
guided set of inquiries that start with the students and the acceleration of their learning, i.e. it is
not a primarily a professional learning and development programme, although many teachers
stated they learnt a lot about effective pedagogy because of the programme. It sits within the
wider MoE suite of supplementary support for schools and contributes to the system goal of
improved capability at all levels, therefore the conditions of implementation need to be very similar
to PLD.
23 For example those described in the BES - Te Kotahitanga, Literacy Professional Development Project, Numeracy Professional
Development.
13 | P a g e
3
Instructional and leadership focus: The intervention logic
The intervention logic for PfS sits within two inter-related contexts – both are systems in
themselves. The first is the school context of a local curriculum delivered in such a way to improve
outcomes for diverse (all) students using the particular resources available to it, and the second is
the wider education system with a national curriculum, national goals and a coherent range of
supplementary resources to support schools, leaders and teachers to meet the national goals. The
key changes to the 2012 design focus on PfS being coherent with these two contexts.
3.1 Overview of the programme
3.1.1 Description
PfS sits within the suite of support24 MoE have for schools to improve outcomes for diverse (all)
students. It focuses on using the expertise within the school to initially evaluate the effectiveness
of current practices that support accelerated maths or literacy learning and then to closely monitor
the impact of a 15 week intervention for a small group of students.
To meet the outcomes described below schools will be supported to improve classroom and school
systems and build capability25 through inquiry and knowledge building processes.
3.1.2 Designed to build on the strengths of schools with
 Effective classroom teaching and effective leadership
 Literacy/maths as key target area for 2014
3.1.3 Outcomes
PfS: Accelerating Learning in Literacy and Mathematics has 2 expected outcomes for schools
 Acceleration for small groups of students (an inquiry into possible interventions)
 A school curriculum and achievement programme
These will be improved through processes of critical inquiry and knowledge building.
Schools inquiry should be focussed on doing something differently, but pedagogically sound in
response to the PfS inquiry focus.
A further outcome for the Mathematics Support Teacher (MST) is
 to support classroom teachers in implementing successful strategies for intervention
students enabling effective transitions. The MST is effective in accelerating the learning of
students who are well below the standard.
24 http://nzcurriculum.tki.org.nz/System-of-support-incl.-PLD
25 The BES model for systemic improvement that leverages evidence and expertise to make a bigger difference for valued outcomes
for diverse (all) students will be used.
14 | P a g e
3.1.4 Phases of the programme
There are two programmes within PfS - Accelerating Learning in Maths (ALiM) and Accelerating
Learning in Literacy (ALL).
Accelerating Learning in Literacy
Accelerated Learning in Mathematics
Year 1
Initial Phase
ALiM 1
ALL 1
ALiM/ALL: Year 1 inquiry "What is acceleration and how do we achieve it?"
This is the first year of inquiry and focuses on short and intensive programmes
for 4 – 8 students over a 15 week period and whole-school practices.
‘Inquiry’ includes:
School level
 Establishing a supplementary inquiry team in the school (building expertise)
 School inquiry using Self Review Tool
 Support PfS teacher
Teacher level
 What is acceleration?
 Assessment practices (what works)
 Inquire into teaching practice
Year 2 and Year
3 Deepening/
Embedding
Phase
AliM 2
ALL 2 & 3
ALL/ALiM Year 2 & 3 for improvement "How do we strenthen and monitor
effective intervention practices that sustain student acceleration and ensure
intervention coherence?
The Year 2 and 3 focus is on responding to the outcomes of the initial inquiry
and embedding the new practices.
In the second and third years of inquiry, schools focus on continuing cycles of
inquiry to build knowledge of acceleration and the strategies and learning
conditions that support this in their school. This refocus extends the literacy
practices across other student groups and to other teachers. A further focus is
on developing the school wide coherence of literacy interventions and
developing a Curriculum and Achievement Plan (CAAP). In the third year the
CAAP will be further developed across other supplementary programmes with a
strong focus on critiquing the school’s programmes and monitoring their
effectiveness.
Schools are encouraged to select appropriate university papers
Schools may decide to undertake only the first inquiry i.e. only year 1 of the programme.
15 | P a g e
The foci of the year 1 and years 2 & 3 inquiries are shown in blue (dark shaded boxes) in Figure 2:
Programme for Students foci over the years.
