This document explains the evaluation indicators we use when we review schools and kura. These indicators are for use in state and state-integrated schools and kura, but may be of use to other schools also. They are intended for use by schools in their own internal evaluation.
These indicators are based on research and evidence. We update them every few years based on current educational
Indicators background papers
As a starting point for the revision of the Evaluation Indicators for School Reviews (2011) ERO set up an Academic Experts Group. We asked them to:
- provide leadership in a key area of school effectiveness such as governance, curriculum, teaching and learning and engaging parents and families, and
- prepare a critical commentary on the 2011 version of ERO’s evaluation indicators and the underpinning conceptual framework.
Additional background papers discussed promoting and supporting improvement in schools through evaluation and considerations in the selection and use of evaluation indicators.
Some of these papers are referenced in School Evaluation Indicators: Effective Practice for Improvement and Learner Success (2016).
Copies of the papers are available below:
- A commentary on engaging parents, whānau and communities - Associate Professor Mere Berryman
- Considerations in the framing, definition, identification and selection of indicators of education quality and their potential use in evaluation in the
school setting - Dr Lorna Earl
- A theory for improving and revising the leading and managing indicators - Distinguished Professor Viviane Robinson
- Promoting and Supporting Improvement in Schools through External Review - Professor Helen Timperley
- Rethinking Governance Indicators for Effective School Review - Dr Cathy Wylie
How we use these indicators to review
Our reviewers work with schools/kura to decide the focus and design of a review, then collect quantitative and qualitative data relevant to the indicators. This data is considered in relation to the indicators and helps our reviewers and school personnel determine how well schools are ensuring that their students are on track to becoming ‘successful lifelong learners’. Our reviewers work with school personnel so that each school/kura can use these findings to decide and plan how they can continue to improve outcomes for their learners, with a focus on equity and excellence.
We have two types of indicator: outcome and process. The outcomes indicators focus on learners and their success. The process indicators focus on the processes and practices that schools use to support their learners to succeed.
Outcome indicators focus on learners’ wellbeing, development and success. They’re derived from the valued outcomes identified in The New Zealand Curriculum and Te Marautanga o Aotearoa.
These indicators say that each learner is:
- confident in their identity, language and culture as a citizen of New Zealand
- socially and emotionally competent, resilient and optimistic about the future
- a successful, lifelong learner
- participating and contributing confidently in cultural, local, national and global contexts.
Process indicators are grouped under the following six domains and focus on how well schools support their learners.
- Domain 1: Stewardship
- Domain 2: Leadership for equity and excellence
- Domain 3: Educationally powerful connections and relationships
- Domain 4: Responsive curriculum, effective teaching and opportunity to learn
- Domain 5: Professional capability and collective capacity
- Domain 6: Evaluation, inquiry and knowledge building for improvement and innovation
Schools/kura can use these indicators
We encourage schools/kura to use these evaluation indicators as part of their internal evaluation processes.
The Education Review Office (ERO) first introduced evaluation indicators in 2003, revising them in 2010. This new version reflects a deepening understanding of how schools improve, and the role that evaluation plays in that process. It also reflects a strengthened relationship between ERO’s approaches to evaluation
in English-medium and Māori-medium settings. The evaluation indicators and supporting materials will evolve and change over time in the light of new research and evaluation findings.
In undertaking this latest review and revision we have drawn on the expertise of key New Zealand academics: Distinguished Professor Viviane Robinson,
Professor Helen Timperley, Associate Professor Mere Berryman, Dr Cathy Wylie and Dr Claire Sinnema. Dr Lorna Earl’s advice about the selection and use of evaluation indicators has also been invaluable. The work of Dr Adrienne Alton-Lee and contributors to the Best Evidence Synthesis Programme is at the heart of the organising framework for the indicators and the indicators themselves. These experts, together with education leaders and teachers, have provided feedback and advice throughout the development process.
We have also been able to interrogate the framework for the evaluation indicators using a series of case studies. We investigated how schools used evaluation and inquiry to improve outcomes, particularly for Māori and Pacific students. These case studies enabled us to identify the key domains and evaluation indicators at work. They also demonstrated how, in each school, the domains worked together in a coherent manner to promote improved professional practice and outcomes.
School Evaluation Indicators: Effective Practice for Improvement and Learner Success is supported by Effective School Evaluation: How to do and use evaluation for improvement (a resource published jointly by ERO and the Ministry of Education), and Internal Evaluation: Good Practice. Together, these three publications are designed to support the development of evaluation capacity across the education system.
The indicators are designed for use by schools when engaging in internal evaluation and by ERO evaluators when doing external evaluations.
Chief Review Officer Education Review Office
Ko te tamaiti te pūtake o te kaupapa
The child – the heart of the matter
Achieving equity and excellence in student outcomes is the major challenge for New Zealand education.
Our school system is characterised by increasing diversity of students and persistent disparities in achievement. Although many young people achieve at the highest levels in core areas such as reading, mathematics and science, the system serves some students less well.
International assessment studies provide evidence that New Zealand is one of few countries in which the mathematics and science achievement of 15-year-olds is on a trajectory of accelerated decline. The reading achievement of 15-year-olds is also on a steady decline.1 The decline in mathematics and science achievement is particularly significant for Māori,2 reflecting a long history of inequitable learning opportunities available to Māori young people.3
Recent Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) data show that within the same school, young people can experience widely divergent opportunities to learn. This within-school inequality is amongst the highest found anywhere, and it is strongly related to achievement disparities.4
As a nation, our current priorities in education are to reduce achievement disparities within and across schools and to improve education provision, pathways and outcomes for all students. We need to make better use of the knowledge we already have about what makes a bigger difference.
The purpose of internal and external evaluation is to improve education outcomes and to ensure that schools are accountable for their stewardship.
Under the Education Act 1989 all schools are expected to be involved in an ongoing, cyclical process of evaluation and inquiry for improvement. Through the annual reporting process, they are required to report on the achievement of their students, their priorities for improvement, and the actions they plan to take.
New Zealand is recognised internationally as a leader in the area of school evaluation.
[Internal evaluation] is at the core of the quality assurance and improvement process. It is conceived of as a rigorous process in which schools systematically evaluate their practice, using indicators as a framework for inquiry and employing a repertoire of analytic and formative tools.5
A key feature of the New Zealand approach is the integration of internal and external evaluation.
ERO is a government department, set up under the State Sector Act 1988 to evaluate and report publicly on the quality of education provided in New Zealand schools and early childhood services, and on the effective use of public funds. Its role encompasses accountability (including compliance with regulatory requirements), education improvement, and knowledge generation.
The manner in which ERO carries out its mandated responsibilities has changed since the agency was first established in 1989. Current features include:
- a focus on outcomes for students who are not being well served by the education system
- the integration of internal and external evaluation
- a participatory/collaborative approach to the evaluation process
- a context-specific approach to the design, conduct and reporting of evaluations
- an emphasis on evaluation as a learning process for the school and the system
- developing evaluation capacity
ERO’s external evaluations complement the evaluation activities of schools. Where an evaluation determines that student learning or welfare is at risk, ERO will recommend to the Ministry of Education that it intervene.
At the national level, ERO carries out evaluations of education sector performance and policy implementation, and reports on good practice.
The school is the primary agent for change, and high quality internal evaluation processes are fundamental in developing strategic thinking and the capacity for ongoing improvement.6
Twenty-five years of school improvement research has shown that improving schools depends on internal capacity and new learning. It requires motivation (improvement orientation), new knowledge, and the development of new skills, dispositions and relationships. In particular, using indicators to improve practice in schools depends on skill in using data, creating cultures of inquiry, engaging in deep and challenging conversations about practice, and changing long-established beliefs and patterns of practice. Considered this way, indicators and the [evaluation] process itself are tools to support the thinking and action that is part of building professional capital.7
Periodic external evaluation supports schools in their improvement journeys by providing an independent assessment of their performance in terms of excellence and equity of outcomes for every student, and the extent to which internal conditions support ongoing improvement. Insights gained from an external evaluation can act as a catalyst for change.
By embodying in the evaluation indicators what we know about how to best improve valued student outcomes, our intention is to provide a common language for conversations within schools and between schools and ERO. Whether they are being used for internal or external evaluation, the indicators will support evaluative thinking, reasoning, processes, and decision making.8
Together, School Evaluation Indicators: Effective Practice for Improvement and Learner Success, Effective School Evaluation: How to do and use evaluation for improvement and Internal Evaluation: Good Practice provide tools for leading the development of conditions that are essential for increasing internal accountability. This will require a collective commitment to improving learning outcomes for all students, as well as a commitment to strengthening professional capital in schools and across the system.9
Indicators are used at different levels of the education system for different purposes.
At the national level, they provide a means of evaluating how well the system is performing in particular areas of policy interest, for example: education and learning outcomes, student engagement and participation, family and community engagement, and resourcing. This information is supplemented by a range of demographic and contextual data10 and by ERO’s national reports on education issues and effective education practice.
The selection of an indicator depends on the purpose for which it is to be used.
Indicators that are used primarily for accountability purposes typically demand quantitative measures such as scores or ratings. On their own, quantitative data cannot reflect the complexity of a school and its community and they are unlikely to have much effect on school improvement.
