The Ministry of Education appropriates $23.8M annually to fund contracts for in-service support. The priority areas for 1997-98 are: support for school management, support for curriculum and support for Maori Education. In addition the Schools Support Project is in place where schools are found to be "at risk". Boards of Trustees, Principals or community groups may signal serious problems to the Ministry to trigger action. The Education Review Office or local office of the Ministry may also seek action. The Schools Support Project has worked exceedingly well where it has been used, but schools regard it as a last resort and only to be utilised where dysfunction is apparent.
The Panel came to the view that a hierarchy of responses are called for.
- Providing that the review report contains sources of advice and guidance, most Boards of Trustees and Principals will invoke self-help by choosing the most appropriate source for their situation.
- Clusters of schools should be encouraged to work together to avoid reinventing the wheel in school or centre improvement and to provide collaborative support in dealing with problems.
- Protocols should be developed between the Advisory Services and the Regional Education Review Offices or other appropriate agencies to provide alert systems where assistance is needed.
- A web-site should be developed by the Ministry of Education which identifies sources of best practice, advice and guidance and a chat service. The Ministry of Education should also consider establishing an 0800 help-line to deal with issues as they arise.
- Consultants could be identified who offer a range of services which schools might use.
- School Support Services should continue to be available for long-standing problems.
The Panel has noted that the recent Green Paper on Teacher Education proposes to allocate a significantly greater share of the professional development funding directly to schools through their operations grants. There are some advantages in such a move as long as rural and Maori communities are serviced and curriculum contracts are available to ensure coverage of the country and successful implementation of the New Zealand Curriculum initiatives. Commenting on the contestability of advisory services is outside the terms of reference of this Panel. Nevertheless it is bound up with the provision on Advice and Guidance on which we have commented.
- That, once the unconfirmed report is received, commented on and points of dispute negotiated, then a period of three months should elapse during which the school or centre would develop, implement and report on its action plan in response to the recommendations for action which are in the review report. These actions would be incorporated in the confirmed report which would then become a document in the public domain.
- That the Chief Review Officer has responsibility to ensure that a dispute resolution process is in place and effectively communicated to schools and centres to cover disputes which arise over statements in the unconfirmed reports.
- That, when unresolved issues in the report are subject to dispute, the report will remain unconfirmed until the National Manager Reporting Services has made a decision.
- That the dispute resolution process should involve negotiation between the parties, involvement of the Regional Manager, availability of evidence collected by reviewers to support their findings and, where unresolved, the National Manager Reporting Services would examine the evidence and make a judgement. The ultimate authority would rest with the Chief Review Officer.
- That all disputes which require intervention from the National Reporting Manager would be reported to the Advisory Council on Quality in Education of the Education Review Office.
- That the review report include a narrative description provided by the school or centre on its location and the context in which it operates, a list of significant achievements since the last review and the issues under consideration within the institution.
- That the Education Review Office proceed with its intention to produce a parent friendly summary of its review findings for schools to send to all families with children at the school or centre.
- That the Ministry of Education initiate further research and in-service training for teachers in the craft of assessment and its application.
- That the policy of releasing the results of reviews to the schools, centres and the media be continued.
- That schools and centres should develop strategies for media management.
- That the Education Review Office personnel working in the field are able to point to examples of best practice where there is an identified need and request for information.
- That, as a normal part of its reporting procedure, the Education Review Office include a section outlining sources of advice and guidance available in the district and from which schools and centres would be able to choose the most appropriate sources.
- That the Education Review Office continue to publish evaluation reports based on best practice and which are relevant to the problems being encountered by schools and centres.
- That protocols be developed in each Education Review Office region with local advisory services to facilitate easy access to advice, guidance and support for schools and centres.
- That the Ministry of Education establish a range of actions to assist schools where action is required to improve the management and delivery of education.
Managing with confidence in an age of uncertainty
A PROCEDURAL OR LEGISLATIVE CHANGES TO OPTIMISE EDUCATIONAL BENEFITS.
The Education Act s.325 and the State Sector Act s.32 are explicit in stating that the Chief Review Officer is accountable to the Minister responsible for the Education Review Office. This Minister can direct the Chief Review Officer to conduct reviews of the applicable organisations, in this case schools or centres providing an educational service. The Chief Review Officer must report and give advice and assistance to the Minister.
The legislation is enabling in that it does not specify the approach to be taken by the Chief Review Officer in carrying out the duties. The Departmental Forecast Report (1997-98) of the Education Review Office identifies its three medium term intentions as:
- To add value to the quality of New Zealand Education,
- To increase stakeholder satisfaction, and
- To maintain recognised professional autonomy.