Figure 2: Programme for Students foci over the years - outcomes
16 | P a g e
3.2 Roles within schools
3.2.1 Supplementary Inquiry Team
It is expected that schools set up a supplementary inquiry team based on the roles described
below during their participation on PfS.
The key role of this team is to ensure there are adequate conditions for sustaining and embedding
effective practices e.g. one of the roles of this group is to support other classroom teachers to
inquire into the effectiveness of aspects of their practice and transfer learnings from the
supplementary programmes to the classroom.
It is expected that schools will have the roles outlined below already in place. These roles form
the basis of the Inquiry team. The PfS focus for these roles is on the school’s curriculum and
achievement plan:
Principal / Senior Manager - instructional leader with responsibility for the school
curriculum and achievement plan linked to the annual plan goals.
Lead teacher (maths/literacy) - to ensure the school has a curriculum and achievement plan
that clearly identifies the range of interventions for students at risk of underachieving.
This includes in-class, out- of class (e.g. Reading Recovery and RTLit) and specialist support.
The Maths/Literacy Leader would ensure that the supplementary supports chosen are those
that are known to be educationally powerful and cost effective, are well implemented and
monitored for impact in both the short term and long term.
Some schools will have these roles:
ESOL teacher/SENCO/RTLit/RR teacher – expert teacher supporting the acceleration of
learning so students can access the curriculum.
PfS teacher roles:
ALiM/ALL teacher/s – inquiring into the effectiveness of short intensive programmes to
support student acceleration.
MST – teacher undertaking post-graduate qualifications and supporting the acceleration of
learning so all students can access the curriculum. The provision may be within class and
outside of the class.
3.2.2 Selection of teachers
Schools previously involved in ALiM or ALL identified leadership, personal pedagogical knowledge
and skills as being necessary to achieve successful outcomes of the programme. The following is
provided as guidance for school leaders in their selection of teacher/s.
Teachers should: -
17 | P a g e

Have strong pedagogical and content knowledge; knowledge of mathematics/literacy at all
levels ensuring a deep understanding of progression
 be open to learning and confident to try new things
 notice and observe practice and refine and reflect on own practice
 be flexible with the ability to employ multiple strategies to work with these students
 have high expectations of the students
 have ultimate patience
 be permanent member of teaching staff
 have credibility – other staff need to find them credible and they need confidence to deliver to
other staff and work across the school
 be approachable
 have the ability to encourage staff, parents, students
 be organised.
Please note that an ALiM teacher needs to be eligible to undertake post-graduate study if they
want to progress to MST.
If schools are considering continuing with the 2nd and 3rd years then the decision they make at this
point is critical, including successfully completing and passing post graduate papers (MST1). The
impact and refocus workshops at the end of the year for schools to explore some of the issues
associated with this decision.
3.2.3 Selection of students
Previously each school developed its own selection criteria based on student achievement data
and evaluating whether the short and intensive supplementary programme (at least four ½ hour
learning opportunities per week over a 10-15 week period) would meet the particular student’s
need, i.e. the programme was designed for success. This meant each school had a number of
students who were not selected because it was expected they would not benefit from the
programme and therefore they would not accelerate progress. Schools need to be challenged to
explore the equity issues of their thinking and provide themselves with opportunities to test their
thinking.
The phrase ‘group of students’ has been interpreted by some schools to mean a homogenous
group with similar strengths and needs. It may help to describe the students as ‘target students’
from the ‘school target’ pool or ‘focus students’ including English Language Learners. The
supplementary programme within the class may not mean they need to be grouped together. If
the students have an out of class programme they probably would be grouped together. Schools
need to be very clear about the intended and unintended educational consequences of their
decisions.
3.2.4 University papers
MST Papers
MST must be eligible for post-graduate study. MSTs will receive $1,000 MoE funding to complete
the designated MST post-graduate papers. It is expected that the Board of Trustees should commit
to paying the balance as part of building school capability in mathematics. No release time or leave
provision is part of this scheme.
18 | P a g e
ALiM/ALL Papers
While PfS has a primary focus on students, the programme encourages the building of teacher
capability.
The Ministry of Education is continuing to implement its tertiary fees subsidy scheme for approved
mathematics and literacy papers. Up to 600 teachers each year will be supported to study a literacy
or mathematics paper at the graduate or postgraduate level. Half the tuition fee will be paid for by
the Ministry of Education and half by the teacher’s school, or teacher. No release time or leave
provision is part of this scheme.
