OECD Reviews of Evaluation and Assessment in Education: New Zealand 2011
Conclusions and recommendations
(download a copy)
New Zealand’s schools offer inclusive education for all students in their local area
regardless of the students’ level of impairment or educational need. Schools are
comprehensive at all levels and few distinctions are made between academic and
vocational programmes. The country has a bicultural and bilingual Māori and European
heritage which is reflected in the provision of Māori-medium education and, more
broadly, the development of education pathways that support and encourage Māori
language and culture. Schools also cater to an increasingly diverse student population,
with over half of the school-age population expected to identify with multiple and
non-European ethnic heritages within the next five years. The New Zealand Curriculum
states its commitment to strong equity principles, including valuing cultural diversity and
inclusion of all students in a non-sexist, non-racist and non-discriminatory way. For
evaluation and assessment, this implies that approaches at all levels are expected to
consider and respond to individual learner needs and school community contexts.
The performance of New Zealand students is significantly above the OECD average
in all areas assessed by the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA
2009). But while on average New Zealand students are among the top performers in the
world, there is a large dispersion of achievement scores. Performance differences are
most pronounced within schools rather than between schools. This indicates that greater
efforts are necessary to adapt education to needs of highly diverse learners within the
comprehensive school. While some Māori and Pasifika students show high performance,
Māori and Pasifika students are over-represented at the lower end of the performance
distribution. The key priorities for schooling outlined in the Ministry of Education’s
Statement of Intent (2010-2011) relate to lifting student achievement in literacy and
numeracy, all young people achieving worthwhile qualifications and ensuring that Māori
students achieve education success “as Māori”. Evaluation and assessment are a key
element in the national strategy to improve performance and raise equity in education.
New Zealand has one of the most devolved school systems in the world. As part of a
major administrative restructuring, the 1988 Tomorrow’s Schools reforms devolved
responsibility for the management of individual schools to Boards of Trustees consisting
of elected members from the school community. Boards of Trustees hold a wide range of
responsibilities including strategic management, school self-review, employment of staff
and appraisal of the school principal. Boards of Trustees, together with the principal and
school staff, are also in charge of developing and implementing the local curriculum. As
the national curriculum sets out key competencies and achievement objectives for each of
eight learning areas rather than prescribing curriculum content, self-managing schools
have a large amount of freedom and flexibility in designing their own teaching
programmes to fit the needs of their local student population. In line with the overall
governance model, responsibilities for evaluation and assessment are also highly
devolved, with school leaders, teachers and students playing a key role in measuring their
own performance and progress to inform self-improvement.
The key purposes and principles of evaluation and assessment in New Zealand are
well articulated. The national evaluation and assessment agenda is solidly based on
research evidence and characterised by a high degree of coherence. Particularly positive
features include the strong emphasis on the improvement function of evaluation and
assessment, the commitment to respond to diverse learner needs and the focus on
evidence-based policy and practice. Clear learning goals and performance expectations
are provided in the curriculum, the National Standards, the national qualifications
framework, teacher standards and indicators for school review. However, while each of
the different components of evaluation and assessment are well developed, there is no
policy document or written strategy on the overall framework for evaluation and
assessment. Hence, it is not always clear how evaluation and assessment at student,
teacher, school and system level are intended to link together and be complementary.
There are a number of linkages or articulations between different elements of the
evaluation and assessment framework that could be further strengthened. These include
articulations between the National Standards, the national curriculum and student
assessment; the coherence between two different sets of teaching standards; linkages
between teacher appraisal and school evaluation; and the articulation of school reporting
with school evaluation and education system monitoring.
