Principals’ Concerns About the New ERO Reporting Format.
Recently I’ve written about the changes to the Education Review Office’s (ERO) school review programmes. As I wrote then, the whole basis of ERO is very dubious, being a tool for ensuring government political agendas are being met, rather than being useful in helping to continually improve New Zealand education.
The new review agenda exacerbates this, as addressed in this open letter published on the Aotearoa Educators Collective substack.
AIMHI Principals – Request for Urgent Review of New ERO Reporting Format
As usual I will highlight and discuss sections; however this is a very detailed article so please read it for yourself.
‘We are writing on behalf of the AIMHI Principals’ Group, representing Auckland secondary schools with high numbers of priority learners and high EQI contexts. We have significant concerns about the new ERO reporting format planned for introduction from Term 2.
ERO’s recent email to principals outlined the purpose of the new reports: to provide clear, useful information, support Te Ara Huarau, strengthen collaboration, and help parents understand their school. After reviewing the newsletter and the draft reports, we do not believe the new format achieves these goals. In several areas, it actively undermines them.’
Have you noticed the very wide range of educators who are seriously concerned about most/all aspects of Erica Stanford’s education policies? What does this tell you?
(I was going to write ‘the government’s education policies’ but I doubt if anyone else in cabinet is paying enough attention to what is happening – there are so many different agendas being implemented without overall supervision from the ‘CEO’).
The letter then outlines a number of concerns,
‘The Reports Do Not Match ERO’s Stated Purpose or School Improvement Framework
The new colour-coded front page can be easily shared without explanation and can lead to misinterpretation, school comparisons, and public ranking. This damages trust and does not reflect Te Ara Huarau’s collaborative, improvement-focused approach. In particular, the simplified ‘traffic light’-style system does not provide real insight into complex school contexts, especially in high-EQI communities. It will reinforce misunderstanding, not clarity. Despite ERO’s statements, the reports are already being promoted online by parents as a tool for choosing schools, which strengthens harmful “good vs bad schools” narratives.’
We know from the previous decile funding systems how parents and the wider communities used these as ways to rank schools, thinking that a decile 10 school was better than a decile 7 school for example, when in fact the decile ranking was merely a system, not very effective or equitable, of funding schools according to the socio-economics of the communities that they served.
‘We also note the comment that “highly effective schools that are excelling across all SIF domains will see equitable and excellent outcomes for learners.” This is already disproven in the Intermediate Exemplar report that shows ‘excelling’ in the majority of areas, and in all of the areas directly in the school’s control, but still is listed as “Working Towards” in the three achievement-based criteria. This highlights a key issue: in high-needs schools, achievement is often shaped by systemic inequities, not the quality of teaching or leadership. The new model fails to reflect this reality and instead unfairly links achievement outcomes to school quality.’
This has been discussed many times, the biggest differentiator in school effectiveness is the socio-economics of the community – schools in wealthier areas by and large are seen to achieve much better results. But the new ERO reports will not take this into account, thus furthering the inequality of educational opportunities. This is addressed in the next concern mentioned in the letter, the use (misuse?) of EQI, the system that replaced the use of decile rankings to adjust school funding depending on the needs of their communities.
‘The Use of EQI.’
The reporting format does not acknowledge the real challenges faced by high-EQI schools. Without this context, lower achievement indicators become misleading and punitive; they distort public perception and potentially harm the schools working hardest for the learners who need the most support.
We also note the lessons from the Tomorrow’s Schools reforms of the 1990s, when increased competition between schools and the myth of ‘choice’ led to significant socioeconomic flight. These changes deepened inequities, the effects of which are still being felt in communities like ours and continue to drive many of the disparities we see between schools today.’
Any school reporting system that does not take into account these socio-economic factors is potentially very harmful. It is quite possible that a high EQI school is doing far better in educating their students to overcome the influences of their backgrounds, but this will be invisible in these reports.
