Seventeen percent of services were not up-to-date with their responsibilities or were not managing them well. Areas of non-compliance found by ERO included police vetting, teacher registration and outdated policies.
Some of the owners of the services had not been police vetted (despite their active involvement in the daily running of the service), and did not have systems in place to track teacher registration
Commonly, non-compliance occurred because service leaders/managers were unaware of legal requirements and regulations. Services’ lack of knowledge around requirements ranged from staff performance management and appraisal to changes in ECE licensing criteria.
Some of these services were not able to identify the person responsible for monitoring changes and updating other staff. This resulted in a lack of knowledge about requirements and regulations for service leaders, as well as staff. In some services, although there was knowledge of new or altered regulations, information regarding this was not passed on to other staff.
ERO also found that many of these services did not provide regular PLD or undertake reviews of health and safety, and did not regularly monitor teacher registration and appraisal. The services that did monitor staff practice typically did so informally, and required staff to keep informed with requirements themselves.
Some of these services had minimal or insufficient safety and wellbeing policies. Some policies existed, but they were not comprehensive or robust. They did not cover the scope of service operations and therefore lacked clear guidance for staff and leaders.
Subsequently, these services were not regularly reviewing their accountabilities and practice in relation to regulations and requirements.
Minor areas of non-compliance are discussed while the ERO review team are on site. Where ERO has concerns about the service’s capacity to address these issues, a non-compliance is noted in the service’s review report. The Ministry of Education is also notified in some instances.