New Zealand has developed its own distinctive model of evaluation and assessment
that is characterised by a high level of trust in schools and school professionals. Teachers
carry the prime responsibility for student assessment, have a good degree of ownership of
their own appraisal and are also strongly involved in school self-review. Students are
engaged in self-and peer-assessment and encouraged to provide feedback for school
evaluation purposes. In recent years, schools’ own self-review has become the centre
piece of school evaluation while the Education Review Office (ERO) provides an
external validation of the process. The development of the national evaluation and
assessment agenda has been characterised by strong collaborative work, as opposed to
prescriptions being imposed from above. As can be expected from such a devolved
approach, ensuring consistency in the implementation of national evaluation and
assessment policies is a challenge. There is evidence that while schools are obliged to
have assessment, appraisal and evaluation approaches in place, there is large variation in
the extent to which these processes are effective and aligned.
School autonomy and self-management create good conditions for school leader and
teacher professionalism and continue to be strongly valued by school leaders. This
governance structure recognises that schools know their contexts best and allows
professionals to adopt a diversity of evaluation and assessment practices, thereby creating
conditions for innovation and system evolution. At the same time, there is increasing
concern about the complexity and breadth of school leaders’ and teachers’ responsibilities
regarding evaluation and assessment, requiring a new set of skills which many may not
have acquired in their initial training. Boards of Trustees also play a key role in planning,
reporting and self-review tasks but their preparedness and capacity to fulfil this role is
highly variable. The effectiveness of the overall evaluation and assessment framework
depends to a large extent on whether those who evaluate and those who use evaluation
results at the different levels of the system have the appropriate competencies. In the
context of self-management, individual schools can be relatively isolated and may have
limited opportunities for learning from effective practice from across the region or the
country. Continuing to build the capacity of teachers, school leaders and Boards of
Trustees for effective evaluation and assessment remains a priority.
Assessment in New Zealand is conceived as an integral part of quality teaching and
learning and focuses less on summative end point testing. Effective assessment is
described by the Ministry of Education as a circle of inquiry, decision making, adaptation
and transformation – it should be “a process of learning, for learning”. Whether
assessment improves learning depends to a large extent on the quality of interactions
between teachers and students. In this respect, New Zealand’s strong focus on the
importance of helping all students achieve is a major strength. At the same time, there is
still room to optimise assessments for students with diverse educational needs. While
inclusive assessment practice exists in many schools, there is evidence that some schools
struggle to provide adequate assessment opportunities for students with special
educational needs. As New Zealand’s demographics have changed and resulted in a
diversification of its population, it is also important that teachers are sensitive to cultural
and linguistic aspects of learning and assessment. In addition, there is a need to develop a
wider range of assessment tools particularly adapted to Māori-medium education.
New Zealand’s assessment approach is based on a firm belief in teacher
professionalism. Instead of implementing high-stakes national assessments to monitor
student achievement and progress, the New Zealand strategy aims to build teacher
capacity and provide teachers with a range of assessment tools to help them make their
own professional judgements about student performance. This approach is expected to
avoid some of the potential negative consequences of high-stakes testing such as
curriculum narrowing, assessment anxiety and teaching to the test. At the same time,
there is evidence that primary schools still vary greatly in the way they choose to deliver
the curriculum, assess student results and report to parents. While this may allow schools
to respond and adapt quickly to local priorities, it also raises problems regarding the
fairness and consistency of assessment. A significant proportion of teachers are still at an
early stage of developing their professional judgement in relation to National Standards
and there is room to enhance their skills in effective reporting and communication about
student learning and progress.
The National Standards in reading, writing and mathematics were developed to
respond to some of the challenges related to the wide disparity in student achievement
and ensuring consistency of student assessment in primary education. They are intended
to provide reference points for schools to be used in conjunction with their own
assessment practices and to support teachers in making reliable judgements about student
learning. Schools are also required to ensure adequate reporting to students and parents in
relation to the standards. While the purpose of improving assessment and reporting
practice is broadly shared across the education system, there is concern about the design
and implementation of the National Standards. Teacher capacity still needs to be built for
standards-based reporting to be reliable and it will take some time to develop the
expertise and moderation arrangements to make nationally comparable judgements based
on the standards. As a new piece that needs to be fitted into the primary education system,
the National Standards also need to be embedded into schools’ work with the national
curriculum and require mutual adjustments with existing tools and approaches to student
assessment.
