This resource draws on recent Education Review Office (ERO) national evaluation reports to highlight how schools, both primary and secondary, have been evaluating teaching and learning and then using the findings to improve outcomes for students. ERO found that schools that significantly improved outcomes for students based their priorities for action on the findings from high-quality internal evaluation.
This resource draws on recent Education Review Office (ERO) national evaluation reports to highlight how schools, both primary and secondary, have been evaluating teaching and learning and then using the findings to improve outcomes for students. ERO found that schools that significantly improved outcomes for students based their priorities for action on the findings from high-quality internal evaluation.
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[1].
This resource draws on recent Education Review Office (ERO) national evaluation reports to highlight how schools, both primary and secondary, have been evaluating teaching and learning and then using the findings to improve outcomes for students. Pursuing equity and excellence, some have made significant shifts in pedagogical, assessment and curriculum practice.
As is widely recognised, disparities in achievement are the single biggest challenge facing the New Zealand education system. Done well, internal evaluation can contribute to a reduction in these disparities by clarifying the nature and extent of the issues and providing a firm foundation for improvements.
The effectiveness of internal evaluation is contingent on the development of a professional culture in which staff feel safe to collaboratively investigate achievement and wellbeing data, identify disparities, and commit to bettering outcomes for those who are underachieving. In a strongly supportive culture, leaders and teachers are ambitious for all their students and responsible for playing their full part in improvement initiatives.
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[1].
This resource draws on recent Education Review Office (ERO) national evaluation reports to highlight how schools, both primary and secondary, have been evaluating teaching and learning and then using the findings to improve outcomes for students. Pursuing equity and excellence, some have made significant shifts in pedagogical, assessment and curriculum practice.
As is widely recognised, disparities in achievement are the single biggest challenge facing the New Zealand education system. Done well, internal evaluation can contribute to a reduction in these disparities by clarifying the nature and extent of the issues and providing a firm foundation for improvements.
The effectiveness of internal evaluation is contingent on the development of a professional culture in which staff feel safe to collaboratively investigate achievement and wellbeing data, identify disparities, and commit to bettering outcomes for those who are underachieving. In a strongly supportive culture, leaders and teachers are ambitious for all their students and responsible for playing their full part in improvement initiatives.
ERO found that schools that significantly improved outcomes for students based their priorities for action on the findings from high quality internal evaluation.
When determining priorities, schools need to identify students and groups of students for whom the status quo is not working. This requires good information about achievement and wellbeing, carefully scrutinised. Subsequent, effective action requires commitment and perseverance on the part of all stakeholders.
In some schools, improvements were triggered by the regular evaluation cycle, in others, by an emergent evaluation conducted in response to an unforeseen event, or an issue picked up by routine monitoring.
The leaders and teachers in these schools wanted to know how effectively:
Leaders and teachers worked collaboratively to:
School A is a primary school in a low socioeconomic area. Analysis of achievement data showed that, for many children, progress slowed when they reached Level 2 of the curriculum.
As a next step, leaders and teachers consulted a range of research, which suggested that the slump could be due to:
In response, teachers enacted a number of measures that effectively addressed the loss of momentum. These included:
When the leaders and teachers of School B compared reading data for the last few years, they noticed a decline in Year 1 reading achievement. This meant increasing numbers of students required additional support in Year 2. A review team, which included a member of the board of trustees, investigated possible reasons for the decline, asking parents for their perspectives.
After collecting and analysing further data, the team identified two areas for improvement:
In response, teachers began meeting more regularly with parents to discuss their childâs interests and progress, and any challenges. They raised their own achievement expectations and introduced practices designed to improve their studentsâ decoding and involve then more in assessment-for-learning activities.Â
As a result, Year 1 reading achievement improved and considerably fewer students needed additional support in Year 2.
In secondary School C, teachers set their sights on lifting the NCEA level 2 achievement of a large group of students. Internal evaluation showed that some were achieving well during the year but failing to complete their work at the end of the year.
