BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary  

[This summary does not form part of the decision.] 

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a broadcast of Morning Report breached the accuracy standard through its reporting on research conducted by the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research. The research indicated ‘At Level 1, among teachers who at least had attempted to gain credits in any of English, maths or science, significant percentages failed to gain an Achieved level endorsement (the NCEA equivalent of a subject pass).’ The complainant considered the broadcast misleadingly implied an alarming number of primary teachers were unqualified to be teaching these subjects, by failing to make clear that further study was needed to qualify as a primary school teacher, or that an Achieved level endorsement at Level 1 is an optional award. While acknowledging that if taken in isolation, some of the descriptions in the broadcast reflecting the research could have given this impression, ultimately the Authority found sufficient comment was included in the broadcast as a whole to contextualise NZIER’s findings so that the audience would not have been misled.

Not Upheld: Accuracy

Background – NZIER report

[1]  On 23 May 2024, the New Zealand Institute for Economic Research (NZIER) released a research report called: Fit for purpose: Teachers’ own learning experiences and lessons about standardisation from the health sector.¹

[2]  In this report, NZIER analysed anonymised NCEA data linked to a recent cohort of primary teachers (employed between 2017 and 2022) to better understand what might be driving secondary students’ falling performance in maths and science.

[3]  The report stated:

At Level 1, among teachers who at least had attempted to gain credits in any of English, maths or science, significant percentages failed to gain an Achieved level endorsement (the NCEA equivalent of a subject pass).

…

In maths, an average of 25 percent of new teachers employed between 2017 and 2022 had failed to gain an Achieved level endorsement at Level 1. This means, on average, a quarter of all new primary school teachers who attempted could not pass at a basic level, the compulsory maths required of 15-year-olds in New Zealand.

If that result is concerning, then the science results are alarming indeed: people who were new primary school teachers between 2017 and 2022 had failure rates in Level 1 science, averaging 58 percent. That is, most new primary school teachers who attempted failed to pass at a basic level the compulsory science required of 15-year-olds.

[4]  In relation to its use of the ‘Achieved level endorsement’ as a standard of measurement, the report specified:

Students can gain Level 1 NCEA if they have enough credits overall and enough numeracy and literacy credits, but a subject level Achieved endorsement is the closest to a subject “pass” under the current NCEA system. It is also a low standard that most New Zealanders would want to know primary school teachers have reached.

[5]  The report also analysed the results of those primary school teachers who continued to engage with maths, science and English at Level 2:

Focusing only on those who continued to engage with these subjects at Level 2, the percentages of students who failed at this level to gain an Achieved level endorsement rises for both English and maths, with around 30 percent failing to achieve Level 2 English and over half failing to achieve Level 2 maths.

…

[In relation to sciences] The percentage of students failing to get at least an Achieved level endorsement ranges from an average of 45 percent in biology to 68 percent in physics.

The broadcast

[6]  The 23 May 2024 broadcast of Morning Report reported on the results of NZIER’s research as one of the top stories in the half-hourly bulletins over the course of the three-hour programme. The broadcast also included three interviews on the topic, with the Deputy Chief Executive of NZIER Sarah Hogan, President of the Auckland Primary Principals’ Association Kyle Brewerton, and Dean of Education at Auckland University Mark Barrow.

[7]  In introducing the ‘top stories coming up’, the host stated:

A study has lifted the lid on our primary school teachers' academic performance. A quarter did not pass Level 1 [NCEA] maths and more than half failed to pass Level 1 science.

[8]  Each of the news bulletins stated the following:

6.30am:          Research shows many new primary teachers do not have basic school qualifications in science and maths. A study by the Institute for Economic Research says a quarter of teachers starting work between 2017 and 2022 studied NCEA Level 1 maths but did not get the 14 credits required to pass the subject. In science, 58% fell short. The Institute's Deputy Chief Executive Sarah Hogan says teachers need to know a subject well to teach it.

7am:                Research shows large numbers of new primary teachers lack the most basic school qualifications in science and maths. The Institute of Economic Research says the results of its study are alarming. Our Education correspondent […] reports.

