Some class trips are being funded through the $75m boost in funding for socioeconomic disadvantage. File photo. Photo: 123RF
Schools used last year's $75 million boost in funding for socioeconomic disadvantage to pay for more counsellors, teacher aides, and class trips and camps.
But researchers warn it could be difficult to figure out what difference was being made by the funding allocated through the Equity Index.
Two studies for the Education Ministry showed most schools wanted even more funding and a significant minority did not understand the index, which last year replaced decile numbers as the basis for allocating $225m a year targeted at socioeconomic disadvantage.
The index gave schools a number between 344 and 569, based on each student's family background rather than on the neighbourhoods they lived in, and per-student payments to schools ranged from nothing to $1029.
Survey responses from 770 schools showed 28 percent used last year's increase to pay for more teachers aides, 23 percent increased their support for school trips and 22 percent added or increased the provision of programmes such as trauma or grief counselling for small groups of students.
But most respondents - 74 percent - said the index funding was not enough to meet their school's needs.
About a quarter said their school needed an increase of more than $100,000 a year, but the middle of the range of responses was about $51-60,000 a year.
"These respondents most frequently stated they would use this funding to either help pay for learning assistants/teacher aides (52 percent) and/or to help pay for specialist support and specialist programmes (mental health, physio, counsellors) (47 percent)," the report said.
The report showed school leaders were divided over whether the equity index would reduce the stigma associated with a school's socioeconomic status, with 35 percent saying it would and 37 percent saying it would not.
Most respondents said they understood the EQI and believed it was a fairer system than decile numbers, but some said they did not understand it well.
"More than twice as many respondents strongly agreed or agreed (47 percent) that their school had a good understanding of the EQI compared with the percentage who either strongly disagreed or disagreed (19 percent). Fifteen percent neither agreed nor disagreed and one percent said they didn't know.
"When asked what information gaps exist for schools about the EQI, respondents most frequently stated they wanted: more general information about the EQI (27 percent); to know what the EQI numbers meant (24 percent); to know how the EQI was calculated (21 percent); to know what information was used to calculate the EQI (20 percent).
Most schools used the EQI funding to support all students in general - but especially if they had high numbers of students facing barriers to learning.
A second report, based on interviews and case study information from 15 schools, found most grouped their equity funding with other sources of funding rather than keeping it separate.
It found the schools mostly used the funding to ensure pupils could access school learning programmes and activities; meet basic needs like food and clothing; and for extra teachers and teacher aides.
"Thirty percent of our new entrants had not had hearing checks or immunisations, so we contacted the health services and arranged for them to take place at school, with parent permission," one school leader told the researchers.
"I guess we prioritise those that make a difference to their learning... so fed, clothed, and dry. That's probably the best way of looking at it because you can't learn if any of those three things are missing," said another.
But it said figuring out the effect of equity funding would be difficult.
"School leaders in this study did not treat equity funding as a distinct source of funding. Also, schools engage in multiple initiatives a year, funded from different sources, with opportunities for improving equity outcomes central to almost all of those.
"Therefore, it may be difficult in the long run to attribute improvements to equity and equitable outcomes in education solely to the introduction of the EQI system," the report said.
The case study report found general agreement the index was fairer than the decile numbers, even from schools unhappy at losing money in the change.
It said schools that gained funding planned to use if to do things like subsidise schools uniforms or pay for a breakfast club, employ a primary teacher for literacy and numeracy teaching, and provide more education outside the classroom.
The report said most respondents said overall school funding was insufficient and warned that schools needed more help to mitigate the wider effects of poverty.
"One of the schools' priorities for supporting students who face socioeconomic barriers was to ensure they meet their basic needs. This included funding uniforms, stationery, food, and access to health and social services for students and whānau.
"We are cognisant of how challenging it can be for some schools to try to address issues associated with socioeconomic barriers like poverty and suggest that systemic inequities are tackled as a cross-government funding priority so that schools do not feel they are shouldering the responsibility."
The report said schools needed to share good approaches and some might not be spending the money in the most effective manner.
"We also heard of some practices and expenditure decisions that did not seem likely to lead to improved outcomes."