A leader identified that students taking two or more arts subjects had the burden of completing two major portfolios in Term 4. Teachers trialled different ways of spreading the workload and reducing the end-of-year pressure. These included allowing for earlier completion of design assignments and assessing work against standards that were more in line with the studentsâ interests and career aspirations. For example, some students completed their fashion design portfolio at the end of Term 3 and then worked on their photography portfolio during fashion design class time in Term 4.
ERO found that schools that significantly improved outcomes for students based their priorities for action on the findings from high quality internal evaluation.
When determining priorities, schools need to identify students and groups of students for whom the status quo is not working. This requires good information about achievement and wellbeing, carefully scrutinised. Subsequent, effective action requires commitment and perseverance on the part of all stakeholders.
In some schools, improvements were triggered by the regular evaluation cycle, in others, by an emergent evaluation conducted in response to an unforeseen event, or an issue picked up by routine monitoring.
The leaders and teachers in these schools wanted to know how effectively:
Leaders and teachers worked collaboratively to:
School A is a primary school in a low socioeconomic area. Analysis of achievement data showed that, for many children, progress slowed when they reached Level 2 of the curriculum.
As a next step, leaders and teachers consulted a range of research, which suggested that the slump could be due to:
In response, teachers enacted a number of measures that effectively addressed the loss of momentum. These included:
When the leaders and teachers of School B compared reading data for the last few years, they noticed a decline in Year 1 reading achievement. This meant increasing numbers of students required additional support in Year 2. A review team, which included a member of the board of trustees, investigated possible reasons for the decline, asking parents for their perspectives.
After collecting and analysing further data, the team identified two areas for improvement:
In response, teachers began meeting more regularly with parents to discuss their childâs interests and progress, and any challenges. They raised their own achievement expectations and introduced practices designed to improve their studentsâ decoding and involve then more in assessment-for-learning activities.Â
As a result, Year 1 reading achievement improved and considerably fewer students needed additional support in Year 2.
In secondary School C, teachers set their sights on lifting the NCEA level 2 achievement of a large group of students. Internal evaluation showed that some were achieving well during the year but failing to complete their work at the end of the year.
A leader identified that students taking two or more arts subjects had the burden of completing two major portfolios in Term 4. Teachers trialled different ways of spreading the workload and reducing the end-of-year pressure. These included allowing for earlier completion of design assignments and assessing work against standards that were more in line with the studentsâ interests and career aspirations. For example, some students completed their fashion design portfolio at the end of Term 3 and then worked on their photography portfolio during fashion design class time in Term 4.
When seeking to establish priorities, schools generally start by analysing their achievement data. It is important, however, to consider a wider range of information. This includes information about wellbeing, teacher expectations, curriculum structure, coherence and scope, and contexts for teaching and learning.
Examples of areas that leaders and teachers explored as part of internal evaluation activities included:
Leaders and teachers collaboratively analysed data relating to achievement, progress and wellbeing, looking at their own performance as well as that of their students. They recognised that, by working collaboratively, they:
Collaborative work of this kind required a foundation of relational trust. Further, high quality information and a focus on professional capabilities influenced how well any challenges and successes were fully understood and can be responded to.
Schools that made the greatest improvements chose to focus on just one or two areas. The leaders in these schools were acutely aware that goals needed to be both challenging and manageable. Challenging goals named and addressed groups of students for whom current practices were not delivering. Manageability was largely a matter of having or developing the necessary capacity and limiting competing demands on time and energy.
Well-considered and managed PLD was a feature of the schools that made significant improvements. The PLD provided multiple opportunities for in-depth professional learning and included monitoring of teacher practice for evidence of the desired changes.
Teachers in one secondary school were focusing on developing culturally responsive teaching practice. When the leaders looked at the achievement results for students in a particular subject department they found unacceptable levels of progress. As a consequence they excused teachers in that department from most school-wide PLD and set in place a separate programme designed specifically to improve teaching in that subject.
In one primary school, literacy leaders were looking to improve writing achievement. They attended several external one-day workshops and talked with providers before selecting a provider that offered teaching strategies they had not used before. They rejected PLD that repositioned strategies they were currently using, which were neither helping their reluctant writers nor increasing teachersâ confidence in their ability to teach writing.
