1. This report on the Review of New Zealand's Education External Evaluation System follows the four Terms of Reference approved by Cabinet and conveyed by the Minister responsible for the Education Review Office when he appointed the Review Panel. It examines the methodology and effectiveness of the Education Review Office's operation and considers the matters drawn to its attention in relation to self-review, the significance of external evaluations for schools and early childhood centres, how the Education Review Office determines satisfactory performance in schools and centres and how the Office communicates its findings.

2. The Panel reports wide support for the Education Review Office's role as the independent external evaluator of New Zealand's pre-tertiary educational services. The intention in this review is to focus attention specifically on the enhancement of effective teaching and learning. In this regard, the Panel notes the vital importance of the Education Review Office communicating its evaluation philosophy and practices. The Panel recognises that its recommendations will place short-term demands on the professional leaders in schools and centres although it is convinced that the ultimate gains will be worthwhile. There is an onus of responsibility on all the key players - the Ministry of Education, the Education Review Office, schools and centres - if New Zealand is to achieve the quality of education outcomes the community deserves.

3. The Panel was requested to keep its recommendations fiscally neutral and it is confident that this has been achieved, although there are some Budget implications for the future for the Ministry of Education. The recommendations are wide ranging and give effect to the request that the review maximise the effectiveness of the Office.

4. A number of major issues have been identified. The Panel considered the legal framework under which the Education Review Office operates as set out in the Education Act (1989) and the Public Finance Act (1989). These are discussed at length, were found to be adequate and no change is recommended. Changes are recommended for parts of the Education Act (1989) to accommodate changes to the charter requirements and powers of entry to Hostels. The present exemption of Boards of Trustees from the provisions of s.41 (2) (f) of the Public Finance Act should remain but comparable accountability will be met through a requirement for three yearly strategic plans with annual statements of performance indicators in Board Charters.

5. The guiding theme adopted by the Panel is self-management, self-review and self-improvement. Although the National Administration Guidelines specify that Boards of Trustees are to maintain an on-going programme of self-review, the Panel found that the effective implementation of self-review in schools and centres is in its infancy at present and will require developmental support.

6. The proposed recommendations have three possible outcomes:
   • eliminating the misunderstanding about the nature and importance of accountability,
   • enabling schools and early childhood education centres to move through self-review to self-improvement and
   • ensuring that the requirements of the Public Finance Act can be met without the need to engage in annual audit of Statements of Service Performance.

7. The Charter, as set out in s.61-64 of the Education Act, (1989), exists in schools and centres but it has failed to emerge as a functional document guiding their operation. Schools and centres should be required to insert Three Year Strategic Plans into their Charters along with the preparation of annual Statements of Performance Indicators. The Annual Report of the Boards and centres would be made against the plan and the indicators. The plan and indicators would also be used by the Education Review Office for evaluation and audit purposes.

8. The Panel welcomes the intention of the Education Review Office to move to Accountability Reviews. The Board Declaration should continue to be used for compliance purposes, to allow the Education Review Office to focus on the real business of educational effectiveness and outcomes. The Education Review Office, however, must communicate to schools and centres its intentions as it puts in place the accountability review process. A national strategy in this regard must be implemented as a priority.

9. The Education Review Office is an evaluation and audit agent which values its independence and integrity, a view that has widespread favour and support. Therefore, it would be inappropriate for the Education Review Office to have an advice and guidance function, or to be involved in enforcement. The Panel has commented on the need for a hierarchy of advice and guidance responses involving, for example, the Ministry of Education, the Advisory Services including consultancies, an 0800 Help Desk, and the Internet.

10. The National Evaluation Reports are generally held in high regard, considered informative and helpful in describing best practice and in drawing attention to developmental issues which affect schools and centres. They stimulate debate on issues that, while acknowledged by practitioners as being important, are not necessarily the subject of ongoing discussion. These reports must continue.

11. Concern has been expressed about Maori Education and the Education of Maori. The Panel recommends that the Education Review Office give priority to these areas in their assessment of both provision and effectiveness as well as in producing a national evaluation report in 1998.

12. Negative attitudes to students with disabilities persist in some New Zealand schools. The Panel has recommended that the Education Review Office focus on Special Education in the 1998/99 year and produce an Evaluation Report on provision and practices.

13. The reporting process of the Education Review Office was considered at length. Boards of Trustees, Principals and Teachers seem unaware that the oral report is an exit exercise undertaken by reviewers after which the review team analyses its findings and forms judgements on them. The Panel recommends changes to the timing and content of these reports including clarification of the dispute resolution procedure. Three months should elapse between receipt of the unconfirmed report, its confirmation and subsequent release to the media. This will allow for negotiation on points of difference, preparation of an action plan by the Board of Trustees and a management report on implementation to address the recommendations in the report. These progressive actions would be included in the confirmed report. The Panel recommends that the report contain an introduction prepared by the school or centre describing the context in which it operates, brief details of significant achievements since the last review and issues on which the school or centre is working.

14. The Panel endorses the policy of all confirmed reports being public documents which are available to the media.

15. The Panel views with alarm the degree of misunderstanding and misinformation about the nature and function of the Education Review Office which exists in the field. Many submissions revealed a lack of knowledge of the ongoing oversight and annual review of performance of government department chief executives by the State Services Commission. The Ministry of Education and the Education Review Office have a responsibility to communicate and disseminate information and to ensure that it is understood.