Teaching standards are a key element in any teacher appraisal system as they provide
credible reference points for making judgements about teacher competence. Standards
also offer the potential to frame the organisation of the teaching profession including
initial teacher education, teacher registration, professional development, career
advancement and teacher appraisal. New Zealand has two sets of teaching standards:
Registered Teacher Criteria are used in the appraisal for teachers to gain or renew
registration to teach, and professional standards are used as part of the employer’s
performance management processes for salary progression and professional learning.
While having well-developed teaching standards is a strength of the system, the
co-existence of two different sets of standards risks sending conflicting messages about
what teachers are expected to know and be able to do at different stages of their careers.
In schools, there is often a lack of clarity about the respective purpose and use of each of
the standards and, in practice, school management personnel may “amalgamate” the two
sets of standards for performance management purposes.
Teacher registration processes are well established and serve to ensure that every
school in New Zealand is staffed with teachers who meet agreed standards for teaching
practice. Teacher appraisal as part of regular performance management processes also
appears to be consolidated; it has essentially an improvement function with emphasis on
teacher professional development but also serves as an attestation for salary progression.
Teacher appraisal, in its different forms, is school-based and seems to be well ingrained
in schools’ cultures. However, some aspects of teacher appraisal require further policy
attention. First, the limited extent of input that is external to the school and moderation
might not be adequate as teachers are fully dependent on local capacity and willingness to
benefit from opportunities to improve their practice, see their professional development
recognised and gain greater responsibility. Second, teacher appraisal could be more
systematically linked to professional development opportunities. The organisation of
teacher professional development varies across schools, depending in large part on school
leadership. Third, there is currently no clear alignment between teaching standards,
registration processes and the career structure, which may reduce the incentive for
teachers to improve their competencies.
New Zealand has probably gone furthest among countries internationally towards a
collaborative school evaluation model. The basic premise is that schools are best placed
to analyse their own contexts and that the Education Review Office (ERO) provides an
external perspective to validate or challenge the schools’ own findings. The current focus
of ERO’s work is to ensure that school self-review and external review are
complementary and mutually reinforcing processes. Complementing self-review by
external review adds an element of distance from the internal dynamics of the school and
provides the kind of perspective and challenge to assumptions and interpretations which
can lead to greater rigour in the process.
At the same time, there are inevitably tensions to be confronted between ERO’s
multiple accountabilities and its improvement purpose. For example, an aspect of
ERO’s accountability to government is the gathering of information on the
implementation and efficacy of government policies in schools visited. What may
become salient in a review will depend on, and reflect, the government’s current interests.
Although schools have a responsibility as Crown Entities to deliver the education
priorities of the government of the day they may perceive an element of uncertainty about
what will be focused on in a review, with respect to political and policy change.
In common with systems elsewhere which are moving toward proportional review,
New Zealand’s differentiated review cycle is exemplary in taking account of the
educational health of schools. ERO’s differentiated approach recognises that while a
school might promote high levels of student achievement, this is unlikely to be sustained
in the longer term without effective self-review. Serious concerns about a school’s self review
performance will result in an ongoing longitudinal review designed to help
schools build their evaluative capacity. ERO also offers workshops and professional
development opportunities to build the capacity of ERO reviewers, school professionals
and Boards of Trustees. While the strong focus on self-review is commendable, there are
indications that further work is necessary to ensure consistently effective self-review
practices. Some schools struggle to collect, analyse and interpret student assessment data
effectively for improvement and school leaders may have limited opportunities to learn
from effective practice elsewhere. High expectations are also placed on Boards of
Trustees members, many of whom have no background in education and little expertise in
data analysis. The degree to which school leaders receive constructive support through
appraisal processes is also variable.