Leaders worked closely with teachers as they introduced targeted interventions and school-wide changes in teaching practice. They knew that without support and monitoring they couldnât be certain of implementation fidelity or of the impact of the changes on student outcomes.
A coaching model adopted in one primary school
Leaders and teachers at one school developed and adopted the coaching model shown here to help them link their own inquiries, provide them with multiple opportunities to explore their practices and beliefs, and assess the impact of their practices.
The diagram highlights the joint roles involved in making improvements to teaching and learning.
Leaders were also working on linking individual teachersâ inquiries to school-wide inquiries.
When seeking to establish priorities, schools generally start by analysing their achievement data. It is important, however, to consider a wider range of information. This includes information about wellbeing, teacher expectations, curriculum structure, coherence and scope, and contexts for teaching and learning.
Examples of areas that leaders and teachers explored as part of internal evaluation activities included:
Leaders and teachers collaboratively analysed data relating to achievement, progress and wellbeing, looking at their own performance as well as that of their students. They recognised that, by working collaboratively, they:
Collaborative work of this kind required a foundation of relational trust. Further, high quality information and a focus on professional capabilities influenced how well any challenges and successes were fully understood and can be responded to.
Schools that made the greatest improvements chose to focus on just one or two areas. The leaders in these schools were acutely aware that goals needed to be both challenging and manageable. Challenging goals named and addressed groups of students for whom current practices were not delivering. Manageability was largely a matter of having or developing the necessary capacity and limiting competing demands on time and energy.
Well-considered and managed PLD was a feature of the schools that made significant improvements. The PLD provided multiple opportunities for in-depth professional learning and included monitoring of teacher practice for evidence of the desired changes.
Teachers in one secondary school were focusing on developing culturally responsive teaching practice. When the leaders looked at the achievement results for students in a particular subject department they found unacceptable levels of progress. As a consequence they excused teachers in that department from most school-wide PLD and set in place a separate programme designed specifically to improve teaching in that subject.
In one primary school, literacy leaders were looking to improve writing achievement. They attended several external one-day workshops and talked with providers before selecting a provider that offered teaching strategies they had not used before. They rejected PLD that repositioned strategies they were currently using, which were neither helping their reluctant writers nor increasing teachersâ confidence in their ability to teach writing.
Leaders worked closely with teachers as they introduced targeted interventions and school-wide changes in teaching practice. They knew that without support and monitoring they couldnât be certain of implementation fidelity or of the impact of the changes on student outcomes.
A coaching model adopted in one primary school
Leaders and teachers at one school developed and adopted the coaching model shown here to help them link their own inquiries, provide them with multiple opportunities to explore their practices and beliefs, and assess the impact of their practices.
The diagram highlights the joint roles involved in making improvements to teaching and learning.
Leaders were also working on linking individual teachersâ inquiries to school-wide inquiries.
Principals in schools that showed the greatest improvement were compelled by a sense of urgency to improve outcomes for their current students while also having an eye on longer-term goals. Several spoke to ERO about the âmoral courageâ required to lead a school to improve studentsâ outcomes and wellbeing and reduce disparities. These principals talked about âsoftâ skills or competencies and human values â they were committed to developing their studentsâ personal qualities. They understood that high expectations and quality internal evaluation and improvement processes were fundamental to supporting students to achieve their potential.
Principals in schools that showed the greatest improvement were compelled by a sense of urgency to improve outcomes for their current students while also having an eye on longer-term goals. Several spoke to ERO about the âmoral courageâ required to lead a school to improve studentsâ outcomes and wellbeing and reduce disparities. These principals talked about âsoftâ skills or competencies and human values â they were committed to developing their studentsâ personal qualities. They understood that high expectations and quality internal evaluation and improvement processes were fundamental to supporting students to achieve their potential.
In many of the schools that made significant improvements, internal evaluation led to changes in assessment processes and practices. Leaders and teachers could see that they did not always have access to or use high-quality assessment information when determining priorities for improvement. By adjusting their assessment tools and processes they were able to ensure that the information they collected was useful not only for teaching and learning but also for internal evaluation.
