page 1 - 2 - 3 - 4

Language backgrounds of the children tested
Teachers were asked to indicate the extent to which children were likely to be exposed to the use of Mäori language in the home. Most of the children in the group came from homes where Mäori is spoken to the children some of the time. The next largest group consisted of children where Mäori is rarely spoken. Those children to whom Mäori is spoken all or most of the time at home comprised by far the smallest group.

Language backgrounds of the teachers
The criteria used to determine the degree of fluency in the Mäori language of the teachers were very general. All but three of the respondents considered themselves second language learners, that is they had learned the Mäori language at a later stage in life, most commonly from secondary school level through to tertiary and beyond. The remaining teachers were classified as native speakers, that is it was their first language and that they had equal competencies in English and Mäori.

Grouping for reading within classes
All teachers used ability as a basis for grouping children in reading and writing. Three teachers prioritised ability and competency in the Mäori language including whether or not it was reinforced and the extent to which it was used in the home. A component of this selection was a child's ability to retell stories in Mäori - the more fluent speakers were found to be the most competent readers. Only two teachers used age as a factor when selecting students for reading groups.
In two classes, social groupings were used where exchanges were made weekly, allowing friends to be able to help each other. Half of the teachers used peer groupings of older with younger children (tuakana with teina) for enskilling purposes. Five teachers took general literacy skills into account.
Other less frequently used arrangements included grouping for extension or remedial work to provide a boost in identified areas of need, or were determined by the current topic of interest where reading and writing were linked with other curriculum content areas such as mathematics, health and science.

Adult to child ratios
Ratios in these classes varied between 1:17 and 1:30 depending on the assistance received from parents, kaiarahi i te reo (personnel hired from the community with proficiency in the Mäori language) and Special Education Service sponsored kaiäwhina (teachers' aides). Generally kaiarahi i te reo provided support by listening to reading in small groups and one-to-one situations - they guided children with story writing and assisted by extending both their oral and written vocabulary. Two schools received help from kaiäwhina supported by the Special Education Service - in one school the kaiäwhina was assigned to specific programme assistance and in the other kaiäwhina in three classes, withdrawing those with special needs and working one-to-one with them or working in small groups during shared reading, reinforcing the development of early literacy skills. During these times, adult to pupil ratios were doubled for the 12 teachers having assistance, that is from 1:15 to 1:9.

Assessment
By far the most popular form of assessing written language was through the collection of samples which then formed part of an individual's profile - seven teachers indicated the use of this method. For reading, the use of running records (13 teachers) and check-listing (11 teachers) were the most preferred assessment procedures. Another seven teachers involved in the trialling used the Mäori version of the Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement, and anecdotal and observational notes were used frequently as forms of complementary data collection. Other forms of assessment mentioned by individual teachers were self-designed tests - of those mentioned, the tendency was to focus on oral language; school assessment sheets; matching levels of achievement as described in the National Curriculum Statement for the Mäori Language (Te Reo Mäori Te Tauäki Marautanga Draft 1994); and a school-developed five-year entry test.
The purposes behind collecting assessment data were as expected - 18 teachers used the information to identify abilities, assess progress and plan for future success. Successful performance by students was seen as the indicator of the effectiveness of particular programmes being used in the classroom for reading and/or writing. Six of the teachers were actively compiling portfolios for their students and others used assessment data specifically for grouping. Reporting to parents and teachers and meeting school requirements for record keeping were also listed as purposes for assessing and record keeping.
Friday was the specific day of choice for half of the teachers surveyed to carry out assessment during silent reading, activity times and/or during prescheduled times for testing and withdrawal. For reading this was an ongoing regular process with recording in roll books being weekly, fortnightly or at the end of a unit of study.
In the case of writing, samples were collected and kept in folders usually at the beginning and end of each term. Some teachers planned assessment at times when they knew kaiäwhina and parent support would be available to supervise, allowing teachers to be released to withdraw and work with individual children. From individual records, class progress sheets were compiled.