| Archive - these pages are part of the continuing record of Executive Government - for the current Administration, see www.beehive.govt.nz |
The Education Review Office is required to report on exemptions from enrolment s.21 and s.26 of the Education Act (1989), and to report on registered private schools. (s.35A of the Education Act (1989). The Office also has a statutory role in reporting on the performance of Boards of Trustees’ proposals to split or form joint Boards and on the enforcement of the school Charter, at the request of the Secretary for Education (s.64; s.112 and s.313 Education Act 1989).
The State Sector Act (1998), s.77, requires the Office to report annually to Parliament on the performance of the pre-tertiary sector in relation to equal employment opportunities.
It appears that, in the absence of the Crown’s willingness to define general benchmarks and standards, the responsibility for this would be assumed by Boards of Trustees. However, they, too, in the main have either abdicated, or simply are not aware, of this expectation. The result has been the emergence of the Education Review Office as the minder who has assumed the responsibility by default, although the criteria and evaluation methodology which are used are not widely understood. This has led to unwarranted but understandable criticism.
The Education Act (1989), s.100, details requirements and procedures for annual reporting by Boards of Trustees. Implicit in this section of the Act is the Boards’ accountability to the local community through the Annual General Meeting requirements.
Submissions, hearings, and discussion at meetings with the Panel confirm that the local communities look to the Education Review Office’s evaluation, audit and reporting processes to provide them with accountability and assurance of quality educational delivery and outcomes. They do not seem to consider the Annual General Meeting to be the mechanism for accountability.
The significantly increased number of requests for school reports (an average of 3 per week in 1992 compared to 70 per week in 1997) from the Education Review Office would support the views expressed above.
There is a misunderstanding of the lines of accountability prescribed in the Act. The Education Review Office uses its reviews of schools and centres to inform the Minister and, in reporting to Boards of Trustees and Centre Managers, is also acknowledging a responsibility to them. The proper channel of accountability to the local community is through the Board of Trustees’ Annual Report. This is required to be given at the Board’s Annual General Meeting. The local community perceives the Education Review Office reports as the accountability mechanism but this is incorrect. The Ministry has a responsibility to remind Boards of their obligations and to clarify the lines of accountability.
Administering for Excellence (1988) and Tomorrow’s Schools (1988) stated that the Education Review Office would:
Picot’s Task Force (Administering for Excellence 1988) claimed that genuine accountability involves three major elements:
It is clear to the Panel, as has been stated previously, that the lack of clear aims and objectives expressed as outcomes has hampered the Office’s work. That schools do not have complete control over their resources has not had the same effect.
The Panel has no doubt that schools and centres are independent institutions and that reviewers are entitled to form an objective, unbiased opinion about them. The Office, moreover, is at liberty to determine its own methodology, has access to the information it requires to do so and is reviewing to internationally accepted standards as discussed in the relevant literature.
The acceptance by schools and centres of the need for accountability was reinforced at all the consultation meetings and in the written statements received by the Panel. However, accountability in New Zealand requires that an entity accounts for its performance through the provision of information to the Crown and it is this information which is subject to audit assurance. This does not seem to be well understood by schools and centres who have commented on what they consider to be a time consuming business that involves an unnecessary amount of documentation which has little if any bearing on educational outcomes for the students. They believe the requirements are instead, "designed to meet reviewers’ insatiable desire for documents."
This exemption is granted by the Minster of Finance under s.41A of the Act and has been granted annually for the past few years. This matter is re-visited under Term of Reference Three, as part of a discussion on the way forward. While early childhood centres are not Crown Entities in the Fifth Schedule of the Public Finance Act, they should be encouraged to adopt the proposals recommended to improve their Charters.
The Panel is not satisfied that, in general, the Charter is a functional, operational document at the present time and has resolved that schools and centres should be required to develop Three Year Strategic Plans along with annual Statements of Performance Indicators. This will achieve these ends:
The Education Review Office’s principal client is the Crown as the owner and funder of schools and funder of centres. The Crown must be assured by schools and centres that its investment in education is delivering quality educational outcomes. This will be achieved through accountability processes to the local communities and the review reports of the Education Review Office.
There is, therefore, no need to amend the current legislation with respect to the functions of the Chief Review Officer (s.325). There is, however, a very compelling imperative to improve the Office’s reporting process against the Charter intentions of the schools and centres which focus on the quality of learning and learning outcomes.