When used for improvement purposes, indicators generally demand qualitative data. Using them effectively requires a deep understanding of change theory, iterative use of evidence, and the continuing development of evaluative capacity.11
The primary purpose of ERO’s evaluation indicators is to promote improvement.
The indicators in this document are designed to focus schools and ERO evaluators on the things that matter most in improving student outcomes.
There are two types of indicator: outcome and process.
The outcome indicators are drawn from The New Zealand Curriculum and Te Marautanga o Aotearoa and can be used to assess the impact of school policies and actions. Indicators of student achievement and progress are a direct measure of what it is that schools are expected to achieve. Those related to students’ confidence in their identity, language and culture, and to wellbeing, participation and contribution are important in their own right as well as being essential for achievement and progress.
The process indicators describe practices and processes that contribute to school effectiveness and improvement. They are organised in six key domains that work together to promote equity and excellence in student outcomes. They will assist schools to identify areas in which changes are needed.
Where evaluation against the outcome indicators indicates poor performance, the process indicators can be used as a tool for investigating the school conditions that are contributing to this poor performance. Where evaluation against the outcome indicators indicates excellent performance, the process indicators can be used as a tool for analysing which school processes and activities have contributed to this excellent performance.
The following eight principles have guided the design of the framework and the selection of indicators.
- focus on valued outcomes for diverse (all) students as articulated in The New Zealand Curriculum and Te Marautanga o Aotearoa
- focus on the school conditions that promote equity and excellence
- foreground the relationships required to enact the Treaty of Waitangi
- are underpinned by a research-based theory of improvement
- reflect the interconnected nature of the organisational conditions that promote and sustain improvement and innovation
- describe what is observable or measurable
- signal the shift to an evaluation orientation that requires deep professional expertise and engagement.
The New Zealand Curriculum and Te Marautanga o Aotearoa set the direction for learning in our schools. These two curriculum frameworks are supported by national achievement standards and by other key policy documents such as Ka Hikitia, the Pasifika Education Plan and Success for All – Every School, Every Child. Collectively, these documents describe the outcomes we want for all learners.
The New Zealand Curriculum encapsulates these outcomes in its vision of young people who are ‘confident, connected, actively involved, lifelong learners’. This is the vision at the heart of the indicators framework. Realising it will mean that every young person is:
- confident in their identity, language and culture as a citizen of Aotearoa New Zealand12
- socially and emotionally competent, resilient and optimistic about the future13
- a successful lifelong learner
- participating and contributing confidently in a range of contexts (cultural, local, national and global) to shape a sustainable world of the future.14
At the centre are learners. Closest to learners are the two key conditions for learning: Responsive curriculum, effective teaching and opportunity to learn; and, Educationally powerful connections and relationships. Moving outward, the next circle shows the Māori concepts for culturally responsive schooling: manaakitanga, whanaungatanga, ako and mahi tahi. The next circle shows the school organisational conditions: Stewardship, Leadership for equity and excellence and Professional capability and collective capacity. The final, outer circle encompasses the rest and shows the domain of Evaluation, inquiry and knowledge building for improvement and innovation. The diagram suggests interaction and connection between and across the domains to support learners.
The indicators framework is organised around six domains that have been shown by current research and evaluation findings to contribute to the goal of improving student outcomes:
- leadership for equity and excellence
- educationally powerful connections and relationships
- responsive curriculum, effective teaching and opportunity to learn
- professional capability and collective capacity15
- evaluation, inquiry and knowledge building for improvement and innovation.
The domains educationally powerful connections and responsive curriculum, effective teaching and opportunity to learn have the most significant influence on outcomes for students.
The relative influence of these two domains on student outcomes is a result of the quality and effectiveness of stewardship, leadership for equity and excellence, professional capability and collective capacity and evaluation, inquiry and knowledge building processes.
Effective schools are characterised by quality practices in all domains and by the coherent way in which they are integrated.
ERO is committed to honouring Te Tiriti o Waitangi as the founding document of Aotearoa New Zealand and the agreement that underpins relationships between Māori and the Crown. ERO’s internal strategy document, He Toa Takitini: Accelerating Outcomes for Māori 2013–2017 – a response to the Ministry of Education’s Ka Hikitia – reaffirms this commitment and calls for intensified action. ERO is also committed to promoting the achievement and success of Pacific students; its strategy for doing this is set out in Pacific Strategy 2013–2017.
We have a growing evidence base in New Zealand about how to most effectively promote excellence and equity for diverse learners. It is clear that to achieve equitable outcomes we must focus on accelerating achievement for those who have been under-served by the system, in particular Māori and Pacific students. We also know that school and classroom practices that work for Māori are likely to improve outcomes for all.
Learning in an environment where a culturally responsive pedagogy of relations is the norm significantly improves valued outcomes for Māori.16 Berryman17 advises leaders and teachers to look at the learning environment in their school and ask themselves to what extent:
- relationships of care and connectedness are fundamental (whanaungatanga)
- Power is shared and learners have the right to equity and self-determination (mahi tahi, kotahitanga)
- culture counts; learners’ understandings form the basis of their identity and learning (whakapapa)
- learning is interactive, dialogic (rather than monologic) and iterative (ako)
- decision making and practice is responsive to relevant evidence (wānanga)
- a common vision and interdependent roles and responsibilities focus on the potential of learners (kaupapa).18
The evaluation indicators framework gives prominence to the concepts of manaakitanga, whanaungatanga, ako and mahi tahi because they collectively provide the foundation for an approach to education that is culturally responsive and challenges educationally limiting deficit theorising.19 These concepts provide a lens through which we can examine how effectively our current school processes, practices and activities are promoting equitable outcomes for all students.
The following explanations of these concepts are drawn largely from Berryman et al;20 Berryman;21 and Bishop, Ladwig and Berryman.22
Manaaki embodies the concepts of mana (authority) and aki (to encourage and acknowledge). Manaakitanga describes the immediate obligation and authority of the host to care for their visitor’s emotional, spiritual, physical and mental wellbeing. Within this type of interaction there is a responsibility to provide reciprocal support.
In the school context, these understandings point to the need to care for children and young people as culturally located human beings by providing a safe, nurturing environment. This will include developing and sustaining the language, culture and identity of every student to ensure that they have the best opportunity to learn and experience educational success. The reciprocal nature of manaakitanga also encourages students and their whānau to actively contribute to this success.
Whakawhanaungatanga describes the process of establishing links, making connections, and relating to the people one meets by identifying in culturally appropriate ways, whakapapa linkages, past heritages, points of engagement, and other relationships. Establishing whānau connections involves recognising kinship in its widest sense.
Whanaungatanga affirms the centrality of extended family-like relationships, along with all the “rights and responsibilities, commitments and obligations, and supports that are fundamental to the collectivity”.23 Whanaungatanga also reaches beyond actual whakapapa relationships to include people who, through shared experiences, feel and act as kin. Whanaungatanga relationships are reciprocal: the group supports the individual with the expectation that the individual will support the group.
Applied to the school context, whanaungatanga demands quality teaching-learning relationships and interactions and that the teacher take agency in establishing a whānau-based environment that supports engagement and learning.
The evidence suggests that whanaungatanga, while not sufficient, is “foundational and necessary for effectively teaching Māori students ... As whanaungatanga increases, the probability of high cognitive demand increases. When the level of whanaungatanga was mid-range or higher, the lowest levels of engagement disappeared.”24
Ako describes a reciprocal teaching and learning relationship “where the child is both teacher and learner”25 and the teacher also learns from the child. Ako recognises that the student’s whānau is inseparably part of learning and teaching.
It is the acquisition of knowledge as well as the imparting of knowledge ... Ako as a process does not assume any power relationship between teacher and student but instead it serves to validate dual learning or reciprocal learning experiences that in turn promulgate shared learning.26
Mahi tahi (or mahi ngātahi) describes the unity of a group of people working towards a specific goal or on a specific task, often in a hands-on fashion. The solidarity that mahi tahi engenders is powerful; it builds relationships that can continue well after the goal has been fulfilled or the project completed.27
In the school context, mahi tahi describes the business of working together collaboratively in the pursuit of learner-centred education goals. This is an important aspect of all six domains in the indicators framework.
Like learning in the classroom, improving education outcomes is a collaborative enterprise. A growing evidence base confirms this: collaboration focused on improving teaching and learning has a strong effect on student, school and system performance.28 Successful collaborations involve working together on shared challenges that have been identified through the use of evidence.
Especially for those in challenging situations, networks and communities of learning can provide important opportunities to share, build knowledge and expertise, and stimulate improvement and innovation.29 However the effectiveness of networks and communities depends on the protocols they adopt and what they actually do: “the right drivers are: capacity building, collaboration, pedogogy, and systemness”.30 Leadership plays a crucial role in: developing the conditions for collaboration, ensuring coherent processes of inquiry, and stimulating collective efforts to explore new possibilities and sustain improvement.31
The evaluation indicators framework can be used to support education effectiveness and improvement in a range of contexts – schools, communities of learning, or at the system level.
The following sections set out the outcome indicators and the process indicators.