‘Increased Risk for Principals
While we note the recent removal of the principal’s name from the end of the report in the exemplars, continuing to include the principal’s experience length under the ‘Leadership’ section, along with the colour-coded report of ‘quality,’ still exposes leaders to online criticism and ‘name and shame’ behaviour. This is particularly concerning for principals in high-EQI contexts where achievement data is easily misinterpreted. We would call for this entire row of the table to be removed.’
This is a logical extension of the the concerns about misuse of EQI.
‘A ‘One Size Fits All’ Model With No Evidence Base
There is no evidence, internationally or locally, that high stakes, public and simplified reporting such as that in these exemplars improves student outcomes.’
The letter outlines many examples that illustrate this, too long for this article, so please read it for yourself.
‘In addition, we see the real risk that such reports:
- stigmatise schools in low socio-economic areas
- increase inequity
- reduce trust in review organisations
- drive competition between schools
- narrow teaching and leadership practice
A model with no research foundation should not be implemented nationally.’
Hello, here we go again – another educational model that is not based on any research. Given the rest of Erica’s agenda, also evidence free, I guess we shouldn’t be surprised. But as she knows best, I’m sure everything will turn out fine…
‘High performing systems such as Finland do not use high-stakes inspection frameworks. Since 2000 one of the very highest performing school systems of Singapore has used a self-appraisal style quality-assurance system, the results of which are not publicly released by school so the focus remains on continuous improvement not public accountability that increases competition between schools. Instead they release data at the nationwide or system level to support ongoing improvements across all schools.’
I’ve previously written about Finland, generally recognised as having one of the best, if not the best, education system. Singapore has also made great strides in the past decade or so.
Why hasn’t Erica looked at examples like these two countries rather than the very narrow, ideologically based agenda of the New Zealand Initiative/Atlas Network?
‘Reinforcing “Good vs Bad School” Narratives / Misalignment with Te Ara Huarau
Despite ERO’s assurance that the system is not for comparing schools, the format is already being positioned as a decision-making tool for parents. This reinforces unfair and inaccurate assumptions that harm schools serving priority learners the most. For the parents in our communities, the majority are not in the position of privilege to ‘choose’ their school. For those with the means to pay or to travel beyond their local school, this will continue to contribute to schools in our communities losing students to our low-equity-index neighbours.’
And also,
‘We also note that the report framework does not include the Te Tiriti o Waitangi section from the School Improvement Framework…’
Well, what a surprise.. This is consistent with Elizabeth Rata’s strident anti- Maori attitude and also with all the other anti-Maori policies of this racist government.
‘The Reports Do Not Support Schools Identified as “Of Concern”
In the primary school example online, a school labelled “of concern” also had strong teaching and leadership. The report provides no context, no explanation, and no meaningful guidance. It simply labels the school publicly as a failing school. This is not support. It is stigma.’
I addressed this a couple of articles back, the way EEO has been set up to be critical but not supportive. This is a failure of the ERO model that has existed ever since its establishment.
‘Impact on Teacher Recruitment and Retention
New Zealand is already facing a serious teacher shortage, especially in high-needs schools. Publicly colour-coding schools as low-achieving—without context—will make these schools even harder to staff, widening inequity and reducing access to quality teachers for the learners who need them most.’
This doesn’t need any further explaining.
The article concludes with a list of requests for consideration and with this statement.
‘Our schools and communities deserve a reporting system that builds trust, deepens understanding, and supports genuine improvement – not one that oversimplifies, labels, and harms.’
Don’t hold your breath expecting a positive response from ERO. Their destructive school review programmes will continue in much the same as it has for the bulk of their existence.
Everywhere we look at Erica’s education agenda, we see massive problems looming. Maybe she should actually take notice of reputable education research and of feedback from academics and educators?
But then again there isn’t too much difference between Erica’s evidence free agenda and the most of the other policies emanating from this government.
How did we end up here?