The scheme is part of the Ministry of Education’s efforts to further develop teachers’ pedagogical
content knowledge and understanding in key areas of learning and teaching. This scheme builds on
the work started in Ministry professional development programmes for teachers in literacy and
numeracy. It aims to support schools’ efforts to raise the achievement of all their students through
increasing the expertise and knowledge of their teachers.
The funding support for these papers are available for all teachers so schools may enrol as many
teachers as they want whereas the Literacy Leaders papers will focus on leadership and
literacy/language learning
The following information is directly from the website:
 http://www.nzmaths.co.nz/tertiary-fees-funding-support-mathematics-primary-andintermediate-teachers
 http://literacyonline.tki.org.nz/Literacy-Online/Teacher-needs/Professionalsupport/Tertiary-fees-funding-support
Language (TESSOL) Scholarships: primary and secondary teachers can apply for scholarships that
contribute to the cost of studying for a TESSOL qualification. The Ministry is offering scholarships
for tuition fees to help up to 150 teachers a year gain papers towards a TESOL qualification. Trained
ESOL (English for speakers of other languages) teachers working in mainstream classrooms or as
specialists in primary and secondary schools provide critical intervention for those students who
may be struggling to develop literacy in English. Under the scholarship scheme, each teacher is
funded for four papers, including course fees and $100 for books per annum, for two years.

http://literacyonline.tki.org.nz/Literacy-Online/Teacher-needs/Professionalreadings/Foundation-learning-Literacy
3.2.5 Workshops and In-School Support
PfS: Accelerating Learning in Literacy and Mathematics schools are supported through a series of
workshops by facilitators from regionally contracted literacy and mathematics professional learning
and development suppliers and mentored throughout the implementation of this supplementary
programme. Schools’ involvement in the programme can be for a period of three years. Mentoring
support will consist of some individual school meetings and some cluster meetings (where it is
possible to cluster) and contact with mentors through other electronic means.
19 | P a g e
The Year One inquiry: "What is acceleration and how do we achieve it?"
In the first year of inquiry the focus is on identifying key levers for improved literacy teaching and
learning through the development of a short and intensive supplementary support. This is to
accelerate the literacy and mathematics learning of identified students and is in addition to an
effective classroom teaching programme.
The purpose of the workshop is to ensure schools evaluate current practices and prepare for the
short and intensive acceleration inquiry. The Theory of Action for Programmes that Accelerate
Progress for Students and the Quality Improvement Plan for the Initiating Supplementary Supports
Framework along with the BES quality schooling dimensions should be introduced at this workshop.
Schools will be introduced to the self-review tool and an opportunity to practise using deep
constructive talk so that they can undertake the following tasks:
 Critical inquiry into the effectiveness of the school’s current support for students who are below
or well below expectation.
 Further engagement with parents/whānau/family about aspirations, language, identity and
culture.
There are also organisational decisions needed that will impact on school resources and budget:
 Which teacher/s will be involved in the intensive component – time allocated to planning and
reflecting. If the school has a number of students supported by an RTLit they may want to
involve them in this programme.
 Who is part of the supplementary inquiry team?
 Organisation of literacy/mathematics in the school.
 Assessment requirements during the intervention and ongoing monitoring.
The Year Two and Year Three inquiry: “How do we develop effective intervention practices that
sustain student acceleration and ensure intervention coherence at a school-wide level?”
In the second and third years of inquiry, schools focus on continuing cycles of inquiry to build
knowledge of acceleration and the strategies and learning conditions that support this in their
school. This refocus extends the literacy practices across other student groups and to other
teachers. A further focus is on developing the school wide coherence of literacy interventions and
developing a Curriculum and Achievement Plan (CAAP). In the third year the CAAP will be further
developed across other supplementary programmes with a strong focus on critiquing the school’s
programmes and monitoring their effectiveness.
20 | P a g e
4.2 Expertise
Mentors
Bullock (2006) ‘An important function of mentoring is to assist protégés in becoming autonomous
professionals who reflect and solve problems as experts.’
Parsloe (2000) ‘Mentoring is to support and encourage people to manage their own learning in
order that they may maximise their potential, develop their skills, improve their performance.’
The mentors need to carry the theory and ideas into schools and be ready to challenge practices
that are not effective, efficient or equitable before they become ‘the way we do it around here.’
