1 NZPF Moot – April 2008 Graham Stoop Chief Review Officer

2 NZPF Moot – April 2008 I want to do two things today: 1.Talk about the value that evaluation has to you as school principals. I want to encourage you to think about this value 2.Talk about how ERO is taking the good things that have occurred over recent years and moving forward with them

3 NZPF Moot – April 2008 The value of evaluation School self-evaluation is a process of:  Conceiving  Collecting  Analysing  Communicating information

4 NZPF Moot – April 2008 This process has several purposes:  Inform decision-making in a school

5 NZPF Moot – April 2008 “Well, Lemme think. …You’ve stumped me, son. Most folks only wanna know how to go the other way

6 NZPF Moot – April 2008 Purposes - cont  Demonstrate professional accountability  Ascribe value or worth  Establish public confidence in the school

7 NZPF Moot – April 2008 Self-accountable professionals:  Not only reflect upon their practice to improve internal working of a school generally  Evaluate against criteria and standards  Research shortfalls in provision/performance  Respond to changes, experiment  Evaluate and develop new programmes  Engage in negotiation; make findings accessible

8 NZPF Moot – April 2008 Evaluation has wider benefits too:  Accountability  Development  Knowledge  Creativity  Moral purpose in a democratic society

9 NZPF Moot – April 2008  Assurance/audit is something different – a technology  Evaluation isn’t just a technology for assuring the effective and efficient management of society  Evaluation isn’t just a technical undertaking – application of tools, systems, procedures for determining goal attainment, outcomes, effects, and polices  Evaluation is an independent kind of questioning and informed critical analysis  I believe in the role and purpose of evaluation. It is a crucial practice in an open, democratic society

10 NZPF Moot – April 2008 Evaluation serves professional and ethical purposes:  Supporting and strengthening collective professional development of teachers and schools can improve the quality of education  Evaluation is an important process in a collaborative culture where all groups can safely, critically, and publicly evaluate their work and conditions  Schools that implement processes of on-going self-evaluation and open this to public scrutiny demonstrate professional accountability and moral purpose

11 NZPF Moot – April 2008 ERO looking forward  How can we link what I have just been talking about to ERO’s role as an external evaluation agency?

12 NZPF Moot – April 2008 ERO’s Education Reviews  Two purposes:  Evaluation for accountability  Evaluation for improvement

13 NZPF Moot – April 2008  As long as governments finance schools, forms of monitoring will always have to be devised and schools will need to be accountable

14 NZPF Moot – April 2008 At present primary responsibility for educational quality lies with the school:  School improvement plans  Internal evaluation of quality  Planning and reporting initiatives How do we match the need for governments to be assured about public investment on the one hand, and schools’ autonomy on the other?

15 NZPF Moot – April 2008 Key issue The responsibilitites for quality assurance are spread across various partners

16 NZPF Moot – April 2008  Outcomes are more likely to be good when external and internal evaluation complement each other  i.e. when a school’s self-review information is used to inform ERO’s judgements

17 NZPF Moot – April 2008  You have all had a review in the past few years. You know that ERO’s current methodology is flexible and responsive – not at all one-size-fits-all  There is scope in an ERO review both for schools with excellent internal review processes – and for those that need the specific direction that an ERO review can give

18 NZPF Moot – April 2008  Some schools are leaping ahead in their capacity for internal review  ERO already has the ability, in its review cycle, to customise its reviews of these schools – the overall goal being better outcomes for students

19 NZPF Moot – April 2008  ERO will develop its review methodology to increase schools’ evaluation capacity  This is a specific project over the next 12 to 18 months

20 NZPF Moot – April 2008 ERO may run a pilot programme. This would be grounded in the theory of evaluation practice and take into account:  Accountability and school development dimensions of evaluation  Legally anchored expectations  School and community internal expectations

21 NZPF Moot – April 2008  As a further capacity-building initiative, ERO will also review how it uses principals and other senior staff members in the ERO external review process  Greater understanding of the ERO methodology and its application will help school leaders and trustees to apply the methodology in their own context

22 NZPF Moot – April 2008 Options that could be reviewed:  The role of a friend of the school  Placement of senior school staff in ERO for professional development  Designation of relieving review officers  Secondment to ERO as temporary review officers

23 NZPF Moot – April 2008 Key issue The responsibilities for quality assurance are spread across various partners

24 NZPF Moot – April 2008 In ERO In the schooling sector In the wider community Internal External Schools Kura and Kōhanga Early childhood services Building Capacity in Evaluation