The learner-focused outcome indicators are derived from the valued outcomes identified in The New Zealand Curriculum and Te Marautanga o Aotearoa. They assume a holistic approach to learners’ wellbeing, development and success. They also support the three goals identified by Mason Durie as critical for the educational advancement of Māori: enabling Māori to live as Māori, facilitating participation as citizens of the world, and contributing towards good health and a high standard of living.32
The process indicators are organised in terms of six key domains found to influence school effectiveness and student outcomes. They are drawn from research and evaluation evidence linked to outcomes and are illustrated by examples of effective practice.
It is important that evaluators and educators draw on rich sources of quantitative and qualitative data to inform their evaluations. For example, achievement data is one source of information that can be used to assess whether students are on track to becoming ‘successful lifelong learners’, but data from student surveys, focus groups or classroom observations are likely to be needed for insight into students’ learning-to-learn strategies or digital literacy.
Student voice is a crucial source of information about the quality and effectiveness of the learning opportunities provided by the school or an individual teacher.
Students’ insights and perspectives are an important tool for supporting evaluative thinking and determining priorities for action.
Effective School Evaluation: How to do and use evaluation for improvement and Internal Evaluation: Good Practice provide support for, and examples of, effective internal evaluation.
The processes form an outer circle, linked at each stage to each other and to learners at the centre. The cycle of processes starts with Noticing. It moves next to Investigating. This is followed by Collaborative sense making. From there to Prioritising to take action. The cycle concludes with Monitoring and evaluating impact. From there the cycle repeats. The central theme is stated as We can do better.
Every student is a confident, connected, actively involved, lifelong learner …
- are confident in their identity, language and culture
- value diversity and difference: cultural, linguistic, gender, special needs and abilities
- represent and advocate for self and others
- promote fairness and social justice and respect human rights
- use cultural knowledge and understandings to contribute to the creation of an Aotearoa New Zealand in which Māori and Pākehā recognise each other as full Treaty partners
- show a clear sense of self in relation to cultural, local, national and global contexts.
- enjoy a sense of belonging and connection to school, whānau, friends and the community
- feel included, cared for, and safe and secure
- establish and maintain positive relationships, respect others’ needs and show empathy
- are able to take a leadership role and make informed and responsible decisions
- are physically active and lead a healthy lifestyle
- self-manage and show self-efficacy
- are resilient and adaptable in new and changing contexts.
- demonstrate strong literacy and mathematics understanding and skills and achieve success across the learning areas of The New Zealand Curriculum and/or Te Marautanga o Aotearoa
- are curious and enjoy intellectual engagement
- draw on multiple perspectives and disciplinary knowledge to actively seek, use and create new knowledge and understandings
- are technologically fluent and take a discerning approach to the use of technology
- are digitally fluent, using a range of e-learning tools to enhance learning
- who are Māori enjoy education success as Māori
- Confidently tackle challenging tasks and are resilient and persevering in the face of difficulties and failure
- use multiple strategies for learning and problem solving
- collaborate with, learn from, and facilitate the learning of others
- set personal goals and self-evaluate against required performance levels
- develop the ability to reflect on their own thinking and learning processes
- in primary education achieve success in relation to National Standards in mathematics, reading, and writing
- in post-primary education achieve success at levels 1, 2 and 3 of the National Certificate of Education Achievement (NCEA)
- determine and participate in coherent education pathways that connect to further education or employment.
- think critically and creatively, applying knowledge from different disciplines in complex and dynamic contexts
- are energetic and enterprising, effectively navigating challenges and opportunities
- work collaboratively to respond to problems not previously encountered, developing new solutions and approaches
- understand, participate in, and contribute to cultural, local, national and global communities
- are critical, informed, active and responsible citizens
- can evaluate the sustainability of a range of social, cultural, economic, political and environmental practices
- are ethical decision makers and guardians of the world of the future.
New Zealand has devolved educational governance to local boards of trustees of which the principal and a staff representative are members, as is a student
representative in the case of secondary schools. This means that there is a close relationship between governance and leadership, and the expectation is that trustees will work strategically and collaboratively with the principal, staff and students to realise the school community’s vision and values and achieve agreed goals and targets.
The stewardship role of boards encompasses both accountability and improvement functions. Boards have specific legal responsibilities under the Education Act 1989. Although evidence relating to the effectiveness of boards is limited, recent studies suggest that an improvement-oriented stewardship role is most likely to promote enhanced learning outcomes.35
Effective stewardship involves planning for, and acting in, the school’s medium and long-term interests. To set strategic direction, goals and priorities, the board needs trustworthy information about the needs and aspirations of the students and the school community. Once strategic direction is agreed, policies, processes and practices must be aligned. How effectively boards represent and serve the school community depends very largely on their members’ ability to establish trust-based relationships.
The main task of a board of trustees is scrutiny, including self-scrutiny: ‘Are we doing the right thing here?’ This scrutiny should focus on valued student outcomes, transparent sharing of information (without which scrutiny is impossible), and ongoing evaluation of performance in relation to goals and targets: ‘What difference will this make for students, and how will we know?’ Effective boards seek honest, insightful evaluation and are willing to take hard decisions in the interests of students.
Board members exercise agency in their role, drawing on their networks and expertise to strengthen organisational capacity and effectiveness.36
Evaluation indicator: The board actively represents and serves the school and education community in its stewardship role
Relationships between trustees and professional leaders are based on:
- trust, integrity and openness
- clarity about roles and responsibilities
- transparent sharing of knowledge in the interests of improving valued outcomes.
The board works with the school community to develop and periodically refresh the school’s vision, values, strategic direction, and equity and excellence goals and targets.
The board recruits, appoints and supports a principal who will pursue the school’s vision, implement its values and strategic direction, and realise its equity and excellence goals and targets.
The board ensures the school curriculum is inclusive and responsive to local needs, contexts and the environment, and enables all students to become confident, connected, actively involved, lifelong learners.
The board builds relational trust and develops culturally responsive relationships with the school community to ensure active, reciprocal communication with, and participation in, the life of the school.
The board proactively develops networks that enable the school to extend and enrich the curriculum and increase the learning opportunities and pathways available to students and contributes to other schools’ capacity to do so.
Evaluation indicator: The board scrutinises the effectiveness of the school in achieving valued student outcomes
Student learning, wellbeing, achievement and progress is the board’s core concern.
Trustees access a range of quality student data and evaluative information, including the perspectives of students, parents, whānau and community, and use it to support:
- their understanding of what is going well, and why, and not well, and why
- identification of priorities and targets, based on analysis of trends, patterns and progress
- the asking of challenging questions about planning and process (‘What difference will this make for students, and how will we know?’)
- the making of decisions that will improve student outcomes, taking into account evidence about the effectiveness of any proposed approach
- coherent planning and development
- strategic resourcing of strategies directed at improving student outcomes
- rigorous, honest evaluation of the effectiveness of strategies designed to improve student outcomes.
The board manages the performance of the principal, linking appraisal goals to the school’s strategic goals and priorities and to appropriate professional learning and development opportunities.
Evaluation indicator: The board evaluates how effectively it is fulfilling the stewardship role with which it has been entrusted
- have a shared understanding of the trustee role and responsibilities
- identify and use each other’s knowledge, expertise and experience
- review and reflect on their effectiveness as a board in supporting the school to realise its vision, values, strategic direction, goals and targets
- seek relevant advice and resources
- maximise their effectiveness through induction and ongoing training, sharing of responsibilities, and succession planning.
Evaluation indicator: The board effectively meets its statutory responsibilities
The board ensures that:
- the school meets its statutory curriculum, human resource, health and safety, financial, property and administration responsibilities
- the school’s charter sets out long-term goals that are translated into annual targets
- school policies and procedures are coherent and fit for purpose
- human resource management procedures and practices promote quality education outcomes and safety
- the school provides a physically and emotionally safe environment for all students
- there is regular monitoring, evaluation and reporting in relation to statutory delegations.
Leadership is the exercise of influence, whether based on positional authority, personal characteristics, or quality of ideas.37 While only formally appointed leaders have positional authority, any teacher can potentially exercise the other two sources of influence. Every member of a school’s teaching team needs to exercise context and task-specific leadership if the work of the team is to contribute to the collective goal of achieving equity and excellence of student outcomes.38 This is why this domain interprets leadership in its broadest sense – not limited to those with formal leadership positions but distributed across the entire staff team.
Effective leadership is a defining characteristic of communities of learning where student outcomes are equitable and excellence is the norm.39 In pursuing equity and excellence, effective leaders explicitly attend to the relationships, structures and processes that perpetuate inequity and lack of opportunity to learn:
[They] engage in dialogue, examine current practice, and create pedagogical conversations and communities that critically build on, and do not devalue, students’ lived experiences … [they take] account of the ways in which the inequities of the outside world affect the outcomes of what occurs internally in educational organisations.40
The dimensions of leadership practice that have a significant impact on student outcomes include: establishing goals and expectations; resourcing strategically; designing, evaluating and coordinating the curriculum and teaching; leading professional learning; and ensuring an orderly and supportive environment.41
Effective leaders work with the school community to establish a compelling vision. They link this vision to a small number of priority improvement goals that are grounded in an analysis of relevant student data and information about teaching practice. They analyse how school practices may be contributing to the current situation, consider research evidence about what is effective in terms of raising student outcomes, and then determine improvement strategies. They support the agreed strategies with a coherent approach that interweaves pedagogical change, organisational change, and the building of leader and teacher capability.