This involved clarifying the purpose of each assessment and then selecting tools that would provide achievement, progress and wellbeing information that could be used to determine next teaching steps and priorities for development. Leaders and teachers put the students at the centre of evaluative processes, seeking to minimise disruptions and considering the following questions:
The following examples describe changes that four schools made to their assessment processes following internal evaluations.
In High School A, an analysis of assessment and reporting information showed that some teachers were rather too accepting of slow progress and low achievement. To raise expectation levels, the leaders decided it was important to clarify what a yearâs progress looked like. This would also give students a clearer picture of their own progress and achievement. Teachers from each learning area took responsibility for describing a yearâs progress at each level. They designed a framework of indicators that the students were then able to use to review their own progress, and, in discussion with their teachers, update their learning goals.
Teachers in High School B recognised that their curriculum needed to be more student-centred, more responsive to studentsâ interests and goals. One outcome was the introduction of a course that combined technology and science and then extended into other subject areas. The teacher of this course interviewed the students about their interests and passions and then put them in groups to tackle projects that matched their inclinations. Together the students and teacher looked at the available NCEA standards and selected those that were most relevant to the projects the students had chosen. Those who spoke to ERO could explain how they had chosen specific standards from science, technology, history, legal studies and geography as part of their technology and science course. The students also developed self-management, entrepreneurial and collaborative skills â competencies that local businesses had identified as desirable.
Leaders at Primary School C had been working on improving their teaching, but they could see from the data that many Year 1 and 2 children were still not meeting expectations for reading. As a result, they decided to change how they engaged with parents. This change meant that teachers would share with parents the assessments used, together with examples of the childâs work. Teachers and parents would then discuss what the assessments revealed and formulate next steps as specific learning goals. The parents would discuss how they could support their childâs learning at home and the teacher would explain how they planned to support the childâs learning at school. Parents were given resources to support the home learning. Considerable improvements in studentsâ achievement, in reading and other curriculum areas were evident from the time teachers started working more closely with parents. As a bonus, younger siblings started school with an orientation towards literacy, which meant that their reading also progressed more rapidly once they reached school.
Teachers at Primary School D recognised that they were not consistently interrogating achievement data to learn how their teaching was impacting on student outcomes, so they introduced this set of focusing questions:
These questions helped them address a dip in mathematics achievement by:
In many of the schools that made significant improvements, internal evaluation led to changes in assessment processes and practices. Leaders and teachers could see that they did not always have access to or use high-quality assessment information when determining priorities for improvement. By adjusting their assessment tools and processes they were able to ensure that the information they collected was useful not only for teaching and learning but also for internal evaluation.
This involved clarifying the purpose of each assessment and then selecting tools that would provide achievement, progress and wellbeing information that could be used to determine next teaching steps and priorities for development. Leaders and teachers put the students at the centre of evaluative processes, seeking to minimise disruptions and considering the following questions:
The following examples describe changes that four schools made to their assessment processes following internal evaluations.
In High School A, an analysis of assessment and reporting information showed that some teachers were rather too accepting of slow progress and low achievement. To raise expectation levels, the leaders decided it was important to clarify what a yearâs progress looked like. This would also give students a clearer picture of their own progress and achievement. Teachers from each learning area took responsibility for describing a yearâs progress at each level. They designed a framework of indicators that the students were then able to use to review their own progress, and, in discussion with their teachers, update their learning goals.
Teachers in High School B recognised that their curriculum needed to be more student-centred, more responsive to studentsâ interests and goals. One outcome was the introduction of a course that combined technology and science and then extended into other subject areas. The teacher of this course interviewed the students about their interests and passions and then put them in groups to tackle projects that matched their inclinations. Together the students and teacher looked at the available NCEA standards and selected those that were most relevant to the projects the students had chosen. Those who spoke to ERO could explain how they had chosen specific standards from science, technology, history, legal studies and geography as part of their technology and science course. The students also developed self-management, entrepreneurial and collaborative skills â competencies that local businesses had identified as desirable.