The stakeholders are identified as the Minister responsible for the Education Review Office, Boards of Trustees, Principals and teachers, parents and others with a significant interest in education. Because of the decentralised approach which has been adopted, the Chief Review Officer has no power to intervene in the decision making of a Board of Trustees. The Education Review Office can review individual providers and advise the Minister and Ministry of its findings. In reporting to the stakeholders, it considers it is fulfilling its function to review and inform. The Panel is firmly of the view that the Education Review Office cannot be mandated to advise or intervene without compromising its independence. Given this premise the Panel considers that the Education Act provides a satisfactory framework in which the Education Review Office can operate.
It can be argued that the Education Review Office facilitates accountability to the Crown, as the owner and/or funder of the schools and centres which it reviews, through its reports to schools and centres, evaluation reports, and its annual report to Parliament. The Crown Entities (the schools and the centres) provide the information so that the Education Review Office can report to the Crown. The problem is the lack of specification against which reviews are to occur. At present, it is the Charter, the Education Review Office’s interpretation of the law and their unspecified indicators of performance and standards which are the basis of the review process. While this certainly justifies the Education Review Office allocating 90 percent of its resources to information gathering from the schools and centres, the Panel is concerned that schools and centres remain confused and uncertain about what indicators the Education Review Office is using to make its judgements.
Several commentators have argued that the original intention of Picot and the Tomorrow’s Schools policies was that the Education Review Office would comment on,
"the Special Education Service’s supply of services to institutions, Teachers’ Colleges supply of general advisory services to institutions and the Ministry of Education’s provision of policy advice and overseeing of policy implementation as it affects the performance of institutions". (Cab. SEQ (88) 181).
The Cabinet paper (para.34) indicated that these services would be reviewed in the context of reviews of institutions. The institution’s Charter would include a requirement for teachers to receive support and students needing special services to be provided for.
Since 1993, the Special Education Service has negotiated an annual Document of Accountability which requires its Board to report to the Minister on the delivery of services. Since 1990, the Ministry of Education has negotiated two year contracts with the Colleges/Schools of Education to deliver Advisory Services. The Ministry of Education contracts include quarterly reporting on the delivery of services against specified performance measures. These contracts expire at the end of 1998 after which provision of these services will depend on the outcome of the Teacher Education Review. The Panel is aware of unmet needs in curriculum delivery, assessment, self-review and performance management in the schools and centres. As policy emerges from the Teacher Education Review, these issues must be addressed in order to ensure that rural as well as urban schools and centres have the advantage of quality in-service education. It is incumbent on the Ministry of Education to ensure that all schools and centres have access to the knowledge, skills and data-bases which are available to improve the delivery of education.
The Education Review Office argues that it fulfils the function of reviewing the Ministry’s provision of policy advice and its implementation through the regular publication of its Evaluation Reports and in the interactions it has with Ministers, the Ministry of Education and other agencies, such as Te Puni Kokiri, as policy is being developed.
In the context of this discussion, the Panel accepts that the Education and State Sector Acts are robust and adequate in their statutory requirements of the Education Review Office.
The Education Act (1989) s.90 states that every Board (of Trustees) is a Crown Entity for the purposes of the Public Finance Act (1989). The Panel has already argued against removal of the exemption from s.41 (2) (f) of the Public Finance Act on the grounds that it would require an annual educational audit of 2,700 Crown Entities in addition to the current financial audit. The Boards of Crown Entities and Chartered Early Childhood Services are required to have Charters (s.61 and s. 312 Education Act 1989).
The OECD observes in Schools Under Scrutiny (1995) that the New Zealand approach is,
"that if the institution itself is involved in setting its own standards, .... the principal and staff will be motivated by a feeling of ownership which will make them perform better."
The Panel has concluded that the Education Act should be the vehicle for achieving the requirements of the Public Finance Act by making Charter documents functional and operational and by stimulating local innovation and the emergence of high standards.
They are, after all, binding documents on the Boards of Trustees given that s.64(2) empowers the Secretary to take proceedings to enforce the Charter or to constrain a Board from taking any action which is contrary to a Charter. An amendment to s. 61 and s. 312 requiring schools and centres to have a three year strategic plan and an annual statement of performance indicators in their Charters would close a gap in the current system. At the same time, it would provide the Education Review Office with a clear statement of the school or centre’s intentions and against which the review would be conducted. This will remove the ‘mystery’ and reinforce schools and centres as being self managing.
