Empirical evidence suggests that the last two groups form the majority of the new entrant population in schools while the first three are very much minority groups. Demographically, these groups of children are also unevenly located. For example, some schools and/or classes might have a high proportion of infant bilinguals such as can be found in pockets in the Bay of Plenty (e.g. Tühoe tribal area) and Northland (e.g. at Matawaia) while others might comprise solely of English language dominant children and others again might be receiving children from all five language groups.

A barrage of initiatives2 designed to support teaching and learning in the Mäori language has been introduced into schools in recent years. The development of Ngä Kete Körero Framework3 in particular has led to the emergence and promulgation of a range of Mäori medium specific theory and practice, teaching resources, learning materials and assessment procedures in literacy. Increased demands for quantitative and qualitative evidence of student progress and achievement have placed huge pressure on Principals and teachers given the fledgling nature of both Mäori medium programmes and the literacy initiatives designed thus far to support them.

In the absence of a shared definition of success, schools are left to develop the terms of reference for determining and describing the adequacy of student performance for themselves. This is supported by the findings of a report on literacy in Kura Kaupapa Mäori by the Education Review Office (2001).

Compensatory measures include applying or adapting benchmarks for success developed for English medium education and using these inappropriately to interpret and describe the achievement of students in Mäori medium. As pointed out by the Education Review Office:

There will be no advantage in attempting to equate a skill in English with a skill in Mäori. The tests in Mäori will show the level of achievement and the progress made by students along a continuum of Mäori language skills (1998 p.17)

It should be noted however, that senior management in some schools particularly where Mäori medium classes may be operating on a mainstream site, are most insistent that progress in Mäori be interpreted in English medium terms and refuse to accept that ways of learning or ways of measuring may be different but equally valid for the two languages and cultures. Continued support and the future existence of such classes is often contingent upon the performance of students learning to read and write in Mäori according to standards developed for students learning to read and write in English.

Alternatively, schools are independently developing their own benchmarks, often without applying some sort of moderation process. This invites the risk of standards being unrealistically too high or conversely, too low. In the first scenario, a disproportionate number of children may be perceived to be 'failing' while the second may present a false picture of success especially where the programmes may in actual fact be of unsatisfactory quality.

Whether motivated by curiosity and a need for affirmation or fuelled by a desire to improve educational outcomes, schools want to know how they and their students are faring in relation to their cohorts in schools that have been shaped by similar educational and pedagogical philosophies and are operating comparative programmes in Mäori. They want feedback about their performance. They want to be able to judge and evaluate the quality of the teaching and learning experiences they are providing. They also however would like to conduct these investigations discreetly with a degree of anonymity in preference to having such information circulated in the public arena. This reflects a desire for more personal space to work toward excellence of literacy provision, to avoid what they perceive as the premature application of deficit labels before they have had reasonable opportunity to develop and improve. This needs to be carefully balanced with external demands for accountability.