Schools are required to establish annual strategic planning and reporting cycles and
report on their progress to the Ministry of Education. The annual reporting process is seen
by some as useful in bringing a range of school data together in one document, but there
is a need to clarify the purpose of this type of reporting information at different levels of
the system. It appears that school annual planning and reporting cycles are not well
aligned with other elements of the evaluation and assessment framework. Schools do not
generally receive feedback on their reports either from the Education Review Office or
the Ministry of Education in a way as to support them in their internal evaluation and
further planning. While ERO’s reviews focus on schools’ self-review capacity, they do
not systematically build on schools’ annual reporting processes. Also, the reports are not
systematically used by Boards of Trustees in the appraisal of school principals. Moreover,
the use of school reporting information for system evaluation is limited as the reports are
highly variable in format, content and quality.
From 2012/13, schools will have to include information on their students’ results in
relation to standards in their annual reports, which raises additional questions about how
this new reporting information will feed into school- and system-level evaluation. There
is widespread concern that schools might be judged and compared based on their
students’ results against the standards. This is considered inappropriate because the
standard reporting does not give information about students’ rates of progress or value
added by schools. The simple information about the number of students above and below
the standard, disconnected from other sources of evidence, provides little insight about
the quality of teaching and learning in schools. Also, while National Standards intend to
provide a nationally standardised measure of students’ foundation skills, assessment
practices vary between schools. If the standards information is to be used to monitor
academic outcomes at the national level, further steps need to be taken to ensure that the
assessment information is indeed nationally consistent.
An important strength of the New Zealand approach to education system evaluation is
the clarity of strategic objectives, coupled with transparent frameworks for reporting on
progress and performance. The Ministry of Education sets priorities through its annual
Statement of Intent and an Education Indicators Framework has been developed to
analyse the state of the education system and monitor trends over time. There are also
national education strategies defining system-level goals for particular student groups,
such as the Māori Education Strategy, the Pasifika Education Plan and the Disability
Strategy. Information about education system performance is collected through a range of
tools including sample-based international and national assessments, school roll returns
and thematic reviews on particular schooling issues and priorities. ERO publishes
Education Evaluation Reports on national education issues that inform both policy and
practice. The richness of data available in New Zealand is commendable. There is still a
need for more fine-grained data in specific key areas including students’ and teachers’
linguistic backgrounds. While New Zealand collects data on the three major ethnic
groups, as the information system evolves it would also be of interest to further
disaggregate data on the achievement and progress of different Pasifika groups and other
cultural groups.
The education system aims to make the best use of student assessment data to inform
decision making at all levels while limiting possible negative impacts of high-stakes
assessment. Instead of testing a whole student cohort every year, New Zealand monitors
education system performance through sample-based assessments that do not carry high
stakes for individual students, teachers or schools. High quality information on student
learning outcomes in all curriculum areas is collected from the National Education
Monitoring Project (NEMP) in primary education and from assessment for qualifications
(NCEA) in secondary education. These assessments cover a wide range of curriculum
goals and emphasise authentic and performance-based items, including group work,
hands-on tasks and project work. While it can be challenging to score such open-ended
tasks reliably, New Zealand has put in place strong tools and training for assessors and a
range of moderation mechanisms that ensure the consistency of national assessment
results. However, NEMP was discontinued in Māori immersion schools and hence, there
is currently insufficient national level information on the learning outcomes of students
enrolled in the Māori-medium sector. The national monitoring system will also need to be
adjusted to match recent changes such as the introduction of The New Zealand
Curriculum and National Standards.
To optimise complementarity, avoid duplication and prevent inconsistencies of
evaluation practices at different levels of the system, the New Zealand authorities could
consider developing an overall mapping or framework for the entire evaluation and
assessment system. The idea would not be to introduce a new strategy or approach to
evaluation and assessment, but to take stock of existing research syntheses, position
papers, standards and indicators to integrate them in a coherent and concise framework.
The overarching goal would be to propose a higher level of integration and coherence of
the different components of evaluation and assessment. The outcome of such a mapping
process could be a concise document providing a framework for evaluation and
assessment approaches at student, teacher, school and system level. This framework
could outline how the different elements are interrelated and describe for each individual
component (1) the purpose and goals of the process, (2) evidence-based principles of
effective practice, (3) available tools and reference standards for implementation, and
(4) reporting requirements and/or intended use of results. The process of developing such
a framework document of evaluation and assessment levels would provide an opportunity
to analyse the various linkages between different components and identify missing links
and articulations in need of strengthening.
