You have 7 results for your search terms
Published: 31 Mar 2021
Mai i te tau 2001, kua mahi ngātahi Te Tari Arotake Mātauranga me Te Rūnanga Nui o Ngā Kura Kaupapa Māori o Aotearoa ki te whakawhanake me te aroturuki i tētahi tino rārangi tikanga e pā ana ki te arotake i ngā kura kaupapa Māori o Te Aho Matua.
Published: 04 Jan 2014
We worked closely with Te Rūnanga Nui o Ngā Kura Kaupapa Māori o Aotearoa (Te Rūnanga Nui) to develop and monitor a specialist review methodology for Te Aho Matua kura kaupapa Māori. These indicators are used during reviews in Te Aho Matua Kura Kaupapa Māori.
Published: 31 Mar 2021
This framework contains information about the process that the Education Review Office (ERO) uses for managing kōhanga reo reviews. This information forms part of ERO’s standard procedures for reviews of kōhanga reo.
Published: 05 Aug 2015
The report examines how well 235 early childhood services supported infants and toddlers to become competent and confident communicators and explorers.
Published: 09 Nov 2015
In this report, the Education Review Office (ERO) evaluated how well 256 schools worked with parents and whanau to respond to students at risk of underachievement. We looked for examples where schools had specifically worked with parents and whānau to accelerate and support progress and improve achievement.
Published: 30 Jun 2014
This national report presents the findings of how well a sample of primary schools were taking actions to increase the number of students achieving 'at' or 'above' national standards.The findings show that half of the schools in the evaluation had used deliberate actions to support students to accelerate progress and sustain achievement.
Published: 30 Jun 2010
ERO evaluated how well schools included students with high needs. Approximately three percent of the student population have significant physical, sensory, neurological, psychiatric, behavioural or intellectual impairment. ERO’s evaluation showed that approximately half of the schools in the study demonstrated inclusive practice, while 30 percent had ‘pockets of inclusive practice’ and 20 percent had few inclusive practices.
