List of oral submissions

Number	Name	Title	Organisation	Location
1	Ian Mitchell	Principal	Henderson High School	AUCKLAND
6	Lester Flockton	Co-Director	Educational Assessment Research Unit, University of Otago	DUNEDIN
10	Patrick Lynch	Executive Director	Association of Proprietors of Integrated Schools	WELLINGTON
39	Craig Smith	National Director	Christian Home Schoolers of Australisia	PALMERSTON NORTH
40	Martin Thomas	Education Manager	Tainui Maaori Trust Board	WAIKATO
56	Jan Kerr	Executive Director	Independent Schools Council	WELLINGTON
62	Tony Rhodes	President	NZ Free Kindergartens Associations Inc	WELLINGTON
85	Dr. Richard Benton	Senior Research Fellow	Centre for Maori Studies & Research, University of Waikato	HAMILTON
86	Jane Couch		NZ Family Day Care Association	WELLINGTON
92	Lois Robertson	National Secretary	National Council of Women of NZ	WELLINGTON
94	John Old	Principal	Greenmeadows Intermediate School	AUCKLAND
95	Rose Cole	Chief Executive	Te Tari Puna Ora O Aotearoa /NZ Childcare Association	WELLINGTON
97	Judith Duncan	Lecturer	Education Dept, University of Otago	DUNEDIN
104	Graham Nuthall	Professor of Education	Education Dept, University of Canterbury	CHRISTCHURCH
105	Patricia Chapman	Chairperson	Wellington Wairarapa School Trustees Assn. Inc.	WELLINGTON
109	Nola Hambleton	President	NZ Principals Federation	WELLINGTON
110	Phil O'Reilly	Secretary	Commonwealth Press Union (NZ Society)	WELLINGTON
111	Janet Kelly	President	NZ School Trustees Assoc.	WELLINGTON
116	Robyn Nicholas	Director	Child & Family Services, Barnardos	WELLINGTON
120	Anonymous-name withheld on request			CHRISTCHURCH
126	Martin Matthews	Asst. Auditor-General	Office of the Controller and Auditor-General	WELLINGTON
135	Caryl-Louise Robinson	Chief Executive	Early Childhood Development Unit	WELLINGTON

Public Meetings

• Kaitaia 2 meetings

• Auckland (for South Auckland) 2 meetings

• Auckland (for people of Auckland)

• Hamilton

• Rotorua 2 meetings

• Wanganui 2 meetings

• Gisborne 2 meetings

• Wellington 3 meetings

• Nelson

• Westport

• Greymouth

• Hokitika

• Christchurch

• Ashburton

• Dunedin

• Invercargill 2 meetings

Term of Reference 1: Examine the nature and scope of the authority of the Education Review Office and assess the degree to which such authority impacts on and contributes to improvement in the quality of educational outcomes.

Audit, Role of the Education Review Office, and its objectives

In their written submission, ERO identified itself as the external education evaluation body that "aims to provide evaluative reports to inform the decision making of core stakeholders in education and to be a recognised professional authority on education evaluation."

The key message in submissions is that ERO should focus on the quality of education, and educational effectiveness. NZEI states, "Any system of education external evaluation should be aimed at improving the quality of education received by students."

There was divergence of view on what the ERO’s objectives should be:

• "It would be more worthwhile to schools if they looked at the overall picture of what makes an ‘effective school"
• Boards "were under the impression that the purpose of the review was to determine the effectiveness of the Board as a governing body"
• "Monitoring of the minimum standards and regulations is the national role of the Education Review Office"
• "I would like to recommend that ERO be given greater responsibility for the evaluation of teacher performance in the classroom"
• "We would recommend review which aims at [school] improvement", and pertinently
• "Schools are confused as to what exactly ERO is focusing on"

The oral consultations confirmed that:

• It is essential to audit the schools and early childhood centres even if it is traumatic and you always dread the auditor. ERO has an audit and not an enforcement role.
• ERO has reinforced the idea that schools are responsible for themselves. They are accountable to their public and to the taxpayer. Schools and communities want and use ERO reports. There was, however a feeling that ERO is there to serve the Minister, not the children. The school, students and community should be ERO’s clients. The Crown has an interest in its effectiveness including the health and well being of the system.
• Reviews motivate and advance school improvement but do not take account of lack of resources or local government charges.
• Audits ensure you meet regulations and no one can abdicate from this responsibility.
• ERO is involved in monitoring teacher performance, identifying incompetent teachers in its reports but ERO is not the employer so it has no role in talking about competency.
• ERO’s role should be to test the system and not the teacher.
• ERO involvement with a parental complaint should only happen after a complaint has been dealt with by the principal and board.