Bringing together national strategies and school practices is challenging in
New Zealand’s highly devolved education system. More locally or regionally based
structures for school development could provide support that responds to local needs
while helping to develop more consistently effective practice across New Zealand.
A major step in this direction would be to reinforce the school support role of Regional
Offices of the Ministry of Education. Being closer to the local level than the national
Ministry, the Regional Offices could offer high quality advice to school professionals and
support them in using their planning and reporting structures for continuous
improvement. An important aspect of such a regional structure would be to establish
collective knowledge-building and sharing so as to facilitate innovation and system
learning. A regional school support structure could also serve as a platform for school
leaders in the same area to collaborate and work towards a systematic approach to
evaluation and assessment. These suggestions are in line with recent developments to
strengthen the regional role of the Ministry of Education, such as the establishment of a
“Student Achievement Function” within the regions of the Ministry of Education.
Because student assessment plays such an important role at all levels of the education
system, the needs for the development of teachers’ professional assessment skills are
large. School professionals need to develop not only the capacity to use, interpret and
follow up on results obtained from nationally provided assessment tools, but also to
develop valid and reliable assessment tools to meet their own specific local needs. Initial
teacher training and professional learning opportunities need to provide teachers with
expertise and skills to be innovative in the design of personalised assessment approaches
that respond to the diversity of learner profiles within the comprehensive school.
Teachers also need to be trained to be sensitive to cultural and linguistic aspects of
learning when assessing students from diverse backgrounds. Skills for communicating
assessment results effectively without oversimplifying the complex issues involved in
student learning are also essential. Exemplars of good practice in data collection,
reporting and communication should be provided nationally to make sure some minimal
requirements are met. Central agencies could consider developing a unique set of
teachers’ competencies in assessment to set clear targets for teacher initial training and
professional development in this area.
Alongside general training in assessment literacy, effort should be directed towards
increasing the skills of school staff in the use and interpretation of data for school
improvement. Schools need to be further supported in their approaches to collecting
school-wide assessment data and in disaggregating data for relevant sub-groups including
different ethnic and language groups. More emphasis should also be placed on using data
to monitor the effectiveness of school programmes, initiatives and teaching approaches
for different sub-groups of students. There is also a need to focus on helping schools
interpret and translate evaluative information into action. Boards of Trustees play a key
role in school evaluation and need to develop the capacity to understand, interpret and
make decisions based on school results. They should be supported through learning
opportunities that help demystify data, make data more user-friendly and give Boards
confidence to hold “courageous conversations” with their principal.
There are a range of options for the Ministry of Education to work towards
embedding the standards over time and support schools in making reliable and
consistent assessments against the standards. First, the introduction of National
Standards should be used as an opportunity to further focus attention on building
assessment capacity across the primary school system. This requires ongoing
investment in professional development opportunities that support teachers’ capacity to
assess students specifically in the context of the National Standards. Second, it is
essential to clarify the role of the existing assessment tools in relation to the new
National Standards. It would be helpful to ensure that the benchmarks of National
Standards are more closely aligned with the progression levels and measurement scales
of the existing assessment tools. There is also a need to properly align primary school
standards with those of secondary school so as to facilitate transitions for students.
Third, the national authorities should encourage and support systematic moderation
procedures linked to the reporting on standards. Moderation can improve the
dependability of overall teacher judgements and remediation strategies while also
providing valuable professional learning for teachers. Fourth, it would be helpful to
establish feedback channels for teachers to report on how the National Standards work
for them in practice, and where they would suggest improvements. Finally, while it is
important to further embed the National Standards in the assessment system, it is
essential to sustain work on learning progressions in subject matters other than literacy
and numeracy.
