1 nzpf moot – april 2008 graham stoop chief review officer
DESCRIPTION
3 NZPF Moot – April 2008 The value of evaluation School self-evaluation is a process of: Conceiving Collecting Analysing Communicating informationTRANSCRIPT
1NZPF Moot – April 2008
Graham StoopChief Review Officer
2NZPF Moot – April 2008
I want to do two things today: 1. Talk about the value that evaluation has
to you as school principals. I want to encourage you to think about this value
2. Talk about how ERO is taking the good things
that have occurred over recent years and moving forward with them
3NZPF Moot – April 2008
The value of evaluation
School self-evaluation is a process of:
Conceiving Collecting Analysing Communicating information
4NZPF Moot – April 2008
This process has several purposes:
Inform decision-making in a school
5NZPF Moot – April 2008
“Well, Lemme think. …You’ve stumped me, son.Most folks only wanna know how to go the other
way
6NZPF Moot – April 2008
Purposes - cont
Demonstrate professional accountability
Ascribe value or worth
Establish public confidence in the school
7NZPF Moot – April 2008
Self-accountable professionals:
Not only reflect upon their practice to improve internal working of a school generally
Evaluate against criteria and standards Research shortfalls in provision/performance Respond to changes, experiment Evaluate and develop new programmes Engage in negotiation; make findings accessible
8NZPF Moot – April 2008
Evaluation has wider benefits too:
Accountability Development Knowledge Creativity Moral purpose in a
democratic society
9NZPF Moot – April 2008
Assurance/audit is something different – a technology
Evaluation isn’t just a technology for assuring the effective and efficient management of society
Evaluation isn’t just a technical undertaking – application of tools, systems, procedures for determining goal attainment, outcomes, effects, and polices
Evaluation is an independent kind of questioning and informed critical analysis
I believe in the role and purpose of evaluation. It is a crucial practice in an open, democratic society
10NZPF Moot – April 2008
Evaluation serves professional and ethical purposes: Supporting and strengthening collective
professional development of teachers and schools can improve the quality of education
Evaluation is an important process in a collaborative culture where all groups can safely, critically, and publicly evaluate their work and conditions
Schools that implement processes of on-going self-evaluation and open this to public scrutiny demonstrate professional accountability and moral purpose
11NZPF Moot – April 2008
ERO looking forward How can we link what I have just been
talking about to ERO’s role as an external evaluation agency?
12NZPF Moot – April 2008
ERO’s Education Reviews Two purposes: Evaluation for accountability Evaluation for improvement
13NZPF Moot – April 2008
As long as governments finance schools, forms of monitoring will always have to be devised and schools will need to be accountable
14NZPF Moot – April 2008
At present primary responsibility for educational quality lies with the school: School improvement plans Internal evaluation of quality Planning and reporting initiatives
How do we match the need for governments to be assured about public investment on the one hand, and schools’ autonomy on the other?
15NZPF Moot – April 2008
Key issue
The responsibilitites for quality assurance are spread across various partners
16NZPF Moot – April 2008
Outcomes are more likely to be good when external and internal evaluation complement each other
i.e. when a school’s self-review information is used to inform ERO’s judgements
17NZPF Moot – April 2008
You have all had a review in the past few years. You know that ERO’s current methodology is flexible and responsive – not at all one-size-fits-all
There is scope in an ERO review both for schools with excellent internal review processes – and for those that need the specific direction that an ERO review can give
18NZPF Moot – April 2008
Some schools are leaping ahead in their capacity for internal review
ERO already has the ability, in its review cycle, to customise its reviews of these schools – the overall goal being better outcomes for students
19NZPF Moot – April 2008
ERO will develop its review methodology to increase schools’ evaluation capacity
This is a specific project over the next 12 to 18 months
20NZPF Moot – April 2008
ERO may run a pilot programme. This would be grounded in the theory of evaluation practice and take into account:
Accountability and school development dimensions of evaluation
Legally anchored expectations
School and community internal expectations
21NZPF Moot – April 2008
As a further capacity-building initiative, ERO will also review how it uses principals and other senior staff members in the ERO external review process
Greater understanding of the ERO methodology and its application will help school leaders and trustees to apply the methodology in their own context
22NZPF Moot – April 2008
Options that could be reviewed: The role of a friend of the school Placement of senior school staff in ERO
for professional development Designation of relieving review officers Secondment to ERO as temporary
review officers
23NZPF Moot – April 2008
Key issue
The responsibilities for quality assurance are spread across various partners
24NZPF Moot – April 2008
In ERO
In the schooling sector
In the wider community
Internal
External
Schools
Kura and KōhangaEarly childhood
services
Building Capacity in Evaluation