Leaders at Primary School C had been working on improving their teaching, but they could see from the data that many Year 1 and 2 children were still not meeting expectations for reading. As a result, they decided to change how they engaged with parents. This change meant that teachers would share with parents the assessments used, together with examples of the childâs work. Teachers and parents would then discuss what the assessments revealed and formulate next steps as specific learning goals. The parents would discuss how they could support their childâs learning at home and the teacher would explain how they planned to support the childâs learning at school. Parents were given resources to support the home learning. Considerable improvements in studentsâ achievement, in reading and other curriculum areas were evident from the time teachers started working more closely with parents. As a bonus, younger siblings started school with an orientation towards literacy, which meant that their reading also progressed more rapidly once they reached school.
Teachers at Primary School D recognised that they were not consistently interrogating achievement data to learn how their teaching was impacting on student outcomes, so they introduced this set of focusing questions:
These questions helped them address a dip in mathematics achievement by:
The schools that made the greatest gains in achievement and wellbeing had carefully evaluated their curriculum in terms of the following four factors: cohesion, inclusiveness, cultural responsiveness and alignment to The New Zealand Curriculum.
The New Zealand Curriculum they focused on:
The following examples describe changes that three schools made following internal evaluations of their curriculum.
Aware that teenagers often change their minds about career or further education or training, leaders and teachers at Secondary School X restructured their senior courses to allow students to keep their options open for longer. Along with mathematics and English, science was also made compulsory in Year 11 because it is a prerequisite for further education in so many areas. Based around vocational contexts, students were able to select the science course that best aligned with their interests and aspirations. Teachers addressed the perception that physics is difficult by revising the course content and changing the way it was taught. As a result of this student-centred approach there was a lift in Year 11 NCEA science achievement, and multiple Year 12 physics classes had to be timetabled instead of just one.
In Secondary School Y, the head of English reviewed the Year 10 reports and then discussed with the students their interests, likes and dislikes. It became evident that some of the boys were getting positive comments for physical education and health but not for their other subjects. As a result, the department set up a sports-themed English course specifically to engage such students. Other themed Year 10 English courses followed: Pacific voices, digital English, English Classics, and humanities English (social justice and social change). The humanities course was particularly popular and linked to the schoolâs vision of having its graduates ârecognised as thinkers, contributors and participants in the local, national and global community.â Classes were not streamed, as teachers differentiated their approach for the different abilities. Following these changes, the school saw an increase of about 20 percent in their overall achievement in Level 2 NCEA.
The leaders and teachers of Primary School Z recognised that they needed to do more to promote success for MÄori, and that deeper learning demanded a more responsive curriculum â one that valued the studentsâ heritages and was cognisant of their interests. As a result, the school introduced two major changes.
The first was to give all students opportunities to learn about their significant local history and share and build on their experiences. Leaders, teachers and trustees worked with a cluster of schools to learn from each other how they taught te reo me ona tikanga. When planning local history units, the schoolâs MÄori leaders met with a leader of the local rĹŤnanga to learn more, and then discussed their ideas with whÄnau.
The second change involved teachers working with others in the cluster to develop teaching practices that supported deeper learning. This led to the realisation that learning would be enhanced if teachers worked in partnership with the students. One outcome was that teachers invited groups of Year 4 to 6 students to work with them when planning integrated topic studies. The students made many suggestions concerning things that were important to them, both in the school and in the community.
The schools that made the greatest gains in achievement and wellbeing had carefully evaluated their curriculum in terms of the following four factors: cohesion, inclusiveness, cultural responsiveness and alignment to The New Zealand Curriculum.
The New Zealand Curriculum they focused on:
The following examples describe changes that three schools made following internal evaluations of their curriculum.
Aware that teenagers often change their minds about career or further education or training, leaders and teachers at Secondary School X restructured their senior courses to allow students to keep their options open for longer. Along with mathematics and English, science was also made compulsory in Year 11 because it is a prerequisite for further education in so many areas. Based around vocational contexts, students were able to select the science course that best aligned with their interests and aspirations. Teachers addressed the perception that physics is difficult by revising the course content and changing the way it was taught. As a result of this student-centred approach there was a lift in Year 11 NCEA science achievement, and multiple Year 12 physics classes had to be timetabled instead of just one.