A framework of teaching standards is essential as a reference point for teacher
appraisal. The current co-existence of two sets of teaching standards in the country as
well as the lack of clarity about their respective use call for their consolidation into a
single set of standards so there is a clear shared understanding of what counts as
accomplished teaching. The consolidated standards should describe competencies for
different roles and career steps of teachers. This would recognise the variety of
responsibilities in today’s schools, and teachers’ acquired knowledge, skill sets and
expertise developed while on the job. Alignment between teaching standards and a career
structure for teachers would then allow teacher registration to be conceived as
career-progression appraisal. This should include an element of externality such as an
accredited external evaluator, be based on classroom observation and a range of data
required to demonstrate teacher effectiveness and take into consideration the teacher’s
own views.
Given that there are risks in bringing together both accountability and improvement
functions in a single teacher appraisal process, it is recommended that teacher appraisal as
part of performance management processes is conceived as predominantly for
improvement (developmental appraisal). This developmental appraisal would be an
internal process carried out by line managers, senior peers, and the school principal, but
the process would need to be strengthened and validated externally. It should include
self-appraisal, peer appraisal, classroom observation, and structured conversations and
regular feedback by the school principal and experienced peers. The main outcome would
be feedback on the performance of the teacher which would lead to a plan for
professional development. To ensure effective school-based teacher appraisal, it is
important to build capacity in appraisal methods by preparing members of the
management group or expert teachers to undertake specific appraisal functions within the
school. It is also important to reinforce the linkages between teacher professional
development and school development. The schools that associate identified individual
needs with school priorities, and that also manage to develop the corresponding
professional development activities, are likely to perform well.
Given that the systems of school evaluation and teacher appraisal have both the
objectives of maintaining standards and improving student performance, there are likely
to be great benefits from the synergies between school evaluation and teacher appraisal.
To achieve the greatest impact, the focus of school evaluation should either be linked to
or have an effect on the focus of teacher appraisal. This indicates that school evaluation
should comprise the monitoring of the quality of teaching and learning. This is already
the case in ERO’s school reviews through the choice of “effective teaching” as one of the
six dimensions of effective practice, the comment on teacher quality overall in the school,
classroom observations, and the dialogue with teachers. School evaluation could also play
a role in guaranteeing that systematic and coherent developmental appraisal is conducted
in all schools across New Zealand. An option is that ERO reviews, in their evaluation of
the quality of teaching and learning, include the review of the processes in place to
organise developmental appraisal, holding the school’s Board of Trustees accountable as
necessary. This would ensure that minimum standards for developmental teacher
appraisal are met and that every teacher receives proper professional feedback.
Schools also need to build appropriate expertise related to effective teacher appraisal
and school self-review. Given the key role of school leadership in New Zealand’s
devolved education context, it is difficult to envisage either effective teacher appraisal or
productive school self-review without strong leadership capacity. Hence, the recruitment,
development and support for school leaders is of key importance in creating and
sustaining strong school evaluation cultures. There is a need to continue building the
credibility and competencies of all school leaders with an educational focus so that they
can lead self-review processes and operate effective feedback and coaching arrangements
for their staff. Alongside extending access to professional development programmes for
all those who exercise a leadership role, other elements of the national strategy might
include broad dissemination to school leaders of resources and support for whole school
review, including the direct evaluation of instructional practice and the strategic planning
of teacher professional development. Further enhancing the performance appraisal of
school leadership is also important to provide leaders with external feedback, identifying
areas of needed improvement and offering targeted support to improve practice.
It is a challenge to find the perfect balance in school evaluation between the
collaborative use of data for school improvement and the use of data for accountability.
The policy implications are to maintain and reinforce the improvement focus and to help
schools develop a strong sense of internal accountability through which it becomes easier
for them to have a credible story to tell to external bodies. As the cornerstone of the
quality assurance system, self-review needs both consolidation and enhancing. Learning
to measure what is valued should be modelled and promoted by the Ministry and ERO.