[Education correspondent]: ‘The research analysed the school qualifications of almost 2000 primary teachers who started work between 2017 and 2022. It found a quarter attempted one or more NCEA Level 1 maths standards, but didn't pass the 14 credits required for an endorsement; the benchmark that shows they've passed a subject. More than half fell short at Level 1 science, and one in seven studying English did not get enough credits to pass. The Institute says Level 1's a low standard, and most people would expect primary teachers to have it in those subjects. It says plans to change the curriculum will not work unless teachers get a lot of help.’

7.30am:          [substantially similar to 6.30am bulletin]

8am:                An Institute for Economic Research study shows many new primary teachers don't have basic school qualifications in science and maths. It says a quarter of teachers starting work between 2017 and 2022 studied NCEA Level 1 maths, but did not get the 14 credits required to pass the subject. In science, 58% fell short. The Institute's Deputy Chief Executive Sarah Hogan says teachers need to know a subject well to teach it.

[Hogan]: ‘If there's really only a very basic knowledge of maths and science, teachers will be very limited in what they're able to offer children, but we also know that if they have only a very basic knowledge, they tend to have quite low confidence, and a lot of previous research has shown this, and so they might avoid certain areas of the maths and science curriculum that they find more challenging.’

Sarah Hogan says primary schools need more specialist teachers.

 8.30am:          Research shows a significant proportion of primary teachers who've started work in recent years don't have the most basic qualifications in science and maths. The Institute [for] Economic Research says the results of its study are alarming as teachers need to know a subject well to teach it. It says plans to change the curriculum won't work unless teachers get a lot of help.

[9]  Deputy Chief Executive of NZIER Sarah Hogan was interviewed at 7.10am. Relevant excerpts were:

Host:               NCEA isn't the easiest qualification to get your head around at times, but tell me what was the main takeaway from your study here?

Hogan:            Yeah that's right. NCEA's quite complicated with numeracy credits and various unit standards, achievement standards, and all of those different requirements, but we looked at the Achieved level endorsement which is the closest thing that NCEA has to a subject level pass. We looked at that for English, maths and science, and we found that there were really high failure rates for the people coming through who ultimately went on to become primary school teachers. 

Host:               So are you saying that we're letting the wrong people into the teaching profession?

Hogan:            No, I don't think we are. So, what we have to remember is that the teaching profession is not highly remunerated, so if we did increase the standards for getting into primary school teacher training, we would probably reduce the supply of teachers which is obviously not what we want. So what we need to do is think realistically about the workforce - do we really need every primary school teacher to be a specialist in maths and science, or is there some other way that we can get specialist maths and science skills into our primary schools?

Host:               Is it possible that these people failed at high school and then went on, if they just weren't sure which career path they were going to take, and they top up that knowledge with their teacher training?

Hogan:            Yeah, so the teacher training focusses mostly on pedagogy, which is how to teach the subject, and probably the understanding of pedagogy is going to be quite limited when you have a very limited understanding of the subject in the first place. Now I know that some teacher training programs do have some focus on filling in a few gaps where students may be a bit unsure about certain areas of the curriculum, but I don't think there's a lot of room in a three-year program that's focusing on pedagogy to overcome the significant gaps that must be there in the understanding if they've actually failed at NCEA Level 1.

Host:               So, this paints a pretty dire picture then, doesn't it? if you've got people who haven't achieved what you're saying is a very basic level of science, maths and English, and now they’re in charge of teaching those subjects to children? 

Hogan:            Yeah, so I guess when you think about it, we're asking a lot of them. So, we've got a very loose curriculum which the Government is focused on tightening up at the moment, and that's a step in the right direction because it will tell teachers exactly what they need to teach and when they need to teach it, but what it doesn't do is help them actually do the teaching. And so, we actually need to take it a step further and think about how can we standardise some of the tools and resources that teachers have available to them, so that essentially they just carry out the task which has been designed by someone with the specialist knowledge that they might not have. […]

[10]  Hogan went on to talk about the report’s suggestion of taking the approach of the health sector where there are generalists (GPs) and specialists, and the specialists are there to help where needed. She noted ‘Currently our schools aren't producing a lot of really strong students in maths and science and I think, in a way, the teachers themselves are a victim of that system.’