In the context of Programmes for Students the capability of a school is assumed as a starting point,
so the role of a mentor is different to that of a facilitator of Professional Development. A mentor
will support a school’s process of review and the development of their school-wide Curriculum and
Achievement Plan. Close attention is also paid to the school inquiry team and the teacher inquiry
undertaken to improve student outcomes for a focus group of priority students. A mentor’s role is
to work with schools on proven teaching approaches, to make connections to key Ministry of
Education documents and to ensure the fidelity of the Theory of Action for Programmes for
Students: ALL and ALiM. It can be both informal and formal, but the role encompasses a structured
process to support and challenge inquiry teams and teachers through their 15-week intervention
initiative. The specific roles and responsibilities undertaken by mentors will vary according to the
schools’ Stage and Year of ALL/ALiM implementation.
Smart tools
The following tools should be part of PfS:
 Self-review tool for schools: Focus on students achieving below curriculum expectation in
literacy (years 1 -8)
This needs to be the guiding document for school leadership to use and report against. It needs
to be introduced at the evaluation workshop along with the theory of critical talk.
Fom literacy online http://literacyonline.tki.org.nz/Literacy-Online/Impact/Progress-andachievement/Self-review-tool-for-schools-focus-on-students-achieving-below-curriculumexpectations-in-Literacy-years-1-8/Quick-start-guide
Which rubric(s) should we start with?
‘Based on schools' experiences in the development process and pilot testing of the tool, the best
place to start with the inquiry questions and rubrics is the following: Rubric 9: Accelerated progress
in literacy for students achieving below curriculum expectations in literacy
21 | P a g e
In other words, start with the biggest and most
important question each school faces in this area:
How well are we accelerating our students achieving
below curriculum expectations in literacy, really? This
will give your school a clear picture of how it's doing
overall and how urgent and serious any shortfalls
might be. It's probably the most important
conversation needed to get the inquiry ball rolling.’

Curriculum and achievement plan


BES Exemplar 1 - Ngā Kete Raukura - He Tauira 1 Developing Communities of Mathematical
Inquiry;
BES Exemplar 3 - Ngā Kete Raukura - He Tauira 3 Teacher and Student use of Learning Goals

BES Exemplar 4 - Ngā Kete Raukura - He Tauira 4 Reciprocal Teaching

BES Exemplar 5 - Ngā Kete Raukura - He Tauira 5 Learning Logs
Accelerating Learning in Literacy - Assessments in 2014
Accelerated Literacy Learning (ALL)
Notes:
 NEED NSN on individual student data
Junior Literacy Yrs 1-2
OTJ
Observation Survey
including 6th sixth item
Running Records
Reading Yrs 3-8
OTJ
STAR
Writing
OTJ
e-asTTLe writing
End of 2013
Before programme
End of 2014
After programme
All schools
All schools
End of 2013
Before programme
End of 2014
After programme
All schools
End of 2013
Before programme
End of 2014
After programme
All schools
22 | P a g e
NZCER will be collecting Accelerating Learning in Literacy (ALL) data for :
 Reading (Years 3-8) using STAR and OTJ's
 Writing (Years 3-8) using easTTle and OTJ's
 Junior Literacy (Years 0-2) using Obs survey and OTJ's
NZCER will send out an introductory email to schools to gain confirmation of contact details and
programme name (ALL 1, 2 or 3) via a web form. (One web form is required per intervention, for
example if a school is doing both ALL Reading and Mathematics (1st year), one web form needs to
be submitted for ALLReading and one web form submitted for ALiM)
Once NZCER has had a response from schools, using confirmed details, NZCER will send schools a
more detailed email explaining how data will be collected. The email received by the school will be
specific to the focus areas chosen as there are different processes for each subject area.
Key references and websites
http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/topics/BES
http://mzmaths.co.nz
http://nzcurriculum.tki.org.nz/System-of-support-incl.-PLD
http://nzcurriculum.tki.org.nz/System-of-support-incl.-PLD/School-initiated-supports/Programmesfor-students
http://literacyonline.tki.org.nz/Literacy-Online/Impact/Progress-and-achievement/Self-review-toolfor-schools-focus-on-students-achieving-below-curriculum-expectations-in-Literacy-years-1-8
http://nzcurriculum.tki.org.nz/News/Pasifika-Education-Plan-2013-2017
http://www.minedu.govt.nz/theMinistry/PolicyAndStrategy/KaHikitia.aspx/
23 | P a g e