In Secondary School Y, the head of English reviewed the Year 10 reports and then discussed with the students their interests, likes and dislikes. It became evident that some of the boys were getting positive comments for physical education and health but not for their other subjects. As a result, the department set up a sports-themed English course specifically to engage such students. Other themed Year 10 English courses followed: Pacific voices, digital English, English Classics, and humanities English (social justice and social change). The humanities course was particularly popular and linked to the schoolâs vision of having its graduates ârecognised as thinkers, contributors and participants in the local, national and global community.â Classes were not streamed, as teachers differentiated their approach for the different abilities. Following these changes, the school saw an increase of about 20 percent in their overall achievement in Level 2 NCEA.
The leaders and teachers of Primary School Z recognised that they needed to do more to promote success for MÄori, and that deeper learning demanded a more responsive curriculum â one that valued the studentsâ heritages and was cognisant of their interests. As a result, the school introduced two major changes.
The first was to give all students opportunities to learn about their significant local history and share and build on their experiences. Leaders, teachers and trustees worked with a cluster of schools to learn from each other how they taught te reo me ona tikanga. When planning local history units, the schoolâs MÄori leaders met with a leader of the local rĹŤnanga to learn more, and then discussed their ideas with whÄnau.
The second change involved teachers working with others in the cluster to develop teaching practices that supported deeper learning. This led to the realisation that learning would be enhanced if teachers worked in partnership with the students. One outcome was that teachers invited groups of Year 4 to 6 students to work with them when planning integrated topic studies. The students made many suggestions concerning things that were important to them, both in the school and in the community.
This resource highlights successful processes and actions from a range of schools that ERO has visited in recent years. See the following reports for further information about how schools were doing and using internal evaluation for improvement:
Keeping children engaged and achieving in writing (2019)
Keeping children engaged and achieving through rich curriculum inquiries (2018)
Keeping children engaged and achieving in mathematics (2018)
Keeping children engaged and achieving in reading (2018)
Building genuine learning partnerships with parents (2018)
Leading innovative learning in New Zealand Schools (2018)
What drives learning in the senior secondary school? (2018)
A decade of assessment in primary schools â practice and trends (2018)
Case Study: Improving MÄori student achievement and wellbeing (2018)
Teaching approaches and strategies that work (2017)
School Leadership that works (2016)
Wellbeing for Success: A resource for schools (2016)
Effective School Evaluation (2016)
Effective Evaluation for Improvement (2015)
Wellbeing for childrenâs success at primary school (2015)
Wellbeing for young peopleâs success at secondary school (2015)
Raising student achievement through targeted actions (2015)
Internal Evaluation: Good Practice (2015)Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
Â
[1]Â 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, 901â912. New York: Springer.
This resource highlights successful processes and actions from a range of schools that ERO has visited in recent years. See the following reports for further information about how schools were doing and using internal evaluation for improvement:
Keeping children engaged and achieving in writing (2019)
Keeping children engaged and achieving through rich curriculum inquiries (2018)
Keeping children engaged and achieving in mathematics (2018)
Keeping children engaged and achieving in reading (2018)
Building genuine learning partnerships with parents (2018)
Leading innovative learning in New Zealand Schools (2018)
What drives learning in the senior secondary school? (2018)
A decade of assessment in primary schools â practice and trends (2018)
Case Study: Improving MÄori student achievement and wellbeing (2018)
Teaching approaches and strategies that work (2017)
School Leadership that works (2016)
Wellbeing for Success: A resource for schools (2016)
Effective School Evaluation (2016)
Effective Evaluation for Improvement (2015)
Wellbeing for childrenâs success at primary school (2015)
Wellbeing for young peopleâs success at secondary school (2015)
Raising student achievement through targeted actions (2015)
Internal Evaluation: Good Practice (2015)Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
Â
[1]Â 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, 901â912. New York: Springer.