[11]  Kyle Brewerton of the Auckland Primary Principals’ Association was interviewed at 8.10am about NZIER’s research. He indicated:

• He was ‘surprised by the level of non-achievement’ the research showed.
• When asked whether these teachers should be teaching – ‘If you look at what they're teaching, it does depend. You've got to bear in mind the primary years spans eight years. You've got everything from early numeracy, which is sort of learning to count and basic addition, right through to some of our students getting into year 10 maths which is your sort of early algebra, even touching on some of the calculus work. So there's a huge span of ability. If you are working in those junior years looking at that early numeracy, is it essential that you passed Level 1? Potentially not. But certainly, once you get into those upper years, you're going to need a really strong content base.’
• From what he sees and hears, remedial work for these teachers doesn’t tend to happen, and training providers should have some core pre-requisites such as ‘some form of six-month pre-cursor, or they do some sort of pre-work that gets them up to a suitable level before actually starting the formal degree itself.’
• Some trainee teachers who turn up in schools are ill-equipped to be there.

[12]  Audience text feedback was read out at approximately 8.15am, including the following messages:

• 'Are these teachers without Level 1 NCEA the same ones who strike every year demanding more pay as their students' results slip down the rankings?'
• 'When colleges rather than universities were in charge of training, there were minimum requirements for English, maths, and science to be met for entry in the course.'
• 'An international study once found that the single highest predictor of teacher success in the classroom was their ability to maintain control of the classroom - not whether they had a PhD or Master’s. These teachers are teaching ages 5-10, they're not teaching NCEA level. Let's keep our expectations realistic and focus on what is important in education.'
• 'Teachers have completed a degree, many at Master’s level, and post-grad level diplomas. Look at that, not at what they did or when they did it when they were 15.'

[13]  At 8.40am the Dean of Education at Auckland University, Professor Mark Barrow, was interviewed:

Host:               Can you just explain to people what is the process - so to get into a teacher training, the one-year course - do people need a degree, what is the basic qualification they need to get in?

Barrow:          It depends what course they're doing, but yes, the one-year course, an undergraduate degree from a New Zealand university, so they will have had to have obviously met University Entrance requirements to get into that degree, which has a numeracy component to it, 10 credits at Level 1, which of course we know the Ministry and NZQA are planning to increase over time. They also had to complete a literacy and a numeracy test that the provider puts in front of them, and they have to get a decent grade in that to be able to enter the initial teacher education programme. If they're doing a three-year degree, which a number of primary school teachers will have done, they have to have met the University Entrance requirement to get into the university.

Host:               So, why are a quarter of the newly trained teachers not then having NCEA Level 1 maths? Is this because they are just limiting their credits in maths and doing other things?

Barrow:          That seems like what the NZIER report is saying to us, yes. 

Host:               So, just to be clear, they are focusing on other subjects, not doing much maths or science or the bare minimum, and therefore, does that need to change if you want to be a teacher?

Barrow:          Well yes and no, but I think the NZIER report is actually a bit more nuanced than that. It’s saying actually primary teachers do a great job as pedagogues, and that they teach across a general range of subjects, and what they are suggesting, and what we'd all agree with, is actually we need to invest in the development of specialist teaching roles for maths and science in primary schools, in order to support teachers who don't have the strength in those. […] 

Host:               Yeah I mean, people listening to this story this morning and certainly the feedback suggests a lot of pretty surprised and horrified people because they would have assumed that a primary teacher would have that basic qualification. How are we supposed to read it, then? You say it's nuanced, but should we be disappointed and surprised or do we need to take it with a little bit of a grain of salt about the complexities that are involved here? It's 5–10-year-olds that are being taught, does it matter?