To those who made submissions, attended hearings and who provided additional supporting material; Trustees, Principals and Centre Managers who made the effort to attend meetings, sometimes at great inconvenience and short notice, thank you. A very special thank you to our executive assistant, Marion Hyland, for the cheerful, patient and purposeful manner in which she worked in the background.

Tena koutou, tena koutou tena rawa atu koutou katoa.

In order to ensure coverage of the whole country, as well as give people an opportunity to comment personally on their review experiences, the Panel arranged a series of meetings for Boards of Trustees, Principals and Centre Managers. (Appendix 2.) These meetings gave valuable insights into the Panel’s understanding of the issues and an appreciation of the range of perspectives and concerns which would have to be considered. The opportunity for discussion, as part of the consultation process for this review, should not be underestimated. The Panel was impressed with the thoughtfulness and the objectivity of the views expressed, and the willingness of groups and individuals to engage in worthwhile discussion of ways to resolve the issues which were raised. Reflection, perception and conviction are qualities which characterise the stakeholders’ commitment to improving education outcomes. The comments from these submissions and meetings are summarised in Appendix 3.

• Issues relating to the role of the Education Review Office,

• Issues relating to the context in which the Education Review Office operates,

• Functions carried out by the Education Review Office and

• The Education Review Office’s processes and methodology.

It is clear that there is a world wide movement examining educational effectiveness, improvement and outcomes. Student achievement, skills development and the quality of learning are critical to preparing young people for the new millennium. Parents and the broader community are looking for better quantitative and qualitative information about children’s education and the performance of schools. They want to be assured that the performance indicators used to measure the quality of education provision will stand up to scrutiny, both within New Zealand and internationally.

The Education Review Office is the State’s Agent, auditing against the State’s expectations of the performance of schools and early childhood centres. Audit always make people nervous, mainly because of the risk of exposure and vulnerability when the report is made public. The Panel’s concern has been to focus on the benefit of review as a positive exercise rather than a threatening one; assuring and confirming schools and centres about their performance, as well as evaluating and providing critical analysis. There is some way to go for the Education Review Office to be regarded as a critical friend but the Panel is convinced that many of its recommendations will contribute to this desirable outcome.

The Education Review Office is charged with reviewing the systems and performance of schools and centres in order to assess their effectiveness, efficiency and the extent to which schools and centres have achieved their desired outcomes. However, there is a lack of understanding among the practitioners of the nature of audit as it applies to schools and centres.

It is apparent from the submissions received that, providing guidelines are developed and assistance given where it is called for, there is a willingness on the part of the vast majority of schools and centres to take the next steps towards enhanced self-management. Schools and Early Childhood Centres have undergone a transformation in the last seven years. They have responded extraordinarily well to the challenges of reform, the pace of change and the variable nature of changes in the social climate within New Zealand.

The Panel believes that self-management for some 85% of schools and centres is successfully in place. Principals and Boards in this category are ready to adopt rigorous and robust self-review as the vehicle for self improvement. The remaining 15% or so of schools and centres, typically those of rural and/or low socio-economic status, need additional support to meet the challenges of being self-managing.

The NZ Country Paper to the OECD Conference (March 1995) states that;

‘although teachers were concerned that they would lose some of their autonomy as a result of the reforms, this has not happened. They have, however, had their responsibilities and accountabilities increased. With an increased emphasis on teamwork, better quality management, a stronger outcome orientation, and a more relevant curriculum, the stage is set for the establishment of a better teaching environment and more effective schools.’

The Panel regards this review as being a significant contribution to this environment.

New Zealand is delivering a quality of education where participation in a wide range of activities is a feature and where opportunities to proceed to further education are being taken up in increasing numbers. However, there is no room for complacency; we can and must do better. While there are issues to be addressed, it would be fair to say that we do not celebrate our achievements to the extent to which we ought.

A critical issue in embracing self-improvement through self-review centres on the quality of Advisory Services. There is no suggestion that the Education Review Office has a role in providing advice and guidance. They can, however, act as a broker, providing information about the range of services that might be explored, depending on the nature of the problem.

The Panel believes the review process must recognise and enhance the professionalism of principals and teachers, acknowledge the art, craft and reflective nature of teaching and play a role in promoting teaching as a research-informed profession.

The Panel is encouraged by the Education Review Office’s intention to undertake Accountability Reviews only, as from 1998. The primary focus of such reviews must be ‘educational effectiveness’ and not compliance with the raft of Legislative requirements which can be covered through the Board Declaration document.

The independence and governance function of Boards of Trustees and Early Childhood Associations is assured. As the focus of attention of the Education Review Office, they are often uncertain about the Office’s expectations of them. The Panel believes the Ministry of Education should make available appropriate performance indicator examples and guidelines for the schools’ and centres’ use when developing their internal processes of self-review for self-improvement.

The Education Review Office has commented on a number of occasions on the absence of performance standards and benchmarks against which their measurements of effectiveness can be made. This deficiency has contributed to tension and frustration for all concerned, which is unproductive and unhelpful. Now is the time to put significant effort into these developments. Delays will only compound the problems currently being experienced.

During the course of its hearings and deliberations, the Panel identified a number of issues, on some of which comment will be made and, where appropriate, recommendations for action will be suggested. Such issues include:

• Schools and centres must have access to support systems.

• Quality advice and guidance are essential to the efficient and effective development of the self-management system.

• Formal and informal training for principals and senior managers in schools and centres must be accessible and affordable.

• Schools and centres need to be assured that pre-service education equips beginning teachers with recognised and accepted core competencies.

• Schools and centres need to have agreed criteria and to develop indicators of performance standards and benchmarks against which their effectiveness can be measured.