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.
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.
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.
Research evidence shows early in a child’s life is a critical time in terms of the rapid language development that takes place, particularly in the first two to three years.
This evaluation investigated how effectively young children’s oral language learning and development were supported in their early years of education.
This report discusses secondary schools where Pacific learners are achieving at or above the national norms for all students. It includes details of initiatives and good practice and how these work together to get great results.
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.
This is ERO's third report on the progress of schools in promoting Pacific student achievement. It tells a similar story to ERO's two previous reports with little evidence of system-wide improvement.
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.