This thesis analyses induction programmes in low-socioeconomic New Zealand primary schools. A review of the literature indicates that effective induction is integrated and has four main components: pedagogical development, socioemotional support, professional agency, and structured balance. In addition, New Zealand’s induction programmes are reported to be strong by international standards. Literature is synthesised to create a framework of low-socioeconomic schools as induction experts. Although there have been large-scale analyses of New Zealand induction programmes, there has been no research on the integrated induction systems found in low-socioeconomic primary schools. A mixed-methods approach was used to investigate the support provided for beginning teachers (BTs) in these schools. Methods included a nationwide survey of BTs in low-socioeconomic primary schools, which was mailed to 467 primary and intermediate BTs (44% response rate). Additionally, from all 156 low-socioeconomic primary schools, five exemplar induction programmes were selected and visited throughout the 2007 school year. Survey analysis, success case methods, discourse analysis, and grounded theory methods indicated that induction in these schools is integrated and strong by international standards. Findings indicate that induction programmes in low-socioeconomic schools are pedagogical, supportive, and well structured; however, not all schools focus on enhancing the professional agency of teachers. Exemplar practices such as peer coaching, university partnerships, on-site BT support groups, curricular leadership roles, and formal programme evaluations were found at case study sites. Analyses of factor themes, cluster graphs, frequency-utility matrices, documents, events, and transcripts of meetings and interviews reveal several key findings. First, the Hauora model—a Mäori concept of balanced pedagogical, spiritual, socioemotional, and physical development—may be applicable to induction in the New Zealand setting. Second, analyses indicate that low-socioeconomic schools have relatively strong induction programmes. Third, some teachers—particularly those beginning after the start of the school year or older teachers in their second year of teaching—may receive varied support. Findings from this research may provide framing for induction programmes in New Zealand as well as for international longitudinal studies of teacher induction models.

Research Doctorate - Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) / In this dissertation, Van Davy makes a case for a cohesive system of schools which can serve the public — both the national interest and individual interests — while directly addressing the current national schooling system’s failure: * to replace, for the entire student cohort...high levels of student boredom with high interest and engaging curriculum and pedagogy; * to replace, for low SES and indigenous students...low levels of learning outcomes, low enrolment levels in senior schooling, and only brief experience of curriculum choice with a curriculum paradigm providing intrinsic value, understanding of pathways from disempowerment to empowerment, curriculum choice from the earliest years, and schooling outcomes which, over time, equal those of the national cohort of students * to replace a citizenry divided in its support for public, church-based, and exclusionary schools with a community united in its support for a socially agreed set of social purposes for schooling and a new curriculum paradigm, one half of which is generated by this set of social purposes * to address a major political issue: social cohesion The proposed new and cohesive system of schools is envisaged to meet the needs - both Common Good and Individual Good - of the citizenry. It will grow from an earlier and pre-requisite national social agreement around a set of political goals which together sketch a preferred future society - these political goals in the hands of education specialists will generate an "essential" curriculum as one of two elements in a new two-tiered curriculum to be followed from the earliest until the latest years of schooling. The second element, occupying the other half of the curriculum from the earliest to the latest years of schooling, will be an elective curriculum designed to encourage all students to pursue their own interests in as much depth as desired. Studies of sectarian studies will be included in the elective curriculum. Davy’s analysis ranges across a number of disciplines, fusing together a number of viewpoints: historical, political theory, educational performance, and educational theory. It searches Australia’s schooling outcomes, identifies low SES and Aboriginal outcomes as major areas of failure, and challenges a number of widely accepted schooling practices. In the process, Davy discovers OECD and ACER data, but little official interest or analysis, concerning widespread boredom amongst Australia’s students. He argues that, in respect of both low SES students and student boredom, system responsibilities such as the nature of Australia’s curriculum, could be just as implicated as concerns for “teacher quality.” Davy’s interest extends beyond the purely educational. He examines the purposes that public and non-public school authorities articulate, as well as reasons parents give for enrolling their children in schools. From this research Davy identifies several issues and suggests that very considerable “choice” in schooling could be found in a different curriculum paradigm, and that both public and non-public schools are deficient when measured against widely-accepted concerns for religious freedom, social cohesion, and fundamental democratic principles. For Davy, a major political issue confronting Australia is the national imperative of “social cohesion.” He searches Australia’s schooling history for evidence of any social agreement around the social purposes of schooling, including more recent attempts to formulate “essential" and “new basics” and “national” curriculum. He concludes that while many educators, and the OECD, refer to the need for a pre-requisite set of social purposes that outline a preferred future society, the politics of schooling has not permitted this to eventuate and, given the absence of this management fundamental, “it is not surprising that schooling systems are shaped by internal logics (ideologies, religions, personalities, internal politics, quest for advantage and/or privilege) rather than wider concerns for the shape of the globe’s and nation’s future, and the advancement of the twins: Common Good and Individual Good.” With these problems laid bare — low SES and indigenous outcomes, student boredom, and social cohesion — Davy addresses all three simultaneously. He draws confidence from contemporary political theorists proposing political processes which engage the public in a “deliberative democracy.” He constructs a surrogate “foundation of agreed principles” which, he deduces, the processes of deliberative democracy might lead the Australian people to construct, then outlines a step-by-step means by which these principles can generate an essential curriculum for all Australian children, while encouraging a full range of choice within an elective stream. The political processes of open collaboration throughout civil society which produces the social agreement may produce a new political context. This new, less adversarial and more trusting political context is seen to be fertile ground for the replacement of Australia’s fractured schooling system with a cohesive schooling system for the Australian public — an Australian schooling system — to be managed nationally.

Diss. Stockholm : Karolinska institutet, 2007.

Diss. (sammanfattning) Stockholm : Karolinska institutet, 2007. / Härtill 4 uppsatser.

Diss. (sammanfattning) Stockholm : Karolinska institutet, 2007. / Härtill 4 uppsatser. NB: Spikblad saknas.

Diss. Stockholm : Karolinska institutet, 2007.

Diss. (sammanfattning) Stockholm : Karol. inst., 2005. / Härtill 4 uppsatser.

Diss. (sammanfattning) Stockholm : Karol. inst., 2005. / Härtill 4 uppsatser.

Diss. (sammanfattning) Stockholm : Karolinska institutet, 2005. / Härtill 4 uppsatser.

Diss. Linköping : Univ., 2001.