Ongoing support is needed to ensure that professionals in schools have the capacity to
conduct effective self-review covering the whole breadth of the curriculum and focus on
raising learning outcomes in all the areas it covers. Capacity for school evaluation and
improvement could also be strengthened by involving practitioners integrally in the role
of peer evaluators or participating in ERO review teams. The education system could
draw on the expertise of principals and school staff from leading-edge schools to engage
them as change agents working with other schools to build good practice across the
system.
While self-review may suggest an internal self-sufficient process, there is strong
evidence internationally as well as in New Zealand that schools benefit from the support
and challenge of a critical friend. Working with an “experienced other”, such as a
professional development provider or in-school leader of professional learning, is likely
to result in deeper learning. At policy level, such arrangements may be either strongly
encouraged or institutionalised. There is also much potential for schools to collaborate
and learn from each other in the process of school evaluation. Providing funding for
clusters of schools to work collaboratively would provide an incentive and stimulate
collegial networking, peer exchange, sharing and critiquing of practice, fostering a sense
of common direction. A starting point could be with principals working together to
identify common challenges, devising common strategies and approaches to peer
evaluation. The process would benefit from the appointment of an external facilitator or
critical friend chosen and agreed by the principals themselves. Within such clusters of
schools, professional learning communities of leaders and teachers from neighbouring
schools could pool existing data from a range of schools and build a collective
understanding of how to interpret such outcome data.
Given a significant level of dissatisfaction with annual reporting by schools, the
nature and use of these reports should be revisited. There is a need to closely examine the
relative costs and benefits of different forms of reporting and the form that teachers and
school leaders would find most productive. If self-review and ERO reviews are both
formative, the annual review should reflect ways in which they have contributed to
professional development and school improvement. There is a need to bring clarity as to
whose interests annual reports are designed to serve. To optimise the use of the data
brought together by schools in their annual reports, it would be important that the reports
are not merely used as provider of data for higher levels of the educational administration,
but that schools also receive useful feedback based on the information provided. The
reports could be used as a basis for Regional Offices of the Ministry of Education to
engage in discussion with schools and Boards of Trustees. There is also a need to
strengthen the alignment between school annual reporting, school self-review and ERO
reviews. If the annual reports are to be used for education system monitoring, there is a
need to ensure greater consistency in the format and content of the reports across schools.
Clarify the ways in which information from national standards reporting will be used
Resistance to National Standards partly stems from concerns about the lack of clarity
regarding the use of the information from standards-based reporting by the national
authorities. It is of utmost importance to clarify what kind of information standards-based
reporting can and cannot provide, who should have access to the information and what
uses of the information are considered appropriate. For the purpose of reporting to
parents, consideration should be given to introducing a nuanced reporting system that
describes different levels of individual student achievement and progress, rather than just
a cut-off point for determining whether students are above or below the standards. For the
purpose of school evaluation, it should be ensured that the information from standards
reporting is actually used and useful for schools in reviewing their progress and
improving teaching and learning approaches. At the same time, it is essential to ensure
that the focus of National Standards on literacy and numeracy does not marginalise other
learning areas where measurement of school performance and progress is more
challenging. For the purpose of national system monitoring, appropriate moderation
arrangements need to be in place to ensure that the reporting information is reliable and
nationally consistent.
In order to continue to meet information needs to adequately monitor progress
towards national education goals, it is important to strengthen the information system
regarding diverse groups of students. This could involve further disaggregating
information on different sub-groups of Pasifika students and other ethnic groups in
regions where such information is relevant. The immediate priority is to ensure better
monitoring information towards the Ministry’s strategic goal of “Māori achieving
education success as Māori.” This requires collecting data on student learning outcomes
in Māori-medium schools and settings. Implementing a revised version of NEMP in
Māori-medium settings has the potential to produce highly valuable system-level
information. To design adequate strategies for second language learners, the Ministry
should consider gathering more information on students’ linguistic profiles. In particular,
it would be useful to begin collecting data on the languages students speak at home and
proficiency in their first and second language. More comprehensive data on the linguistic
profiles of students would be helpful in designing a language strategy at the national level
and making decisions about specific resources and support allocated to second language
learners.