Barrow:          Well, it does matter because we do want people to be highly numerate and highly literate who are in front of our students. The trick is how do you make that happen? And that is something that no government in New Zealand has managed to solve, and something that all of the providers of initial teacher education haven't been able to solve. I note that one of your people earlier said that when this happened in training colleges, we were able to weed out the people who weren't strong enough. Well, actually, that's not true. We are seeing the same group of people in universities who were in training colleges training to be teachers. It's not the sort of provider, it's the sort of people that teaching attracts, and can hold.

Host:               So…pay and conditions are a factor then are they?

Barrow:          Yes, and the sort of esteem that we hold teachers in, which generally in New Zealand is not very high.

[…]

The complaint

[14]  Aidan Daly complained the reporting of this story breached the accuracy standard of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, on the basis it was misleading by implying an alarming number of primary teachers are unqualified to be teaching maths, science or English given they had not achieved ‘the most basic level’ in these subjects. He noted one of the hosts asked an interviewee at one point ‘Should they [the primary teachers] even be in the classroom?’ He added:

• To qualify as a primary teacher in New Zealand, teachers must first complete a Bachelor of Education (an NCEA Level 7 qualification).
• Entry to any tertiary provider that offers a Bachelor of Education requires teachers to have passed NCEA Levels 2 and 3, as well as obtain University Entrance (which requires credits in numeracy and literacy).
• Therefore, the learning achieved at NCEA Levels 2 and 3, and during the Bachelor’s degree, supersedes any learning at Level 1.  
• Subject endorsement at Achieved level is not a metric that exists in education. This is an optional award granted when students achieve 14 or more credits at Achieved level, including three credits from externally assessed standards and three credits from internally assessed standards.
• Passing NCEA Level 1 (which the complainant advised required 80 credits in the time period the study examined) is not a requirement to attempt and pass NCEA Levels 2 and 3. ‘As a result, many secondary schools have opted not to teach a full NCEA L1 programme and therefore, by the metrics used in this report, would be producing “failing students”.’
• ‘None of this was addressed by the presenter, the Education Correspondent, or the report’s authors during the coverage of this story.’

The broadcaster’s response

[15]  RNZ did not uphold the complaint under the accuracy standard, stating:

• ‘The Morning Report interview with the NZIER’s deputy chief executive Sarah Hogan was introduced with the statistics that 58% of teachers referred to had failed in NCEA level 1 Science, a quarter in Maths and 14% in English. The criteria was explained further by Ms Hogan when having said that NCEA isn’t the easiest qualification to get your head around, went on to say that NZIER looked at the achieved level endorsement which they felt was “…the closest thing they have to a subject level pass”.’
• ‘It was clear then to the audience the basis on which her following comments were made and no inaccuracy occurred in the references to those pass rates.’

The standard

[16]  The purpose of the accuracy standard² is to protect the public from being significantly misinformed.³ It states broadcasters should make reasonable efforts to ensure news, current affairs or factual content is accurate in relation to all material points of fact, and does not mislead. Where a material error of fact has occurred, broadcasters should correct it within a reasonable period after they have been put on notice.

Our analysis

[17]  We have listened to the broadcast and read the correspondence listed in the Appendix.

[18]  The right to freedom of expression, including the broadcaster’s right to impart ideas and information and the public’s right to receive that information, is the starting point in our consideration of complaints. Equally important is our consideration of the level of actual or potential harm that may be caused by the broadcast. It is our role to weigh up the right to freedom of expression against any harm potentially caused by the broadcast. We may only intervene and uphold complaints where the limitation on the right to freedom of expression is reasonable and justified.⁴

[19]  Determination of a complaint under the accuracy standard occurs in two steps. The first step is to consider whether the programme was inaccurate or misleading. The second step is to consider whether reasonable efforts were made by the broadcaster to ensure that the programme was accurate and did not mislead.

[20]  The requirement for factual accuracy does not apply to statements which are clearly distinguishable as analysis, comment or opinion, rather than statements of fact.⁵ However, broadcasters should still make reasonable efforts to ensure analysis, comment or opinion is not materially misleading with respect to any facts:

• referred to; or
• upon which the analysis, comment or opinion is based.