There has been considerable comment in the literature on the meaning of ‘standards’ in education (OECD 1989) along with warnings against judging success against narrow mechanistic criteria. There is nothing to be gained from endless debate about whether standards have risen or fallen. What would be helpful is the clarification of the educational aims and values on which the standards can be based, the use of available research to develop indicators and set targets for achievement which are both quantitative and qualitative.
The Education Review Office has drawn attention to "the relative absence of any service quality requirement such as those which might guide the performance of trustees and their professional teaching staff." (Annual Report 1996). The Panel notes also that the Ministry of Education used the New Zealand Education Gazette (30 April 1993) to inform schools of the revised National Education Guidelines which were to be incorporated into Charters, but it makes no mention of performance measures which will be used in arriving at judgements.
In an overview of the State Sector Reforms in New Zealand, Professor Schick (1996) comments that while,
"NZ has passed with flying colours and a culture of performance has penetrated public management", nevertheless "in spite of considerable accountability requirements the Crown entities’ operations and finances are not as transparent as they should be."
‘If you don’t know where you are going, any destination will do.’
It is for these reasons that the Panel has reached the conclusion that there is a gap in the present system which is inhibiting "self-managing" schools from moving through "self-review" to "self-improvement". There is an absence in most cases of planning, performance indicators, measurement, review and reporting. The Panel is aware that a significant number of schools and centres are engaging in the planning we propose. This is endorsed and applauded by the Panel. Now there must be a deliberate move to adopt the process throughout the education community by the year 2000. The Panel has resolved that it is essential for schools to develop performance indicators for each of the National Administration Guidelines as set out in the recent Ministry of Education Governance and Management package (July 1997) with the primary focus being on curriculum delivery to improve educational outcomes.
These indicators must be worthwhile, specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and set against a time-frame for achievement. Included in the planning would be the staffing required, the allocation of available resources and the use of plant and equipment.
While it would be the responsibility of the Board of Trustees to develop the Strategic Plan and Performance Indicators for National Administration Guidelines 2-6, the Principal and staff would be responsible for developing those for Guideline 1 (the curriculum) for Board approval. (Appendix 5.) As for any change in the Charter document the approval of the Secretary of Education would be required (s.61 Education Act 1989).
This process will require time and should be approached with caution in order to inspire trust and confidence within the education community. It may require a change in the attitudes of administrators, teachers, students, parents and communities during the development phase but once in place the benefits will flow through with an improved sense of purpose, understanding of processes and monitoring. A further outcome will be that, for the first time, it will be possible for New Zealand schools and centres to demonstrate how they have used their available resources and what resources are required to meet identified and accepted commitments.
The concept of effectiveness has been highlighted in the educational administration literature over the past two decades. This research suggests that schools do make a difference in terms of the student outcomes which schools achieve, after consideration has been given to the learning histories and family backgrounds that students bring with them on entry to their learning places. (Hopkins, Ainscow and West 1994). The concept focuses attention on the question, "What are the qualities of a good educational place?"
"An effective school is one which sets performance objectives acceptable to its system and to its community and improves its achievement of these over time" (Braithwaite and Low).
They conclude that performance indicators should:
- Help schools and teachers improve their performance,
- Provide guidance and management information to systems,
- Provide the consumers and the public with indicators of school effectiveness, and
- Guide policy formulation and research.
The Panel has concluded that the degree of effectiveness can be managed by way of specific performance indicators. Braithwaite and Low distinguish between three kinds of indicators:
- Input indicators which include such items as resources expended in an organisation (e.g. dollar expenditure per student),
- Process indicators which include aspects of curriculum provision, pastoral care or school atmosphere, and
- Output indicators which include skill achievement levels, attendance and retention rates.
(Appendix 10 provides an outline of the types of indicators which might be useful.)
The Panel is encouraged by the work already done by the Ministry of Education in, "A Guide to Good Practice" (1995) and wishes to see this work further developed to assist schools and centres to develop their own plans.
The Panel is convinced that, once these plans are in place, the criteria for review would be clarified and the Education Review Office would use the performance indicators as standards for its review purposes. The Charter would once again be a functional, operational document because it would specify educational objectives, performance indicators and expected outcomes. It would also be the basis on which the Annual Report of the school or centre would be written.
These developments should offset the criticism coming from schools that they do not know the criteria for review, that there is mystery surrounding the Education Review Office’s work and that the context in which the school operates is ignored. The Panel believes that these proposals will emphasise the flexibility and scope of local involvement, enhance local control and governance and provide schools and centres with an operational plan for the delivery of its educational function. Schools or centres will have certainty and know what they are setting out to achieve and will be able to report with clarity on what has been achieved.