Image of the Review Office

Those who made submissions in this area tended to focus their comments on two aspects:

• The key stakeholder organisations valued the regular liaison with the Chief Review Officer and her organisation. "Te Kohanga Reo National Trust acknowledge and appreciate the relationship that has been developed over the years between the National Trust and the Education Review Office".
• Individual schools and centres regarded the comments made by the Chief Review Officer, particularly in relation to teacher performance, as negative, unsubstantiated, unhelpful and tactless. She is seen as a control agent.

Comments from the public meetings included:

• ERO has a credibility and image problem and is seen as a threat e.g. "the dreaded ERO review".
• An ERO visit requires a lot of energy. Very often schools feel they are working for ERO to please them and this can lead to conflict and lack of respect.
• ERO is "a good thing" - positive and beneficial. It is essential for the image of ERO to be open as well as forthright and independent
• The workload of the reviewers is very high.

Improving Teaching and Learning

Submissions were mixed about whether ERO reviews resulted in improvements in teaching and learning.

• "Most schools received favourable reports" but "did not find the recommendations likely to contribute to improved learning for children."

Reasons cited for no improvement included:

• "The school in my view gained very little from the experience and resources had to be diverted from our main purpose - i.e. teaching - to prepare for and deal with the visit"
• Stress of visit on principal, board and school staff which had an effect on staff morale
• "ERO reports are often difficult for schools to interpret"
• "Principals are more likely to alter school practices when recommendations are made by reviewers they respected and found to be credible"

Others believed there were major improvements resulting from the work of ERO.

• "ERO has already made a difference to the standard of education in NZ and will continue to do so".

The following reasons were given to support the belief that there were improvements:

• "The contents of the report have formed part of the planning objectives for our school and led to more focused planning"
• "The Education Review Office has done more to raise the standard of education in New Zealand than any other body in the last 30 years".
• "Schools have improved policy making and increased the efficiency of administration and management procedures"
• "Although our last review was far from glowing it gave our new board a direction to head in which to rectify our problems".

Submissions from those schools which are well advanced in using and advocating self review appeared to be more positive in saying that ERO reviews led to improvements in teaching and learning.

Accountability and Responsivenes

Almost all the submissions stated the need for external, independent audit. Two basic reasons emerged.

• To facilitate accountability of the entity to its local stakeholders.
• "The Principals’ Council maintains that an external evaluation and review system is an integral part of validating professional accountability"
• To facilitate Government in determining whether its policies are being delivered as intended and are being effective. "They provide an important accountability function regarding the spending of public money, affirming the quality of learning and teaching and providing staff with an objective viewpoint on their achievements."

Public meetings voiced these concerns:

• There is a lack of flexibility in the methodology. ERO needs greater understanding of school context; to value cultural initiatives, the philosophy and character of a school; its charter; the socio-economic status of the community; and to take account of the system that creates the problems that schools deal with and ERO judges.
• There should be a holistic, single review once every three years
• In early childhood review every 2 to 3 years is best with ERO continuing to come in without notice.
• ERO picks up little issues and not always the broad picture. Reviewers are not in a school long enough to ‘see under the paper’. A number of small negatives overshadow the positives.
• Need continuity of reviewers visiting a school with more reviewers spending more time in schools.
• It is difficult to measure achievement in neat chunks, i.e. valued added. ERO is accountable for the information it gathers and uses, a school should be able to challenge and seek verification of a written view.
• Current reports are user unfriendly, as are some reviewers.
• Differing opinions were expressed on the variable time ERO spent with parents.