Regulatory impact statement

Setting national standards in literacy and numeracy

Executive summary

Success for all students requires that every student acquire strong learning foundations in the early years and remain engaged in learning as they progress through school. Setting national standards in literacy and numeracy is an essential step towards ensuring every child succeeds at school and every parent knows exactly how their child is doing. Requiring schools to assess students against national standards will help to focus teachers on skills that every child should be mastering in reading, writing, and mathematics. It will also ensure that, at a system level, government will be able to identify those schools that under-perform and better support them to be effective.

Adequacy statement

The Ministry of Education has reviewed this regulatory impact statement and considers it to be adequate according to the adequacy criteria.

Status quo and problem

The schooling system supports educational success for many students and, by international standards, a high proportion of New Zealand’s students achieve at levels comparable to the best in the world. The system, however, is not serving all students well, with 14 percent of students leaving school in 2007 without achieving the numeracy and literacy credits they need to attain level 1 NCEA. Success for all young people requires that every student gains strong learning foundations in the early years and remains engaged in learning as they progress through schooling.

Schools are increasingly using a range of new, more sophisticated assessment tools to track student achievement and participation,¹ and to set targets in their charters. This data has the potential to provide rich information to teachers, students and boards of trustees about student progress. Despite the availability of these assessment tools, the Education Review Office reported in March 2007 that 56% of schools recently reviewed were still not using worthwhile achievement data.²

For parents, teachers, schools and government to understand how to best help students achieve, they need to know where and how they can best target their skills and resources. Currently, there is no national benchmark to create this national picture of achievement to help students achieve better results in literacy and numeracy.

Statement of public policy objective

To raise standards of achievement in the compulsory education sector.

Alternative options

Regulatory approach: use existing provisions in Education Act 1989

The Minister of Education can set national standards through the existing provisions of the Education Act 1989 (the Act) either by way of the national education guidelines³ or by regulations.⁴ Regulating for this power could achieve the same policy objective as legislating, but it would not send as strong a signal about the importance of literacy and numeracy.

A non-regulatory approach would not achieve the policy objective because of the importance of locating the power explicitly in primary legislation.

Preferred option

The preferred option is to amend the Education Act 1989 to make it explicit that the Minister of Education, by notice in the Gazette, can publish national standards in literacy and numeracy that are applicable to all students in a particular age group or year of schooling.

Benefits and costs

As part of implementing the national standards in literacy and numeracy, additional requirements will be placed on schools, including requiring schools to—

• report to parents in plain language about how their child is doing compared to the set national standards, and compared to other children their age:

• regularly assess their pupils against national standards:

• use assessment programmes that compare the progress of their pupils with other pupils across the country:

• provide parents (on request) with any assessment information collected about their child:

• work with successful neighbouring schools, when requested, to improve aspects of their performance.

Benefits

Once the national standards are implemented—

• parents and the community will know how their children are progressing compared to the national standards and compared to other children their age. This will help them understand how they can help their children to learn better, both at home and at school, and emphasise the importance of information for producing systematic school improvement:

• national standards will help schools identify areas for improvement, for example if schools with similar populations have vastly different results against the standards. This places the focus on factors that schools and the government can work together to address to improve the achievement in literacy and numeracy for those children:

• Government will have a greater level of information about how all students are achieving nationally to target resources and skills in areas where there is underachievement. This will create clarity about government’s expectations, how schools can meet those expectations and a process for putting in greater support when required:

• national standards will provide a national picture for government to inform investment in nationwide capacity building and to monitor the school system’s performance in literacy and numeracy.

Compliance costs

The Ministry of Education is unable to calculate the compliance costs of setting national standards at this time, as this is dependant on its implementation.

A number of steps will be taken to ensure that any compliance costs are minimised for schools. These include—

• allowing schools to use established assessment tools; and

• keeping school reporting requirements to a minimum.

Consultation

This regulatory impact statement was provided to the Ministries of Justice, Youth Development, Social Development (including Child, Youth and Family Services), Health, and Pacific Island Affairs, the Treasury, the State Services Commission, Te Puni Kōkiri, the Office of the Auditor-General and the Education Review Office.

Strengthening truancy laws

Executive summary

Truancy levels have continued to rise over the past six years and retention in schooling until age 16 remains low compared to other OECD member countries. The level of fines for non-attendance at school is considered low, particularly when compared with comparable offences and the role of prosecution in addressing truancy has been an underutilised tool. The amendments to strengthen truancy laws will address these issues by—

• raising the level of the fine that can be imposed for non-enrolment to a maximum of $3,000; and

• raising the level of the fine that can be imposed for non-attendance to a maximum of $300 for a first offence, and to a maximum of $3,000 for a second or subsequent offence; and

• raising the daily rate on which the fine for non-attendance is calculated to $30; and

• allowing the Secretary for Education to take prosecutions for non-attendance.

Adequacy statement

The Ministry of Education has reviewed this regulatory impact statement and considers it to be adequate according to the adequacy criteria.

