Our research

Ā Mātou Rangahau

In this section of our website you'll find our education system evaluations, effective practice reports, resources and guides. These are produced by Te Ihuwaka | Education Evaluation Centre and Te Pou Mataaho | Evaluation and Research Māori.

Read more about Te Ihuwaka | Education Evaluation Centre.

Read more about Te Pou Mataaho | Evaluation and Research Māori.

Read about the questions we are asking.

There are 4 research articles.
  • Topics: Ethical standards, Māori secondary teachers, Outcomes
  • Published: 04 Sep 2017

    Improvement in action

    The collection of videos and publications is called Improvement in Action and illustrates what works to achieve successful outcomes for all children and young people in the education system.

  • Published: 10 Jul 2013

    Including Students with High Needs Primary Schools

    This ERO evaluation reports on primary schools' progress in relation to the Government's Success for All policy. Success for All is about getting all schools to demonstrate inclusive practice for students with special needs.

  • Published: 02 Aug 2012

    Ako Panuku: An evaluation of the programme’s effectiveness

    This evaluation looks at the Ako Panuku programme, which is funded by the Ministry of Education for Māori secondary/kura teachers. ERO conducted an online survey of all teachers involved in the programme and also visited a number of schools and kura. Our findings show that a high proportion of teachers found the programme to be highly effective or effective for them. Ako Panuku has had positive outcomes for participants and their students.

  • Published: 30 Jun 2010

    Including Students with High Needs

    ERO evaluated how well schools included students with high needs. Approximately three percent of the student population have significant physical, sensory, neurological, psychiatric, behavioural or intellectual impairment. ERO’s evaluation showed that approximately half of the schools in the study demonstrated inclusive practice, while 30 percent had ‘pockets of inclusive practice’ and 20 percent had few inclusive practices.