The Education Review Office’s functions are summarised by the Ministry of Education as follows: (submission to the Panel)
The Office’s determination, ‘to provide evaluative reports which help to ensure that every New Zealand child’s educational experience enables him/her to reach the highest possible level of individual cognitive development, intellectual strength and social confidence,’ is not disputed. The problem lies in the image created in the pursuit of these goals. Auditors are rarely going to be popular - there will always be a tension as part of the process but, to be effective, the auditor needs the support and co-operation of the sector it seeks to influence and improve. Schools have stated that audit often leads to anxiety, complaint and fault finding which can be humiliating. Some schools describe a lack of co-operation and a climate of conflict and confrontation with the audit experience. Schools want the Office to be an ally rather than being perceived in a policing role. The Education Review Office should seek to establish and build a culture of improvement that leaves schools and centres inspired and pleased with their review experience but in no doubt about what needs to be done next.
‘friends who at times will listen and help sort out their thinking and make sound decisions, who are not afraid to tell them when expectations for themselves and others are too low and when their actions do not match their intentions.’ (Stoll and Fink 1996)
To achieve the above, reviewers must be highly trained professionals, generating confidence in their ability to evaluate, articulating clearly the criteria against which they are reviewing, and reporting findings accurately and honestly. Often the Panel has heard about inconsistency amongst reviewers in one team and in and among regions; of reviewers acknowledging their own inadequacy when teams in schools and centres have reviewers without sector specialist experience. To rekindle confidence, the training needs of reviewers must be identified and met, so they are steeped in evaluation theory which is allied with a sound understanding of children’s learning processes and able to generate the confidence in themselves and the review process in practice. To some extent the limitations outlined can be attributed to a perception of the Education Review Office being under-resourced and carrying unacceptably high workloads at regional levels. These factors, however, cannot be regarded as excuses or even explanations for the frequency with which concerns about reviewer credibility and consistency were repeatedly expressed across the country.
Not withstanding these criticisms of the Education Review Office, a recent survey Wylie, (1997) indicate that schools are largely satisfied with the accuracy of their reports and found them positively reinforcing although they did not expect the review to have great impact on the school, a perspective which the Panel finds disturbing.
The consensus among those who made submissions seems to be that the Education Review Office is having an impact on the quality of educational delivery and outcomes. It may be too early to judge the success of the review process (OECD 1995) but, without doubt, reviews have made Boards more aware of their responsibilities. In this sense, the Panel agrees with a recent OECD statement that external evaluation appears to be an effective stimulant to:
Newspaper clippings taken from nine daily papers over the period November 1996 to August 1997 show that reports were published on 144 schools and centres. Of these reports, 97 were favourable to very favourable, 34 were positive but identified areas in need of attention while 13 media reports reflected a poor Education Review Office review. Some schools or centres were reported to have used a previously poor review to turn their school around, with considerable success, while others felt their work was confirmed by the report.
The impact of the Education Review Office is intermittent and uneven but it would be sustained through ongoing institutional self-review and refining of the Performance Management System in schools and centres. As described by the School Trustees Association, ‘The Education Review Office has been a driving force, encouraging schools in the process of Self Review.’
The Panel has drawn the following conclusions from the submissions:
The Panel is convinced that the attitude and role of the Principal is critical to the impact of a review in improving the quality of education outcomes. The Principal’s perceptions of the reviewers, and indeed the review process itself, has a direct effect on the nature of their reception in a school and the success of the review. If the Principal is positive, then the review is likely to verify what is already known and staff will be informed and positive about the presence of the review team. If, however, the Principal is defensive, belligerent or dismissive, then the tone and climate for the review and its findings will be of questionable value. The Principal’s sphere of influence can also extend to the Board of Trustees whose vulnerability is perhaps greater than others.
Accountability is a two-way process and the relationship between the educational leadership in the school and the evaluator has to be nurtured. The Education Review Office must take every opportunity to improve its image with the professionals in schools and centres through an effective public relations campaign. This might include good communication through newsletters and papers such as Education Review, the New Zealand Education Gazette, Education Today and similar publications, seminars, workshops and clinics to explain procedures and to develop a positive interface. The understanding from such communication will be critical to the acceptance and success of Accountability Reviews. Confusion, and, therefore, the opportunity for criticism, must be avoided. It is incumbent on Education Review Office Area Managers to maintain personal contact with providers wherever this is possible. In addition, the Panel believes that seconding practising principals or deputy-principals to review teams would strengthen their curriculum expertise and credibility.
The Panel believes the Education Review Office must clearly position itself as a key contributor to educational improvement in our schools and centres.