Effective leaders strategically align resourcing to support improvement goals and strategies. For example, to ensure that teachers have sufficient opportunity to develop the necessary new knowledge and skills, they may rearrange staff responsibilities, provide time allowances, and repurpose and restructure meetings.
Under effective leadership, a school community works together to create a positive environment that is inclusive, values diversity, and promotes student wellbeing; and it organises the teaching programme so that all students are given equitable opportunities to learn from a rich curriculum.42
Effective leadership develops, implements and reviews school policies and routines to ensure that money, time, materials and staffing are allocated and organised in ways that support student participation and engagement. Attention is paid to establishing an orderly and supportive environment that is conducive to student learning and wellbeing. In the absence of such an environment, improvement is difficult.43
Leaders in high performing schools directly involve themselves in planning, coordinating and evaluating the curriculum and teaching. They are likely to be found observing in classrooms, providing developmental feedback, and participating in professional discussions about teaching, learning and student
outcomes. Research evidence shows that when leaders promote and engage in professional learning alongside teachers this has a significant influence on student outcomes.44
In high performing schools, leaders ensure that evaluation, inquiry and knowledge building activities are purposeful, systematic and coherent, interconnected at student, teacher, classroom and school levels, and supported by the selection, design and use of smart tools. By building relational trust at all levels of the school community they support openness, collaboration and risk taking, and receptiveness to change and improvement.45 They understand that growing evaluation capacity is a key to sustaining and embedding improvement.
Effective leaders value parents, whānau and the wider community and actively involve them in the life and work of the school, encouraging reciprocal,
learning-centred relationships; these extend to other educational institutions that serve the students. As a result, the school curriculum is enriched by community and cultural resources while reciprocal learning opportunities lead to increased participation, engagement and achievement.
Evaluation indicator: Leadership collaboratively develops and pursues the school’s vision, goals and targets for equity and excellence
Leadership seeks out the perspectives and aspirations of students, parents and whānau, and incorporates them in the school’s vision, values, goals and targets.
Leadership sets and relentlessly pursues a small number of goals and targets that relate to accelerating the learning of students who are at risk of underachievement.
Leadership uses a range of evidence from evaluation, inquiry and knowledge building activities for the purposes of selecting, developing and reviewing strategies for improvement.
Allocation of resources (for example, staffing and time) is clearly aligned to the school’s vision, values, goals and targets.
Leadership buffers and integrates external policy requirements and initiatives in ways that support achievement of the school’s vision, values, goals and targets.
Evaluation indicator: Leadership ensures an orderly and supportive environment that is conducive to student learning and wellbeing
Leadership establishes clear and consistent social expectations that are designed to support teaching and learning. Leadership ensures that efficient and equitable management routines are in place and consistently applied.
Leadership identifies and resolves conflict quickly and effectively.
Leadership involves students in the development of an environment that supports their learning and wellbeing.
Leadership provides multiple opportunities for students to provide feedback on the quality of the teaching they receive and its impact on their learning and wellbeing.
Leadership ensures that policies and practices promote students’ wellbeing; confidence in their identity, language and culture; and engagement in learning.
Evaluation indicator: Leadership ensures effective planning, coordination and evaluation of the school’s curriculum and teaching
The school curriculum is coherent, inclusive, culturally responsive, and clearly aligned to The New Zealand Curriculum and/or Te Marautanga o Aotearoa.
Leadership ensures that community and cultural resources are integrated into relevant aspects of the school curriculum. Leadership actively involves students, parents and whānau in the development, implementation and evaluation of curriculum.
Leadership ensures that the school’s teaching programme is structured so that all students have maximum opportunity to learn and achieve at or above the appropriate standard.
Evaluation indicator: Leadership promotes and participates in teacher learning and development46
Leadership ensures alignment of student learning needs, teacher professional learning goals, and processes for teacher appraisal and attestation.
Teacher professional learning and development is focused and deep rather than fragmented and shallow.
Leadership builds the capability of teachers to be leaders who promote and support the improvement of teaching and learning.
Organisational structures, processes and practices strengthen and sustain focused professional learning and collaborative activity to improve teaching and learning.
Team meetings maximise the time spent on using evidence of student learning for collective inquiry into the effectiveness of teaching practice.47
Leadership identifies and develops internal expertise, with the support of external expertise as appropriate, to ensure that improvement goals are met.
Evaluation indicator: Leadership builds collective capacity to do evaluation and inquiry for sustained improvement
Leadership establishes the expectation that teachers will learn how to improve their teaching by engaging in collective inquiry into the
effectiveness of current practice.
Leadership establishes the conditions for effective evaluation, inquiry and knowledge building in the service of improvement.
Leadership provides an accurate, defensible evaluation of the school’s performance and engages constructively with external evaluation.
Leadership promotes the use of internal and external evaluation for improvement.
Evaluation indicator: Leadership builds relational trust and effective collaboration at every level of the school community
Leadership actively involves students, parents, whānau and the community in reciprocal and collaborative learning-centred relationships.
Leadership builds trust with students, parents, whānau and the community.
Leadership builds strong, educationally focused relationships with other educational and community institutions to increase opportunities for student learning and success.
Domain 3: Educationally powerful connections and relationships
Parents and whānau are the primary and ongoing influence on the development, learning, wellbeing and self-efficacy of their children. So it is important that schools engage with them and involve them in school activities, particularly those that are focused on learning.48
A growing body of New Zealand research shows that by establishing educationally powerful connections and relationships with parents, whānau and communities, schools gain access to a greater and deeper range of resources to support their educational efforts. In this way they enhance outcomes for all students, but especially for those who have been under-served by the system and/or are at risk, and can achieve large positive effects on academic and social outcomes.
Research findings highlight the importance of understanding the processes by which effective school–whānau–community connections and relationships are developed and the need for schools to take agency in building relationships that focus on teaching and learning. Berryman identifies four principles that are important when engaging with Māori communities: identify who you are, build relational trust, listen to communities, and respond accordingly.49
Different types of school–home connection vary in their effectiveness. Approaches that promote reciprocal, learning-centred relationships with teachers and the school positively influence student outcomes. Such approaches recognise, respect and value the diverse identities, languages and cultures of the school community, draw on its funds of knowledge, and make connections to students’ lives outside the school. Joint parent/whānau and teacher interventions that are designed to help parents or other community members support student learning at home and school while also engaging teachers in professional learning and development have the greatest impact of all.50
Providing parents and whānau with the tools to support learning at home can have a significant impact on student outcomes. These might include carefully designed, interactive homework, workshops such as those associated with the Reading Together51 programme, or mathematics activities and materials.52
Effective schools proactively identify and draw on community resources and expertise to increase learning opportunities and enhance student achievement and wellbeing.
The purpose of school–home involvement is to connect in-school and out-of-school learning in ways that will support valued outcomes for students. If effective connections are to be developed, teachers need to value the educational cultures of their students’ families and communities, and parents need to learn about and value the educational culture of the school. The principle of ako – reciprocal learning and teaching – is therefore fundamental to developing connections that work.53
Domain 3: Indicators and examples of effective practice
Evaluation indicator: School and community are engaged in reciprocal, learning-centred relationships
Parents, whānau and the community are welcomed and involved in school activities as respected and valued partners in learning.
Taking a strengths-based approach, leaders and teachers recognise and affirm the diverse identities, languages and cultures of parents, whānau and the community, and actively broker engagement and participation.
Leaders and teachers actively participate in whānau and community activities.
Parents, whānau and the community participate in school activities and contribute constructively to decision making in a variety of productive roles.
Evaluation indicator: Communication supports and strengthens reciprocal, learning-centred relationships
A range of appropriate and effective communication strategies is used to communicate with and engage parents, whānau and community.
Students, parents, whānau and teachers have shared understandings of curriculum goals and the teaching and learning process, and engage in productive learning conversations.
Parents, whānau and teachers work together with students to identify their strengths and learning needs, set goals, and plan responsive learning strategies and activities.
Students, parents, whānau and teachers know the different pathways, programmes, options and supports available and participate in decision making at critical transition points.
Evaluation indicator: Student learning at home is actively promoted through the provision of relevant learning opportunities, resources and support
Parents and whānau receive information and participate in learning opportunities that enable them to constructively support their children’s learning.
Any homework assigned is carefully designed to promote purposeful interactions between parents and children, with teachers providing timely, descriptive oral or written feedback.
Leadership and teachers enable parents and whānau to support their children’s learning by providing them with materials and connecting them to community resources.
Evaluation indicator: Community collaborations enrich opportunities for students to become confident, connected, actively involved, lifelong learners
Teachers, parents, whānau and community engage in joint activities and interventions to improve learning and/or behaviour.
School and community work together to support students to make effective transitions at critical points on their educational journey.
The school proactively identifies and draws on community resources to enhance student learning opportunities, achievement and wellbeing.
