Principals worried by ERO report changes

RNZ News

15-05-2025

Photo:
123RF
The Principals Federation is worried new-look Education Review Office reports are too hard on underperforming schools and will damage the watchdog's relationship with schools.
Since February, ERO's reviews of primary schools included a section titled "parent summary" with brief answers to questions including "How well are learners succeeding?" and "What is the quality of teaching and learning?"
They also stated how students were performing in reading, writing, maths and attendance.
Some of the more negative comments in recent reports included:
The review office said the new reports were more parent-friendly and initial feedback from principals was positive.
Chief review officer Nicholas Pole told RNZ in a statement ERO had spoken to more than half of the schools that had received the new style reports.
"Their feedback is overwhelmingly positive. Most principals view the new reports as clear, concise and simple and easy to read. Almost all principals said the report aligns well with current priorities," he said.
But the Principals Federation said it was worried by the change and principals spoken to by RNZ said the reports were too simplistic and risked a return to high-stakes audits that could make or break a school's reputation in the community.
Photo:
123RF
Federation president Leanne Otene said it was worried the reports had swung too far toward public accountability.
She said there had already been a case where a principal was unfairly exposed to public criticism without sufficient support.
"We've got a beginning principal who's gone into a school, the school's halfway through a reporting process. She's been in there for six months. She gets a community report, and it is shocking, it's not the greatest report. You've got the community now up in arms because they've seen that things need to improve in so many various different areas. Now, is it fair that that a beginning principal should have all that pressure? I would say no," Otene said.
She said ERO should have waited, worked with the school and then published a report that highlighted the changes the new principal had made.
"When things are going well, the reports are excellent. When things are not going well, it's very clear that this could have an impact on those communities and we need to make sure that principals and teachers have got support when things are not going so well," she said.
Otene said ERO had changed its reviews over time to focus on supporting schools to improve.
That involved developing trust between schools and reviewers and the federation feared the new reports put that at risk.
"We're concerned that it will change once more schools have this type of reporting. That that relationship of trust, of sharing where you need to improve will fall away."
Canterbury Primary Principals Association president Lisa Dillon-Roberts said the new reports had a narrower focus than in the past and she worried rich information about schools could be overlooked.
"There is a lot of information collated between the ERO evaluative partners and the school leaders. But actually when it comes time to write the report it has to fit into quite a narrow category and I wonder if there is a wide band of progress that is being missed," she said.
Dillon-Roberts said part of the ERO evaluation was completed online by principals using drop down menus which restricted the options they could choose.
She said schools still found value in working with the reviewers, known as evaluative partners, who supported schools to improve.
Dunedin North Intermediate principal Heidi Hayward said ERO was most useful when it helped schools improve.
But she worried the new style of report would hamper that goal.
"Anybody who's been involved in staff appraisal will know that if the stakes are really high the staff member, or in this case the school, is less likely to be open and honest about the aspects of the job that they need support with," she said.
"So I think one of the concerns is that if it feels like it's a report going directly to parents and that it's too raw, then schools will clam up."
Hayward said ERO had been moving to an approach where reviewers stayed in touch with a school over several years rather than basing their reviews on one-off visits.
She said it needed to keep it that way.
"The risk with any short-term, high-stakes evaluation is that schools feel the need to sugar-coat, and they don't feel they can be as vulnerable and open enough that they need to be to address the things that will really bring about positive change for students," she said.
Secondary school reports changed about a year ago to include sections on learner success including attendance.
Heretaunga College was reviewed recently and principal John Murdoch said the new reports were not terribly useful for parents.
"The visit this time was really strong, a really experienced group, but the report at the end falls way down in terms of really being any use to parents," he said.
Murdoch said the reports needed to provide more information for parents.
"Parents could misunderstand or make an assumption that things are actually fine. I think that needs to be clearer," he said.
Review office school reports did not give a simple pass/fail judgement or even a ranking such as that used by the English school inspectorate, Ofsted.
That was unlike ERO's early childhood reports which included on their first page a table showing whether an early learning service was above or below "the threshold for quality" in five areas including health and safety, leadership and children's learning.
ERO told RNZ its approach to school audits was nuanced.
"It is ERO's view that rather than reducing a school's performance to a single headline judgement, school-based evaluations need to be grounded in a detailed understanding of each school's unique context. Schools are complex, dynamic environments shaped by the needs of their learners, the communities they serve, and the leadership they provide. A single overall judgement can oversimplify these realities and limit opportunities for meaningful improvement," it said.
"Through a more comprehensive, multi-dimensional reporting framework, ERO's approach is committed to an evidence-based evaluation process aimed at supporting more constructive engagement with what's going well and where further support is needed. It also acknowledges the importance of building trust in the evaluation process, promoting the wellbeing of school leaders, and focusing on continuous improvement rather than merely compliance."
ERO said it understood Ofsted would drop its ranking system from September.
Asked if ERO would continue with its new system of maintaining contact with schools rather than making one-off visits every few years, the review office said it would work differently with each school, according to its context, culture and needs.
"If a school is assessed as needing more support to bring about improvements for learners, we will work with the school more often and maintain regular contact and oversight to ensure they stay focused on delivering an agreed improvement plan," it said.
"This method holds schools accountable for addressing underlying concerns. Some schools won't need this level of support, and we will visit less often. Every school receives a published ERO report approximately every three years."
The office said in the 12 months to 9 April, the review reports on its website received 930,743 views.
It said its published reports served multiple objectives.
"They ensure transparency and accountability by making findings publicly available, document the review process and the basis for the judgements made, clarify improvement priorities for stakeholders such as school boards, leadership and staff, and support parents in making informed decisions," it said.