Status quo and problem

Students who are absent from school miss out on class work and are at risk of falling behind. Truancy is a clear indicator of disengagement from education and is often a predictor of students likely to leave school early without the qualifications they need to succeed. It is associated with the risks of exiting school early, which include inactivity, a range of poor social and long-term economic outcomes, and restricted opportunities in life.⁵

Over the past six years, the Ministry of Education has acted to address concerns about trends in suspensions, early leaving exemptions and truancy. While responses have been successful in reducing suspensions and early leaving exemptions, overall truancy trends have been difficult to improve.

Fines for non-attendance

Currently, if a parent fails to ensure their child attends school they can be fined up to $150 for a single offence, or $400 for repeat offences.⁶ Members of the judiciary, the schooling sector and the public have raised concerns about the level of fines for non-attendance, which are low compared with penalties for comparable offences in relevant welfare, child protection and employment legislation. Non-attendance fines are also seen as trivial relative to the seriousness of the offences, undermining the value of available sanctions as a deterrent to non-attendance at school.

Effectively prosecuting parents for non-attendance

School boards of trustees can currently appoint any person to conduct prosecutions, and take any other proceedings, relating to non-attendance at school. Historically, there has been a poor understanding among schools of the non-attendance prosecution powers included in the Act and of the role of prosecution in addressing truancy. This is reflected in the low number of prosecutions for non-attendance.⁷

Objectives

Increase attendance at school by improving deterrents for non-attendance and by explicitly allowing the Secretary for Education to take prosecutions for non-attendance.

Alternative options

Non-regulatory approach to raising fines: information campaign for parents

Instead of increasing the fines for non-attendance, an information campaign could be launched to inform parents about their legal obligation to ensure their child regularly attends school. This campaign would highlight the penalties involved if prosecuted for this offence. Such a campaign would be unlikely to change the behaviour of parents who condone and support chronic truancy however, considering how low current fines are.

Non-regulatory approach to Ministry of Education taking prosecutions: status quo

The Ministry of Education can currently take prosecutions for non-attendance if appointed by a school board of trustees.⁸ Using this provision, rather than creating an explicit provision allowing the Ministry to take prosecutions, would be unlikely to meet the policy objective because it requires the school board to approach the Ministry to take the prosecution.

Non-regulatory approach to Ministry of Education taking prosecutions: information campaign for schools

Instead of explicitly allowing the Secretary for Education to take prosecutions for non-attendance, the Ministry could undertake an information campaign to inform schools about the best way to use the non-attendance prosecution powers included in the Act. This campaign does not recognise that, in some instances, a school may not have the capacity or may be unwilling to proceed with a prosecution. The information campaign would not fulfil the objective to provide the Ministry with the power to step in when it believes a prosecution is necessary to improve attendance at school.

Preferred option

The preferred option is to amend the Act by—

• raising the level of the fine that can be imposed for non-attendance (for second or subsequent offences) or for non-enrolment to a maximum of $3,000;⁹ and

• raising the level of the fine that can be imposed for a non-attendance first offence to $300; and

• raising the daily rate on which the fine for non-attendance is calculated to $30; and

• explicitly allowing the Secretary for Education to take prosecutions against parents for non-attendance.

Costs and benefits

Schools

The amendment to raise the fines for non-attendance and non-enrolment should benefit schools through the increased focus on attendance at school. The increased fine should operate as a more effective deterrent to parents who condone chronic truancy.

The Secretary for Education’s ability to take prosecutions will enable the Ministry of Education to intervene when schools are not taking action to deal with chronic parent-condoned truanting. These changes will not incur significant costs for schools.

Court system

Increased prosecution activity may impose new costs on the Court system. Based on 2007 data, the Ministry of Education estimates that school-initiated prosecutions for non-attendance will not exceed 87 new cases per year; Crown-initiated non-enrolment prosecutions are not likely to exceed 15 new cases per year.

Parents

The costs to parents created through the increase in the penalties for non-attendance and non-enrolment in school are voluntary and avoidable. They are also commensurate with the seriousness of the offences for parents and are intended to have a strong deterrent effect.

Risks

Increased financial penalties and adverse effects on parents and children

There is some risk that prosecutions for non-attendance may be pursued inappropriately, with parents being unnecessarily exposed to the threat of serious financial sanctions.

The Ministry of Education considers this risk to be very low, given the historically low incidence of school-initiated prosecution activity. Such risk that does exist can be mitigated through the provision of guidelines for schools and the ability of the Secretary for Education to take prosecutions. Where a financial penalty is imposed, the risk that children and young people may be further disadvantaged through the imposition of financial penalties cannot be altogether avoided. Increasing the upper limit of penalties will also increase the Court’s ‘room to move’ allowing flexibility to impose a lesser penalty than the maximum without undermining the seriousness of the offence.

Implementation and review

The impact of legislative changes will be monitored through national student participation data, including truancy, retention and post-prosecution outcome data.

Consultation

This regulatory impact statement was provided to the Ministries of Justice, Youth Development, Social Development (including Child, Youth and Family Services), Health, and Pacific Island Affairs, the Treasury, the State Services Commission, Te Puni Kōkiri, the Office of the Auditor-General and the Education Review Office.