Domain 4: Responsive curriculum, effective teaching and opportunity to learn
The New Zealand Curriculum and Te Marautanga o Aotearoa describe the education outcomes that we want for our young people and what they can expect in terms of breadth and depth of learning opportunities at school. These curriculum documents articulate a vision and values, principles, key competencies and areas of learning that provide the basis for an education that will enable young people to be successful in the complex and uncertain world they will experience.
The New Zealand Curriculum and Te Marautanga o Aotearoa are supported by National Standards in mathematics, reading and writing in primary education and by assessment standards that contribute to the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) in senior secondary education.
The curriculum is enabling and future focused and is intended to promote self-efficacy. This requires a learner-centred approach, where teachers choose contexts and design learning opportunities in discussion with their students, and support them to work collaboratively on challenges and problems set in real-world contexts.54
Responsive curriculum incorporates connections to students’ lives, prior understandings, and out-of-school experiences. It draws on and adds to parent, whānau, and community funds of knowledge. Student identities, languages and cultures are represented in materials used in the enacted curriculum. Cultural and linguistic diversity are viewed as strengths to be nurtured.
An Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) synthesis of recent research identifies seven core principles for designing learning environments:
- the learner is at the centre, active engagement is encouraged and learners develop understandings of themselves as learners
- the social and often collaborative nature of learning is recognised and well-organised; cooperative learning is actively encouraged
- learning professionals are highly attuned to learners’ motivations and the importance of emotions
- opportunities to learn are acutely sensitive to individual differences including in prior knowledge
- learning is demanding for each learner but without excessive overload
- assessment for learning with a strong emphasis on formative feedback is used
- horizontal connectedness across areas of knowledge and learning activities, as well as to the community and the wider world, is strongly promoted.55
These are similar to the research-based principles summarised by the International Academy of Education in 2001.56
Quality of teaching is a major determinant of outcomes for diverse students:57 what teachers know and do is one of the most important influences on what students learn.58 One comparative study found that students starting out at a similar level of achievement could be as many as 53 percentiles apart after three years, depending on the capabilities of their teacher.59
In New Zealand, education environments that reflect a Māori worldview and ways of working (for example, with respect to whanaungatanga and ako) offer significantly enhanced learning opportunities for all students. By observing effective teachers of Māori students, initiatives such as Te Kotahitanga and Kia Eke Panuku have been able to identify the dimensions of practice that create a culturally responsive classroom or school.60
The Iterative Best Evidence Synthesis Programme has identified 10 dimensions of quality teaching that make a bigger difference to valued outcomes for diverse (all) learners:61
- focus on valued student outcomes / kia arotahia ngā hua ākonga uara nui
- use knowledge, evidence, and inquiry to improve teaching / ko te mātauranga, te taunakitanga me te uiui hei whakapai ake i te whakaako
- select, develop, and use smart tools and worthwhile tasks / ngā taputapu ngaio me ngā mahi whaikiko – whiria, mahia
- ensure sufficient and effective opportunities for all students to learn / rau te ako, rau te mahi tōtika, rau te hua
- develop caring, collaborative learning communities that are inclusive of diverse (all) learners / he piringa tauawhi, he piringa mahitahi, he piringa tauakoako, he piringa ākonga rerekura (katoa)
- activate educationally powerful connections to learners’ knowledge, experiences, identities, whānau, iwi, and communities / whakatere hono ākonga torokaha, ākonga tū kaha
- scaffold learning and provide appropriate feed forward and feedback on learning / te ako poutama
- be responsive to all students’ learning, identities, and wellbeing / me aro ki te hā o te ākonga
- promote thoughtful learning strategies, thoughtful discourse, and student self-regulation / takina te wānanga
- use assessment for learning / te aromatawai i roto i te ako.
While research has identified key dimensions of teaching that are important for advancing valued student outcomes, these dimensions are interrelated and interconnected in the complex dynamic of effective teaching.62
Effective teaching requires deep and flexible knowledge of subject matter, how students learn, and curriculum-specific pedagogy.63 It is this knowledge and expertise that enables teachers to use formative assessment effectively to improve learning64 and to develop students’ capacity to evaluate their own and others’ work.65
Effective use of formative assessment can have a significant influence on student outcomes66 so it is important that teachers ‘see their fundamental role as evaluators and activators of learning’.67
Teachers need to be data literate:
Data literacy for teaching is the ability to transform information into actionable instructional knowledge and practices by collecting, analyzing, and interpreting all types of data (assessment, school climate, behavioural, snapshot, moment-to-moment, and so on) to help determine instructional steps. It combines an understanding of data with standards, disciplinary knowledge and practices, curricular knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and an understanding of how children learn.68
They also need to be sufficiently knowledgeable about and confident with current technologies to be able to use them effectively to support innovative teaching and create new opportunities to learn.
To be able to promote the wellbeing, achievement and progress of all their students and prepare them for living in the world they will encounter as adults, teachers need adaptive expertise.69
Adaptive expertise is a fundamentally different way of conceptualising what it means to be a professional. Its defining characteristic is the ability to respond flexibly in complex contexts:
Adaptive experts know when students are not learning, know where to go next, can adapt resources and strategies to help students meet worthwhile learning intentions, and can recreate or alter the classroom climate to attain these learning goals.70
Adaptive experts apply deep conceptual knowledge to problems not previously encountered and develop new solutions and approaches. This flexible, innovative application of knowledge is what lies beneath their ability to learn and refine their understanding on the basis of continuing experience.71 Being able to work in a collaborative environment enhances the development of adaptive expertise.
Adaptive experts engage in ongoing inquiry with the aim of building knowledge. This is the core of professionalism.72
Domain 4: Indicators and examples of effective practice
Evaluation indicator: Students learn, achieve and progress in the breadth and depth of The New Zealand Curriculum and/or Te Marautanga o Aotearoa
Students, teachers and parents and whānau set challenging and appropriate expectations for learning. Students, teachers and parents and whānau participate in curriculum design and decision making.
Management of the curriculum ensures that it is coherent and that students have sufficient opportunity to learn (consider, for example, time allocated to learning areas, teacher knowledge and expertise, and resources).
Curriculum design and enactment is responsive to the aspirations of students, parents, and whānau, drawing on and adding to their funds of knowledge.
Curriculum design and enactment ensures that every student is learning and makes sufficient progress to achieve curriculum expectations and standards.
Evaluation indicator: Students participate and learn in caring, collaborative, inclusive learning communities
Relationships are respectful and productive; difference and diversity are valued.
Instructional organisation, task design, modelling, and grouping practices develop community and promote active learning.
Students develop dialogue and group work skills and participate in group-based learning activities where they draw on individual strengths to complete group tasks.
The learning community is characterised by respect, empathy, relational trust, cooperation and teamwork. Students experience positive transitions between learning contexts.
Evaluation indicator: Students have effective, sufficient and equitable opportunities to learn
The learning environment is managed in ways that support participation, engagement, and agency in learning.
Learning opportunities enable students to relate new information to prior knowledge and to modify existing conceptions as necessary.
In each learning area students engage in cognitively challenging and purposeful learning opportunities that relate to real-life contexts, issues and experiences.
Students are given sufficient, related opportunities over time to revisit and consolidate learning through practice and review and by applying it in a range of purposeful activities.
Students experience an environment in which it is safe to take risks and errors are regarded as opportunities for learning.
Participation in effective heterogeneous (mixed ability) group activities provides students with cognitive challenge and opportunities for deep learning.73
Students whose culture/first language differs from the culture/language of instruction are well supported to access learning. Students with special needs or abilities participate in learning opportunities that provide appropriate support and challenge.74
Students are given explicit instruction in learning strategies (such as goal setting, self-monitoring and deliberate practice) that enable them to take control of their learning, develop meta-cognitive skills, self-regulate, and develop self-efficacy and agency.
Evaluation indicator: Effective, culturally responsive pedagogy supports and promotes student learning
Student identities and whānau and community knowledge, language and culture are represented in curriculum materials and the enacted curriculum.
The curriculum makes connections to learners’ lives, prior understandings, out-of-school experiences and real-world contexts.
The cultural competencies for teachers of Māori students – tātaiako: manaakitanga, ako, whanaungatanga, wānanga and tangata whenuatanga
– can be observed in teacher practice.75
Teaching practices are consistent with culturally responsive and relational pedagogies.76
Teachers use differentiation and a variety of teaching strategies to engage students and ensure a balance of surface, deep and conceptual learning.77
Teaching practices such as questioning, wait time, and providing opportunities for application, problem solving and invention engage students in learning and thinking.
Student learning is scaffolded through the use of practices such as prompts, open questions, explanations, worked examples and active discussion and through the provision of appropriate tools and resources.
Students develop learning-to-learn capabilities by engaging in disciplinary thinking (for example, nature of science or historical) and in thinking that extends across learning areas.
Teachers promote achievement of learning outcomes by deliberately aligning task design, teaching activities and resources, and home support. Students use digital devices and ICT resources in ways that promote productive thinking and digital and technological fluency.78
Evaluation indicator: Assessment for learning develops students’ assessment and learning-to-learn capabilities
Teachers and students co-construct challenging but realistic learning goals and success criteria, developing shared understandings about the kind and quality of work required to achieve the desired outcome.
Assessment activities are inclusive, authentic and fit-for-purpose; they provide meaningful evidence of achievement and progress and a basis for determining next steps.