[21]  In summary, the complainant is concerned the broadcast focused on the results of NZIER’s report, ie that a large number of new primary school teachers lack basic school qualifications in science, maths and English (being the Achieved level subject endorsement at NCEA Level 1), and did not make clear that further study was needed to qualify as a primary school teacher, or that an Achieved level endorsement in subjects at Level 1 is an optional award which is not needed to continue study at Levels 2 and 3. As a result, the complainant considered the broadcast misleadingly implied an alarming number of primary teachers are unqualified to be teaching these subjects.

Was the broadcast misleading?

[22]  The broadcast included the following statements relevant to the complaint:

• 6.30am, 7am, 7.30am bulletin: Variations of ‘Research shows many new primary teachers do not have basic school qualifications in science and maths.’
• Reflections from NZIER:
  • ‘The Institute's Deputy Chief Executive Sarah Hogan says teachers need to know a subject well to teach it.’
  • ‘The Institute of Economic Research says the results of its study are alarming.’
  • ‘The Institute says Level 1's a low standard, and most people would expect primary teachers to have it in those subjects. It says plans to change the curriculum will not work unless teachers get a lot of help.’
• Comments to the effect that a large number of new primary teachers had failed to pass Level 1 science, maths and English [emphasis added]:
  • Host in introducing ‘top stories coming up: ‘A quarter did not pass Level 1 [NCEA] maths and more than half failed to pass Level 1 science.’
  • Hogan: ‘We looked at [the Achieved level endorsement] for English, maths and science, and we found that there were really high failure rates for the people coming through that ultimately went on to become primary school teachers.’
  • Hogan: ‘I don't think there's a lot of room in a three-year program that's focusing on pedagogy to overcome the significant gaps that must be there in the understanding if they've actually failed at NCEA Level 1.’
• Questions from the hosts:
  • To Hogan: ‘So, are you saying that we’re letting the wrong people into the teaching profession?’
  • To Hogan: ‘So, this paints a pretty dire picture then, doesn't it? If you've got people who haven't achieved what you're saying is a very basic level of science, maths and English, and now you're in charge of teaching those subjects to children?’
  • To Brewerton: ‘Well, given all that, should they be teaching?’
  • To Brewerton: ‘So, what reassurances could you give parents in terms of how schools are run, that the people who are teaching at those higher levels do have the ability to do that?’

[23]  At the outset, we note RNZ’s descriptions of the research in its news bulletins and other comments accurately reflected NZIER’s findings, which was that ‘a quarter of teachers starting work between 2017 and 2022 studied NCEA Level 1 maths but did not get the 14 credits required to pass the subject. In science, 58% fell short,’ and its descriptions that these teachers ‘could not pass/failed to pass at a basic level, the compulsory maths/science required of 15-year-olds in New Zealand.’  

[24]  We do acknowledge the complainant’s concerns that the way NZIER framed its findings in its report had the potential to be misleading, by failing to identify that further study is required to become a primary school teacher, and provide further context around the Achieved level subject endorsement as the study benchmark. If taken in isolation, some of the descriptions in the news bulletins and other comments made by hosts/reporters or interviewees reflecting this framing could have given the impression that a large number of new teachers could not pass/failed maths and science at NCEA Level 1, and had not achieved any further numeracy, literacy or science credits at a higher level, when this is not necessarily the case.

[25]  However, taking the broadcast as a whole, we consider sufficient comment was included to contextualise NZIER’s findings so that ultimately the audience would not have been misled in this way, or believe these teachers were ‘unqualified’ to be teaching. In coming to this finding, we took into account the following factors:

• RNZ specified that NZIER’s study looked at the Achieved level endorsement – ‘It found a quarter attempted one or more NCEA Level 1 maths standards, but didn’t pass the 14 credits required for an endorsement; the benchmark which shows they’ve passed a subject…’ Hogan further elaborated on the use of this benchmark in her interview, stating the endorsement is ‘the closest thing that NCEA has to a subject level pass.’ Audience members were therefore informed on how the results were arrived at and the nature of the benchmark.
• In his interview, Professor Barrow explained that qualifying as a primary teacher requires University Entrance (which includes numeracy credits), and a Bachelor of Education/post-graduate diploma:
  