There is a risk that under-performing schools may write strategic plans which deal with lower order issues and not maximise the educational potential of the students enrolled. The Panel regards this work as critical to the process of change and school improvement. At the same time the Panel does not minimise the demands it will make, nor the time which will have to be devoted to it. The task requires a high level of professionalism from those involved in education in New Zealand but the Panel is convinced that the commitment and challenge of the task in the short term will produce more satisfying professional outcomes long term.
Guidance from the Ministry of Education will be essential. Some schools may wish to adapt a standard model which has the approval of the Ministry; others may seek the help of a consultant to work to a brief to develop the Strategic Plans and Statement of Performance Indicators. It is especially important that small schools are encouraged to form clusters to work co-operatively on producing these documents.
- That the Education Review Office provide schools and centres with the indicators and standards which they use during a review in order to make judgements about them until such time as schools and centres develop their own Strategic Plans and Annual Statements of Performance Indicators.
- That schools and centres be required to include a Three-year Strategic Plan for the delivery of the National Administration Guidelines and an Annual Statement of Performance Indicators in their Charters against which they would report annually.
- That the same requirements for amending Charters as set out in s.61 of the Education Act (1989) be applied to the Strategic Plan.
- That the Ministry of Education identify the production of guidelines for strategic planning and statements of performance indicators as a priority; and the Minister of Education consider professional development to assist the implementation as key issues for the 1998/99 and 1999/2000 budgets.
The National Administration Guideline 4 requires Boards of Trustees to:
- Document how the National Education Guidelines are being implemented, and
- Maintain an on-going programme of self-review.
The Education Review Office published an Evaluation Report on Self Review in 1994 and the Ministry of Education package ‘Governing and Managing Part Two’ (1997) has a guide to self review which has been very well received. It became clear to the Panel, during its hearings and public meetings, that there was considerable goodwill to becoming involved in self-review. It was seen as ‘empowering, motivating, and satisfying’ but ‘currently a fragile plant with great potential.’
In some respects, the Early Childhood Sector is well ahead of the Compulsory Sector in implementing robust self-review. Some centres have developed their own indicators, while others have called in a consultant to assist with the process. It is seen as a melding of external and internal quality assurance processes that has led to improved provision of quality education and care. It is also acknowledged within this sector that there is still a great deal of development work to be done.
The model which the Panel is advocating includes:
- Strategic thinking,
- Strategic planning,
- Statements of performance indicators,
- Quantitative and qualitative measurement,
- The Board document assuring compliance,
- Routine assurance checks by the Education Review Office,
- On-going self-review monitoring and analysis,
- Accountability reviews focusing on educational effectiveness and quality of outcomes, and
- Reporting.
Documents are shown in squares and organisations in circles.
The Panel does not underestimate the development work which will need to be done and the commitment required to put in place robust, informative processes. This work relies heavily on staff confidence, competence, and also effective leadership. However, the Panel concurs with the observation of Hargreaves and Hopkins (1991) that school improvement will result from,
"systematic, sustained effort aimed at change in learning conditions and other related internal conditions in one or more schools with the ultimate aim of accomplishing educational goals more effectively,"
As with the Strategic Plan development, small and rural schools are likely to experience difficulty if they are expected to work in isolation. The Panel again recommends they would be well advised to form clusters with the help of facilitators to develop the protocols to undertake self-review with the support of colleagues engaged in the same task in similar circumstances. Professional development training would need to be available through the Advisory Services, consultants etc., with guidelines available on the Internet, floppy disc, or hard copy on request from the Ministry of Education so that no school or centre feels they are working on their own.
Over the next five years, schools will have access to the outcomes of the National Monitoring Programme: the benchmarks and expectations for each level will be clarified through the processes the Panel has outlined and the New Zealand Council for Educational Research’s item banks should be available. These sources will be helpful in assisting schools to undertake the onerous development work which is required. The expectation of the Panel is that the platform outlined will facilitate excellence. Schools, their communities and the Crown will be better informed about the effectiveness of the delivery of education and the quality of educational outcomes than is currently the case. Confidence in the system and heightened professionalism will also be outcomes. In addition it is likely that the Educational Review Office may be able to reallocate its resources to more frequent review of schools and centres on notification or on request where problems or risks have been identified.
- That self-review should drive both school improvement and external evaluation.
- That schools and centres be required to plan and implement self-review protocols, assisted by guidelines, and in-service professional development.