Students receive and give timely, specific, descriptive feedback in response to these questions:
- Where am I going? (What are my goals?)
- How am I going? (What progress is being made towards the goal?)
- Where to next? (What activities need to be undertaken next to make continuing or better progress?)
- How will I know when I’ve got there?
Students identify their own learning needs and develop and use self-assessment skills to evaluate their own and others’ work against clear criteria.
Students provide feedback to teachers about the quality and effectiveness of teaching and learning.79
Teachers, parents and whānau actively participate in, and contribute to, students’ learning journeys through ongoing, reciprocal communication.
Domain 5: Professional capability and collective capacity
Building professional capability and collective capacity is a core function of leadership.80 This means that leaders need to ensure that teachers are continuously engaged in professional learning that increases their knowledge and skills and develops their adaptive expertise.81
Students are the focus of all effective professional learning: enhancing student outcomes is both the purpose of professional learning and the basis for evaluating its success.
Effective professional learning involves ongoing cycles of evidence-informed inquiry. It begins with leaders and teachers collecting and analysing a range of evidence that will help them answer the question, ‘What is going on for students in relation to the outcomes that we value?’ The perspectives of students, parents and whānau will be included in this evidence along with that of professionals.
When discrepancies emerge between what is wanted and what is happening, these will provide a catalyst for challenging low expectations and deficit theories82 and for engaging in further collaborative analysis and investigation to uncover the reasons. This collaborative sense-making process will inform decisions about what needs to change in the way of beliefs, practices and organisational conditions.
Leaders and teachers then identify focus areas for professional learning, select opportunities that will deepen knowledge and refine skills, and engage students in new learning experiences. The effectiveness of changes in practice will be evaluated in terms of improved student learning and outcomes.83
Powerful professional learning draws on the best available research about ‘what makes a bigger difference’. It integrates development of teacher content knowledge with understanding of how students learn the content and how it can be communicated in meaningful ways.
The evidence-informed inquiry process supports development and evaluation of innovative practice and the use of technology through collaboration across the professional and student learning communities.
Effective leaders continue to provide and resource focused opportunities for collaborative inquiry and application of new learning until the necessary improvement in student outcomes has been achieved. When carefully selected, planned and used, strategies that support professional conversations84 and collaborative learning contribute to the development of professional capability. In improving practice, internal expertise often needs to be supplemented by relevant external expertise. External expertise can play an important role by challenging thinking and practices and providing support during the change process.
Teachers who work in supportive professional environments that encourage deep learning make greater gains in effectiveness over time than those who find themselves in environments that are less conducive to learning.85
Domain 5: Indicators and examples of effective practice
Evaluation indicator: A strategic and coherent approach to human resource management builds professional capability and collective capacity
Effective leaders and teachers are recruited, selected and retained.
Induction of new teachers is systematic and focused on the development of adaptive expertise. Teachers are well qualified and have relevant curriculum, assessment and pedagogical knowledge. Teachers act ethically and with agency to ensure that all students achieve valued outcomes.
Teachers have the cultural competence and expertise to provide inclusive and productive learning environments for diverse students. Coherent performance management processes:
- enable identification of teachers’ professional learning and development needs
- use multiple sources of feedback (individual and team) on teacher effectiveness
provide professional learning opportunities that are responsive to identified needs and align with the school’s strategic goals. Ineffective performance is identified and addressed.
Evaluation indicator: Systematic, collaborative inquiry processes and challenging professional learning opportunities align with the school vision, values, goals and targets
The professional community:
- shares high, clear and equitable expectations for student learning, achievement, progress and wellbeing
- gathers, analyses and uses evidence of student learning and outcomes to improve individual and collective practice
- engages in systematic, evidence-informed professional inquiry to improve outcomes for students.
Professional learning opportunities:
- integrate theory and practice
- engage, and if necessary, challenge teachers’ prior beliefs
- promote cultural and linguistic responsiveness
- encourage teachers to individually and collectively take responsibility for their own professional learning and improvement
- deepen understanding of the curriculum and of pedagogical and assessment practices that promote conceptual understanding and learning-to-learn capabilities
- develop teacher knowledge and adaptive expertise using context-specific approaches that are informed by research
- provide multiple opportunities to learn and apply new knowledge, and to process it with others
- enable teachers to activate educationally powerful connections.
Evaluation indicator: Organisational structures, processes and practices enable and sustain collaborative learning and decision making
Clear plans for improvement incorporate multiple professional learning opportunities and monitoring of anticipated changes in teacher practice and student outcomes.
Leaders provide for deep learning by focusing on one or two areas until substantial gains in outcomes are achieved.
Leaders and teachers:
- use evidence of student learning and progress as a catalyst for professional dialogue
- participate in regular, purposeful classroom visits and observations and provide formative feedback
- engage in open-to-learning conversations as they identify and investigate problems of practice, set goals and develop evidence-based solutions, asking themselves what works (practical insight) and why (theory)
- work collaboratively to plan curriculum, design tasks and activities, and assess and evaluate
- develop and share resources, materials and smart tools
- monitor and evaluate the impact of actions on student outcomes.
Relationships characterised by mutual respect and challenge, support development of self-efficacy and agency.
Leaders and teachers seek evidence about the effectiveness of professional learning processes in terms of teacher practice and student outcomes.
Professional leaders and teachers engage with and contribute to the wider education community.
Evaluation indicator: Access to relevant expertise builds capability for ongoing improvement and innovation
Leaders of learning are identified and a strategy is put in place to build internal professional leadership capacity. Distributed leadership supports continuity and coherence across learning programmes and enhances sustainability.
Facilitators with relevant expertise provide opportunities for professional learning in response to identified needs, challenging teachers and supporting realisation of the school’s vision, values, goals and targets.
Domain 6: Evaluation, inquiry and knowledge building for improvement and innovation
Evaluation, including professional inquiry, enables the creation and sharing of new knowledge and understandings about what works and makes a bigger difference for all learners.
Evaluation involves making a judgment about the quality, effectiveness or value of a policy, programme or practice in terms of its contribution to the desired outcomes. It involves systematically posing questions, gathering evidence, and making sense of this evidence: ‘what is and is not working and for whom?’
By enabling us to describe and understand the impacts of our current practices, evaluation also highlights the implications for equity and excellence and provides a basis for determining actions for improvement.
Professional inquiry is an integral part of the evaluation process. It involves identifying an aspect of practice that is cause for concern, asking the right questions, and then seeking evidence and information to be able to better understand the issues involved and respond effectively.
The New Zealand Curriculum and Te Marautanga o Aotearoa both describe teaching as a process of inquiry and emphasise the importance of leaders and teachers developing the expertise to inquire into their practice, evaluate its impact on student outcomes, and build organisational and system knowledge about what works.86
A learning community’s capacity to engage with, learn through, and use external evaluation, depends on its capacity to ‘do and use’ internal evaluation, inquiry and knowledge building for improvement and innovation.87
The organisational conditions that support this capacity include:
- evaluation leadership
- a learning-oriented community of professionals that takes agency in using evaluation for improvement in practice and outcomes
- opportunity to develop technical evaluation expertise (including access to external expertise)
- access to, and use of, appropriate tools and methods
- systems, processes and resources that support purposeful data gathering, knowledge building and decision making.
In effective schools, evaluation, inquiry and knowledge building processes are purposeful and focus on a specific area for improvement.88 They work together coherently, enabling the use of relevant information at student, classroom, teacher and school levels to promote improvement.
Domain 6: Indicators and examples of effective practice
Evaluation indicator: Coherent organisational conditions promote evaluation, inquiry and knowledge building
Evaluation, inquiry and knowledge building are embedded in the policies, systems, processes and practices that collectively express how the school plans for, and takes action to, realise its vision, values, goals and targets.
Appropriate tools and methods are used to gather, store and retrieve a range of valid data.
Leaders and teachers recognise the importance of student and community voice and use it as a key resource when deciding priorities for inquiry and improvement.
Relational trust at every level supports collaboration, risk taking and openness to change.
Sufficient resources (for example, time, expertise and staffing) are allocated to support improvement initiatives.
Evaluation, inquiry and knowledge building processes are systematic, coherent and ‘smart’ at every level (student, teacher, school) and across levels.
Effective communication supports the sharing and dissemination of new knowledge in ways that promote improvement and innovation.
Evaluation indicator: Collective capacity to do and use evaluation, inquiry and knowledge building sustains improvement and innovation
Opportunities for professional learning, mentoring and coaching develop the knowledge, skills and confidence required for evaluation and inquiry.
Relevant internal and/or external expertise is carefully selected and used to build capacity in evaluation and inquiry.
Leaders and teachers are data literate: posing focused questions, using relevant data, clarifying purpose(s), recognising sound and unsound evidence, developing understanding of statistical and measurement concepts, and engaging in thoughtful interpretation and evidence-informed conversations.89
Generation of solutions, decision making, and strategy implementation all draw on research evidence about how to most effectively improve outcomes for learners.
Participation in evaluation, inquiry and knowledge building activities contributes to changes in thinking and behaviour and builds inquiry habits of mind.
Engaging in evidence-based decision making increases teacher efficacy and agency.