  It depends what course they're doing, but yes the one-year course, an undergraduate degree from a New Zealand university, so they will have had to have obviously met University Entrance requirements to get into that degree, which has a numeracy component to it, 10 credits at Level 1, which of course we know the Ministry and NZQA are planning to increase over time. They also had to complete a literacy and a numeracy test that the provider puts in front of them, and they have to get a decent grade in that to be able to enter the initial teacher education programme. If they're doing a three-year degree, which a number of primary school teachers will have done, they have to have met the University Entrance requirement to get into the university.
• Professor Barrow also clarified it was possible the newly trained teachers who did not get an Achieved endorsement were limiting their credits in those subjects and doing other things.
• A text message read out from an audience member also emphasised the subsequent training required of primary teachers after high school:
  
  Teachers have completed a degree, many at Master’s level, and post-grad level diplomas. Look at that, not at what they did or when they did it when they were 15.
• The broadcast overall made it clear the study was not suggesting these primary teachers were unqualified to be teaching, or should not be teaching these subjects, but that specialist support may be necessary to help them teach these subjects optimally. For example, in her interview, Hogan noted the report raised questions as to the level of teacher knowledge in these subjects, but specified NZIER were not saying New Zealand was letting the wrong people into the teaching profession. She was clear that NZIER’s suggestion to address the problem was not to stop these teachers from teaching these subjects, but to equip them with support in the form of specialist subject matter experts. Barrow similarly stated:
  
  [The NZIER report is] saying actually primary teachers do a great job as pedagogues, and that they teach across a general range of subjects, and what they are suggesting, and what we'd all agree with, is actually we need to invest in the development of specialist teaching roles for maths and science in primary schools, in order to support teachers who don't have the strength in those.

[26]  To the extent the complainant may have been concerned about the research results being framed as ‘alarming,’ the reporting was clear that it was NZIER’s view that its results were ‘alarming’ and that ‘Level 1's a low standard, and most people would expect primary teachers to have it in those subjects’ and ‘teachers need to know a subject well to teach it.’ These comments constitute NZIER’s analysis and comment on its research results, which is not subject to the accuracy standard.

[27]  Addressing the complainant’s concerns about a question posed by a host: ‘Should they [the primary teachers] even be in the classroom?’ we note the hosts robustly questioned interviewees on the contents of the report, drawing out their opinions on the seriousness of the findings. Interview questions of this nature are also matters of comment and analysis.⁶

[28]  Finally, we recognise the story discussed a matter of public interest – the results of NZIER’s report, which raised a legitimate question regarding the knowledge of some teachers in maths and science, in the context of falling student achievement rates in these subjects.

[29]  In light of the above factors, we consider RNZ’s reporting on this story as a whole was not misleading. It appropriately included interviews with a relevant cross-section of interviewees to explore and draw out the meaning of NZIER’s research. To the extent any audience members may have been misled by hearing certain comments in isolation, we are satisfied the risk of harm does not outweigh the public interest in the broadcast, or the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression. 

[30]  Having found the programme was not misleading, it is not necessary to determine whether the broadcaster has made reasonable efforts to ensure the accuracy of the programme.⁷

[31]  Accordingly, we do not uphold this complaint.

For the above reasons the Authority does not uphold the complaint.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Susie Staley
Chair
14 October 2024    

Appendix

The correspondence listed below was received and considered by the Authority when it determined this complaint:

1  Aidan Daly’s formal complaint to RNZ – 24 May 2024

2  RNZ’s response to complaint – 20 June 2024

3  Daly’s referral to the Authority – 21 June 2024

4  RNZ confirming no further comment – 9 July 2024

¹ New Zealand Institute of Economic Research “Fit for purpose: Teachers’ own learning experiences and lessons about standardisation from the health sector – NZIER Insight 112” (23 May 2024) <www.nzier.org.nz>
² Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand 
³ Commentary, Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 16
⁴ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
⁵ Guideline 6.1
⁶ Neal and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-023
⁷ Van der Merwe and Mediaworks TV Ltd, Decision No. 2019-015 at [21]