Government departments are funded by the taxpayer to produce the results expected by the government of the day, and, of course, we put all our efforts into doing this to the best of our ability.
Our annual report will show we have achieved what we promised in our Statement of Intent at the beginning of this financial year and, of course, there is more to this than matching promised numbers of reviews with achieved numbers. What governments want to be able to measure is the impact departments have made for the money that has been invested in them.
So, for the Education Review Office (ERO), while we deliver the numbers we promised, the government, the public and we, ourselves, want to know that in producing these reviews and reports we have also improved the lot of a particular section of the New Zealand population. In the case of ERO this is an improvement in the education and care provided for children and students in early childhood services and schools.
Measuring the numbers is easy. Measuring impact is not so scientific, or so accessible. We assemble and analyse statistics on schools and services that fall into our high‑performing, middle range or poor-performing categories. These tell us the percentage of schools and services that improved following an ERO review. We invite schools and services to tell us what they found useful about their review, and what actions they took to improve their performance following the review. This information currently tells us that ERO reports are generally welcomed and used for their intended purpose – to give those reviewed unbiased external feedback on their performance and a basis for making improvements.
During this year we have had meetings with many education sector organisations, and we have asked each of them: What does your organisation see as the main impact of ERO reviews? We have been given some constructive answers.
Interestingly and encouragingly, several school and early childhood organisations said that it was the process rather than the report that was the most useful part of the review. A review notification prompted varying degrees of activity in an institution, depending on whether or not regular self review had been carried out, or if achievement and assessment had been monitored, analysed and documented.
The review was seen as a chance for stimulating professional discussions among teachers and educators with reviewers, and to have good practice confirmed by peers in the education world.
ERO’s new briefer school reports were seen as more parent-friendly, but with the proviso that the review itself needed to yield the kind of information a school would need to prompt constructive change.
Organisations also saw value in the ‘system’ reports – ERO’s national reports on specific topics of current interest in the education sector. These were welcomed as giving a view of what was happening elsewhere in New Zealand, and descriptions of good practice were particularly useful.
This past year ERO has published national reports on a wide range of topics including: alternative education, The New Zealand Curriculum, progress with implementation of the National Standards, the teaching of literacy in early childhood services, and on promoting success for Māori students. These evaluation topics are chosen each year with an eye to the impact the findings could have on improving education in particular areas.
ERO’s individual reviews of schools and early childhood services and national reports are powerful tools for change, and rely on the independence and credibility of the organisation and the professionalism of the staff.
ERO’s staff work hard to improve education for New Zealand’s children, and every person in our organisation has a vital part to play. I would like to acknowledge the professionalism of ERO staff, their dedication to their work and the commitment to improving ERO’s own performance that allows ERO to make its contribution to the wider education goals.
Graham Stoop
Chief Review Officer
September 2011