Evaluation indicator: Evaluation, inquiry and knowledge building capability facilitates engagement with external evaluation and the wider education community
Leaders and teachers engage with, learn through and use external evaluation as a resource for improvement and innovation.
Leaders and teachers participate in, contribute to and lead purposeful evaluation, inquiry and knowledge building in professional learning communities that include a range of educators from other schools/contexts.
1 Organisation for Economic Development Programme of International Student Assessment 2009–2012.
2 Alton-Lee, A. (2015). Ka Hikitia A Demonstration Report: Effectiveness of Te Kotahitanga Phase 5 2010–12.
Iterative Best Evidence Synthesis Programme. Wellington: Ministry of Education.
3 Alton-Lee, A. (2008). Designing and supporting teacher professional development to improve valued student outcomes. Invited paper presented to the Education of Teachers Symposium at the General Assembly of the International Academy of Education, Limassol, Cyprus, September 2008.
4 Schmidt, W., Burroughs, N., Ziodo, P., & Houang, R. (2015). The role of schooling in perpetuating educational inequality: an international perspective. Educational Researcher, 44 (7), 371–386.
5 MacBeath, J. (2012). Future of teaching profession. Cambridge: University of Cambridge. p. 71
6 MacBeath, J. (2009). Self Evaluation for School Improvement. In A. Hargreaves, D. Hopkins, A. Lieberman, &
D.M. Fullan (Eds.), Second International Handbook of Educational Change, 23, 901–912. New York: Springer.
7 Earl, L. (2014). Effective school review: considerations in the framing, definition, identification and selection of indicators of education quality and their potential use in evaluation in the school setting. Background paper prepared for the review of the Education Review Office’s Evaluation Indicators for School Reviews.
8 Earl, L. (2014). Effective school review: considerations in the framing, definition, identification and selection of indicators of education quality and their potential use in evaluation in the school setting. Background paper prepared for the review of the Education Review Office’s Evaluation Indicators for School Reviews.
9 Fullan, M., Rincon-Gallardo, S., & Hargreaves, A. (2015). Professional capital as accountability. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 23 (15), 1–22.
10 Ministry of Education (2015). Education Counts. Retrieved from www.educationcounts.govt.nz
11 Earl, L. (2014). Effective school review: considerations in the framing, definition, identification and selection of indicators of education quality and their potential use in evaluation in the school setting. Background paper prepared for the review of the Education Review Office’s Evaluation Indicators for School Reviews.
12 Te Marautanga o Aotearoa Graduate Profile.
13 Education Review Office (2013). Wellbeing For Success: Draft Evaluation Indicators for Student Wellbeing
and The New Zealand Curriculum (2007) Health and Physical Education.
14 Bolstad, R., & Gilbert, J., with McDowall, S., Bull, A., Boyd, S., & Hipkins, R. (2012). Supporting future-oriented teaching and learning – a New Zealand perspective. Wellington: Ministry of Education. Retrieved from www.educationcounts.govt.nz.
15 Fullan. M., Rincon-Gallardo, S., & Hargreaves, A. (2015). Professional capital as accountability. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 23 (15), 1–22.
16 Alton-Lee, A. (2015). Ka Hikitia A Demonstration Report: Effectiveness of Te Kotahitanga Phase 5 2010–12.
Wellington: Ministry of Education. See also www.kep.org.nz.
17 Berryman, M. (2014). Evaluation indicators for school reviews (2011): A commentary on engaging parents, whānau and communities. Background paper prepared for the review of the Education Review Office’s Evaluation Indicators for School Reviews.
18 Metge, J. (1990), cited in, Berryman, M. (2014). Evaluation indicators for school reviews (2011): A commentary on engaging parents, whānau and communities. Background paper prepared for the review of the Education Review Office’s Evaluation Indicators for School Reviews.
Bishop, R., Ladwig, J., & Berryman, M. (2014). The centrality of relationships for pedagogy: the whanaungatanga thesis. American Education Research Journal, 51 (1), 184–214.
Alton-Lee, A. (2015). Ka Hikitia A Demonstration Report: Effectiveness of Te Kotahitanga Phase 5 2010–12. Wellington: Ministry of Education.
Berryman, M. (2014). Evaluation indicators for school reviews (2011): A commentary on engaging parents, whānau and communities. Background paper prepared for the review of the Education Review Office’s Evaluation Indicators for School Reviews.
Bishop, R., Berryman, M., Cavanagh, T., & Teddy, L. (2007). Te Kotahitanga Phase 3 Whanaungatanga: Establishing a Culturally Responsive Pedagogy of Relations in Mainstream Secondary Schools. Report to the Ministry of Education. Wellington: Ministry of Education. See also www.kep.org.nz.
19 Bishop, R., O’Sullivan, D., & Berryman, M. (2010). Scaling up education reform: The politics of disparity. Wellington: New Zealand Council for Education Research.
20 Berryman, M., Glynn, T., Walker, R., Reweti, M., O’Brien, K., Boasa-Dean, T., Glynn, V., Langdon, Y., & Weiss, S. (2002). SES Sites of effective special education practice for Māori 2001. Report to the SES Board and Executive Team. Specialist Education Services.
21 Berryman, M. (2014). Evaluation indicators for school reviews (2011): A commentary on engaging parents, whānau and communities. Background paper prepared for the review of the Education Review Office’s Evaluation Indicators for School Reviews.
22 Bishop, R., Ladwig, J., & Berryman, M. (2014). op. cit. pp. 184–214.
23 Berryman, M. (2014). Evaluation indicators for school reviews (2011): A commentary on engaging parents, whānau and communities. Background paper prepared for the review of the Education Review Office’s Evaluation Indicators for School Reviews.
24 Bishop, R., Ladwig, J., & Berryman, M. (2014). op. cit. pp. 184–214.
25 Pere, R. (1982). Ako: Concepts and learning in the Māori tradition. Working Paper No. 17. Department of Sociology: University of Waikato
26 Berryman, M., Glynn, T., Walker, R., Reweti, M., O’Brien, K., Boasa-Dean, T., Glynn, V., Langdon, Y., & Weiss, S. (2002). SES Sites of effective special education practice for Māori 2001. Report to the SES board and Executive Team. Specialist Education Services.
27 Berryman, M. (2014). Evaluation indicators for school reviews (2011): A commentary on engaging parents, whānau and communities. Background paper prepared for the review of the Education Review Office’s Evaluation Indicators for School Reviews.
28 Fullan. M., Rincon-Gallardo, S., & Hargreaves, A. (2015). Professional capital as accountability. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 23 (15), 1–22.
29 Ainscow, M. (2015). Towards self-improving school systems. New York: Routledge.
30 Fullan, M. (2011). Choosing the wrong drivers for whole system reform. Melbourne: Centre for Strategic Education.
31 Ainscow, M. (2015). op. cit.
32 See also Durie, M. (2001). A framework for considering Māori Educational Advancement. Presentation to the Hui Taumata Matauranga, Turangi.
33 Education Review Office (2013). Wellbeing For Success: Draft Evaluation Indicators for Student Wellbeing and The New Zealand Curriculum (2007) Health and Physical Education: Te Whare Tapa Wha ~ Taha Hinengaro (Mental Health): Taha Tinana (Physical Health): Taha Wairua (Spiritual Health): Taha Whānau (Extended Family Health). (Mason Durie, 1994).
34 Bolstad, R., & Gilbert, J., with McDowall, S., Bull, A., Boyd, S., & Hipkins, R. (2012). Supporting future-oriented teaching and learning – a New Zealand perspective. Wellington: Ministry of Education. Retrieved from www.educationcounts.govt.nz.
35 Wylie, C. (2014). Rethinking governance indicators for effective school review. Background paper prepared for the review of the Education Review Office’s Evaluation Indicators for School Reviews.
36 Agency is defined as ‘the energy, level of proactivity, drive and commitment to governing’ (James, 2010, cited in Wylie, 2014, ibid., p. 6).
37 Robinson, V., Hohepa, M., & Lloyd, C. (2009). School leadership and student outcomes: Identifying what works and why – Best Evidence Synthesis Iteration. Wellington: Ministry of Education.
38 Goddard, Y. L., Goddard, R.D., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2007). A theoretical and empirical investigation of teacher collaboration for school improvement and student achievement in public elementary schools. Teachers College Record, 109 (4), 877–896.
39 Ishimaru, A., & Galloway, M. (2014). Beyond individual effectiveness: Conceptualising organisational leadership for equity. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 13 (1), 93–146.
40 Shields, C. (2010). Transformative leadership: working for equity in diverse contexts. Education Administration Quarterly, 46 (4), 558–589 (pp. 571, 584).
41 Robinson, V., Hohepa, M., & Lloyd, C. (2009). op. cit.
42 Schmidt, W., Burroughs, N., Ziodo, P., & Houang, R. (2015). The role of schooling in perpetuating educational inequality: an international perspective. Educational Researcher, 44 (7), 371–386.
43 Grissom, J. A., & Loeb, S. (2011). Triangulating principal effectiveness. American Educational Research Journal, 48 (5), 1091–1123.
44 Robinson, V. M. J., Lloyd, C., & Rowe, K J. (2008). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership type. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44 (5), 635–674.
