Appendix 2 Literature Review Summary Relationship between learning behaviours and student achievement Year Name and other details Variables considered Methodology incl. sample size and duration Correlation and/or predictor/ Results 2010 Michael A. Gottfried, Wharton Business School. Student attendance and relationship to student achievement. Philadelphia, USA. Longitudinal (1996-2001) individual level, n=86,000 students in kindergarten through grade 8. An instrumental variables strategy is utilised. This uses a two-stage least squares format, in which there are two separate regression equations for each stage. Stage one is necessary is because unobserved, time-variant influences are affecting both independent and dependent variables. The results would yield biased estimates. Here a one-year lagged GPA score serves as a proxy for individual student fixed effects. However, there may also be unobservable factors that are time-variant, and the use of implementing fixed effects would not necessarily remedy this problem. Stage two employed an instrumental variable - in this case geographic distance from school - as the exogenous independent variable, as this is not directly correlated to student achievement, except through its relationship with student attendance. This study evaluates the hypothesis that the number of days a student is present in school positively affects learning outcomes. This paper confirms that student performance can be influenced by higher levels of attendance.
2016 Stand-downs, suspensions, exclusions and expulsions from school Ministry of Education, New Zealand. Monitoring report on suspensions etc. data in NZ schools Min Ed data across all schools, 2001-2015. Presentation of data broken down by type (suspension, stand-down etc.), quintile, ethnicity, age, gender and by behaviour type. Suspensions etc. have fallen steadily since 2001. For drug-related and smoking/alcohol behaviours, the rate of suspensions etc. has plummeted. Focus on achieving target of 85% of 18-year olds achieving NCEA Level 2 or an equivalent qualification has focused attention on suspensions, which are predominantly a secondary school issue. The monitoring report notes: "Research emphasises the importance of proactive partnerships with parents and a strategy focused on both achievement and behaviour. Approaches that are focused only on disciplinary or pastoral responses have been found to be ineffective for positive outcomes." (p3) 2016 Transient Students Ministry of Education, New Zealand. New Zealand transience data monitoring report. Brief findings of relationship between transience and NCEA results. Methodology not clear from publication. Brief findings and graph do not discuss any confounding issues that might impact on students' lower pass rates at NCEA level 2. Students who have moved school twice or more across Year 9 to Year are less than half as likely to achieve NCEA Level 2 or above by the time they leave school compared to those who have not moved school. Students who have not moved school from Year 9 to Year 11 achieve NCEA Level 2 or above at a rate of 82% by the time they leave school, compared to those who have moved school twice or more who achieve NCEA Level 2 or above at a rate of 35%. The report notes (not referenced) that "a recent study found that school movement had an even stronger effect on educational success than residential movement."
Appendix 3 Data dictionary HPS target status: Variable name Definition and notes Code Original dataset HPS target status Whether or not an HPS target school 0 = not an HPS target school 1 = HPS target school HPS Level of Inquiry: Variable name Definition and notes Code HPS Status detail The stage a school is at with regards to its identified or yet to be identified health and wellbeing/rubric/equity issue. 0 = Emergent - HPS Prompt to notice 1 = Noticing and investigating 2 = Collaborative sense-making and action 3 = Whānau agency, monitoring and evaluating 4 = Neither (no interaction) 5 = Communication (emails only) Grouping of HPS outcomes: Variable name Definition and notes Code Original dataset HPS (outcomes) The changes perceived to be because of the health and wellbeing intervention. These include noticing (1-3); starting to action (4-7); changes in behaviour (8-10); and improved outcomes (11-15). 1= Increased knowledge/awareness about the focus dimension 2= A shift in attitudes about the focus dimension 3= Gained /improved/ new skills/tools to address the focus dimension 4= New practices adopted that had an impact on the focus dimension 5= School policies changed and adopted 6= Positive changes in the school physical environment 7= Positive changes in the school cultural, social and spiritual environment 8= Increase in student and whānau agency 9= A positive changes in circumstance/(s) in the school community