Three proposals and $3,000
At Te Kōwhai College, 210 Year 9 students complete an anonymous wellbeing survey. Results: 38% report being bullied at school this term, most often in the toilets and the back field at interval; 24% say they have no one to sit with at lunch; 31% say they feel safe at school "most of the time" or less; and 11% report vaping weekly in the toilets near the gym. The board has set aside $3,000 and wants a decision by Friday. The student council has three proposals: (A) install vape sensors in four toilets - $2,800; (B) train 20 Year 13 students as lunchtime buddies - $1,200 plus volunteer time; (C) convert the old art room into a supervised quiet space open at interval and lunch - $3,000 for staffing for one term. The principal says she is "leaning towards A because vaping is what parents complain about". Council members report that the students who say they have no one to sit with are mostly recent migrants and students in the supported learning unit.
1. The principal is leaning towards the vape sensors because "vaping is what parents complain about". Evaluate this reasoning. What are the weaknesses of using complaints as the main evidence?
Read the worked answer
Complaints measure who complains, not what is happening. They reflect who has the time, confidence, English and phone credit to ring a principal. Parents of recent migrants and parents of students in the supported learning unit are less likely to ring, and the survey suggests those students are among the most affected by having no one to sit with. A complaint-driven decision systematically under-serves the quietest families.
The survey is a better prevalence measure, though not a perfect one. 38% report bullying against 11% reporting weekly vaping. Prevalence is not the only thing that matters - severity does too - but on the evidence available, more students are affected by bullying, and the school has no severity data for either issue.
The two issues are physically linked. Both are concentrated in the toilets, which is to say in unsupervised spaces. A sensor might reduce vaping in those four toilets; it does nothing for the 24% with no one to sit with, or for bullying in the back field, and students may simply move.
It is a symptom response. Sensors act on a behaviour after it happens. Buddies and supervised spaces change the conditions that produce the behaviour, which is what a health-promoting school approach asks for.
Naming the survey's limits honestly. Self-report, one point in time, no frequency or severity data, and 210 respondents out of a whole Year 9 cohort. Those limits are a reason to gather more evidence - not a reason to ignore the data in favour of complaint volume.
Judgement. The principal may be right that vaping worries parents, but "parents complain about it" is not evidence that it is the largest or most unequal harm in the school. Equity requires asking who is missing from the complaints.
2. Recommend one option, or a combination, within the $3,000. Justify your choice using hauora outcomes and the evidence, and explain why one of the other options is weaker.
Read the worked answer
First, notice the budget. C plus B would cost $4,200, which the board has not allocated. Any recommendation has to fit $3,000, so a combined answer needs to say what it is dropping or how the remainder is funded.
Recommendation: B as the core, at $1,200. It targets the largest group in the data - the 24% with no one to sit with, who overlap heavily with the 38% being bullied - and it builds whanaungatanga rather than policing a behaviour. Twenty trained Year 13 buddies create adult-adjacent supervision in the spaces where bullying happens, which is the mechanism the survey points to. It also has a wairua and hinengaro benefit for the Year 13 students: responsibility and connection.
Use the remaining $1,800 deliberately. Fund training for the buddies that is co-designed with students from the supported learning unit and recent migrant students, and put the rest towards supervision hours in the back field at interval. The students most affected should help design the solution, because a buddy programme that pairs the wrong people could make things worse.
Why A is the weakest option. It costs the most, addresses the smallest reported group, does nothing for the 38% or the 24%, and treats a health issue as a security issue. It may also push vaping into less supervised places.
Why C is attractive but risky. At $3,000 it buys only one term of staffing, so it is not sustainable, and a separate quiet room can become a place where the same students are set apart rather than included. It would be a strong second step if the library could host a quiet corner at no staffing cost.
What any choice needs. A named person responsible, a review date, and the same survey run again next term so the board can see whether it worked.
3. Name two pieces of evidence that are missing from the decision and explain how each could change the recommendation.
Read the worked answer
1. The frequency and severity of the bullying, and who is doing it. The survey says 38% report being bullied but not whether that is once a term or daily, or whether a small number of students are being seriously harmed. If it is a small number of severe cases, targeted support and clear behaviour processes may achieve more than a universal buddy programme, and the $3,000 should be spent differently. This is decision-changing rather than just "more research".
2. The school's actual supervision capacity at interval. Buddies and quiet spaces both depend on an adult being present and on duty rosters having room. If no teacher or teacher aide is available in the back field at interval, B and C both fail for the same reason, and the honest recommendation becomes supervision hours - staff time, not the $3,000.
3. Student voice from the 24%. What the students themselves say would help - a club, a designated table, a hangarau-free space, a buddy who speaks their language - determines whether B is designed well or imposed. A programme designed without them can create a new kind of visibility for the students it is meant to protect.
4. Cost beyond one term. A one-term quiet space may raise expectations the board cannot sustain.
How to use these. The principal wants a decision by Friday, which is reasonable for a direction of travel and unreasonable for a final design. The defensible move is to commit the $1,200 to B now, and make the remaining $1,800 conditional on two weeks of targeted evidence-gathering. That respects the deadline without pretending the survey answered questions it did not.