45 Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2012). Professional capital: transforming teaching in every school. United Kingdom: Routledge.
46 Schmoker, M. (2016). Leading with a focus: Elevating the essentials for school and district improvement. Alexandria, VA: ACSD.
47 DuFour, R., & Reeves, D. (2016). The futility of PLC lite. Phi Delta Kappan, 97 (6), 69–71.
48 Sanders, M., & Epstein, J. (1998). School-family-community partnerships and educational change: International perspectives. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan, & D. Hopkins (Eds.), International handbook of educational change (pp. 482–502). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Schneider, B., Keesler, V., & Morlock, L. (2010). The effects of family on children’s learning and socialisation. In H. Dumont, D. Instance, & F. Benavides (Eds.), The nature of learning, (pp. 251–284). Paris: OECD. Biddulph, F., Biddulph, J., & Biddulph, C. (2003). The complexity of community and family influences on children’s achievement in New Zealand: Best evidence synthesis. Wellington: Ministry of Education.
49 Berryman, M. (2014). Evaluation indicators for school reviews (2011): A commentary on engaging parents, whānau and communities. Background paper prepared for the review of the Education Review Office’s Evaluation Indicators for School Reviews.
50 Alton-Lee, A., Robinson, V. H., Hohepa, M., & Lloyd, C. (2009). School leadership and student outcomes: Identifying what works and why – Best Evidence Synthesis Iteration. Wellington: Ministry of Education. See Chapter 7: Creating educationally powerful connections with families, whānau, and communities
51 The Biddulph Group. (2015). Reading Together programme. Retrieved from www.readingtogether.net.nz
52 Anthony, G., & Walshaw, M. (2007). Effective pedagogy in mathematics/pāngarau: Best Evidence Synthesis Iteration. Wellington: Ministry of Education.
53 Alton-Lee, A., Robinson, V. H., Hohepa, M., & Lloyd, C. (2009). School leadership and student outcomes: Identifying what works and why; Best Evidence Synthesis Iteration. Wellington: Ministry of Education. See Chapter 7: Creating educationally powerful connections with families, whānau, and communities, p. 169.
54 Bolstad, R., & Gilbert, J., with McDowall, S., Bull, A., Boyd, S., & Hipkins, R. (2012). Supporting future-oriented learning and teaching – a New Zealand perspective. Report to the Ministry of Education. Wellington: Ministry of Education.
55 Istance, D., & Dumont, H., (2010). Future directions for learning environments in the 21st century. In H. Dumont,
D. Instance, & F. Benavides (Eds.), The nature of learning. Paris: OECD. pp. 317–336.
56 Vosniadou, S. (2001). How children learn. International Academy of Education & International Bureau of Education. Paris: UNESCO.
57 Alton-Lee, A. (2003). Quality teaching for diverse students: Best evidence synthesis. Wellington: Ministry of Education.
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning. A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London: Routledge.
58 Darling-Hammond, L. (1998). Teachers and Teaching: Testing Policy Hypotheses From a National Commission Report. Educational Researcher, 27 (1), 5–15.
59 Sanders, W., & Rivers, J. (1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future student academic achievement. Tennessee: University of Tennessee.
60 Bishop, R., & Berryman, M. (2010). Te Kotahitanga: Culturally responsive professional development for teachers.
Teacher Development, 14, 173–187.
Bishop, R., O’Sullivan, D., & Berryman, M. (2010). Scaling up education reform. Wellington: NZCER Press.
61 Alton-Lee, A. (2003). op. cit.
Alton-Lee, A. (2012). BES findings overview
62 Muijs, D., Kyriakides, L., van der Werf, G., Creemers, B., Timperley, H., & Earl, L. (2014). State of the art – teacher effectiveness and professional learning. School effectiveness and school improvement: An international journal of research, policy and practice, 25 (2), 231–256.
63 For practice specific to curriculum areas see Cawelti, G. (2004). (Ed.). Handbook of research on improving student achievement. Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service.
64 Young, V., & Kim, D. (2010). Using assessments for instructional improvement: A literature review. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 18 (19).
65 Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77 (1), 81–112.
66 Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London: Routledge.
Hattie describes feedback as one of the most powerful factors in academic learning and achievement. It is associated with an effect size of 0.73. The average yearly effect or gain from a year’s schooling is 0.40.
67 Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers. London: Routledge. p. 86.
68 Datnow, A., & Hubbard, L. (2016). Teacher capacity for and beliefs about data-driven decision making: A literature review of international research. Journal of Educational Change, 17, 7–28.
69 Hatano, G., & Inagaki, K. (1986). Two courses of expertise. In H. Stevenson, H. Azama, & K. Hakuta (Eds.),
Child Development and Education in Japan (pp. 262–272). New York: Freeman.
Feiman-Nemser, S. (2008). Teacher learning: How do teachers learn to teach? In M. Cochran-Smith, S. Feiman- Nemser, D. McIntyre, & K. Demers (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Teacher Education (3rd Ed) (pp. 697–705). New York: Routledge.
Soslau, E. (2012). Opportunities to develop adaptive teaching expertise during supervisory conferences.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 28, 768–779.
70 Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers. London: Routledge. p. 100.
71 Bransford, J., & Pellegrino, J. (Eds.). (2000). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience and School. Washington DC: National Academy Press.
73 Cohen, E. & Lotan, R. (2014). Designing groupwork: Strategies for the heterogeneous classroom, (3rd ed). Teachers College Press: New York.
74 See Bevan-Brown, J., Berryman, M., Hickey, H., Macfarlane, S., Smiler, K., & Walker, T. (2015). Working with Mäori children with special education needs. He mahi whakahirahira. Wellington: NZCER.
75 Ministry of Education and the New Zealand Teachers Council (2011). Tātaiako. Wellington: Ministry of Education.
76 Bishop, R., & Berryman, M. (2009). The Te Kotahitanga Effective Teaching Profile. Set: Research Information for Teachers (2), 27–33. See also www.kep.org.nz
77 Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers. London: Routledge: the surface knowledge needed to understand the concepts; the deeper understandings of how the ideas relate to each other and extend to other understandings; and the conceptual thinking that allows surface and deep knowledge to become conjectures and concepts.
78 Higgins, S.E. (2014). Critical thinking for 21st-century education: A cyber-tooth curriculum? Prospects 14 (4), 559–574.
79 Bishop, R., Berryman, M., Tiakiwai, S., & Richardson, C. (2003). Te Kotahitanga: The experiences of year 9 and 10 Māori students in mainstream classrooms. Report to the Ministry of Education. Wellington: Ministry of Education.
Knight-de Blois, L. (2015). ‘O matou ‘o le fatu ‘o le fa’amoemoe – fesili mai! We are the heart of the matter – ask us! Unpublished Master of Education thesis). Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand.
80 Robinson, V., Hohepa, M., & Lloyd, C. (2009). School leadership and student outcomes: Identifying what works and why – Best Evidence Synthesis Iteration. Wellington: Ministry of Education.
81 Timperley, H., & Parr, J. (2010). Evidence, inquiry and standards. In H. Timperley & J. Parr (Eds.), Weaving evidence, inquiry and standards to build better schools, (pp. 9–23). Wellington: NZCER Press.
82 Bishop, R., & Berryman, M. (2010). Te Kotahitanga: Culturally responsive professional development for teachers.
Teacher Development, 14, 173–187.
83 Timperley, H., Wilson, A., Barrar, H., & Fung, I. (2007). Teacher professional learning and development: Best evidence synthesis iteration. Wellington: Ministry of Education. Retrieved from www.ibe.unesco.org/en/ services/publications/educational-practices.html
84 Timperley, H. (2015). Professional conversations and improvement-focused feedback. A review of the research literature and the impact on practice and student outcomes. Melbourne VIC: Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership.
85 Kraft, M., & Papay, J. (2014). Can professional environments in schools promote teacher development? Explaining heterogeneity in returns to teaching experience. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 36 (4), 476–500.
86 Timperley, H., & Parr, J. (2010). Evidence, inquiry and standards. In H. Timperley & J. Parr (Eds.), Weaving evidence, inquiry and standards to build better schools, (pp. 9–23). Wellington: NZCER Press.
87 Cousins, J.B., & Bourgeois, I. (2014). Cross case analysis and implications for research, theory, and practice. In J.B. Cousins & I. Bourgeois (Eds.). Organisational capacity to do and use evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 4, 101–119.
88 Bryk, A. (2014). Improving: Joining improvement science to networked communities. Presidential address to the American Educational Research Association. Philadelphia.
89 Earl, L., & Timperley, H. (2009). Understanding how evidence and learning conversations work. In L. Earl & H. Timperley (Eds), Professional learning conversations: Challenges in using evidence for improvement. Cambridge: Springer.
Publication Information and Copyright
School Evaluation Indicators: Effective Practice for Improvement and Learner Success
© Crown copyright ISBN 978047843842-0
Except for the Education Review Office’s logo used throughout this report, this copyright work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 New Zealand licence. In essence, you are free to copy, distribute and adapt the work, as long as you attribute the work to the Education Review Office and abide by the other licence terms. In your attribution, use the wording ‘Education Review Office’, not the Education Review Office logo or the New Zealand Government logo.