Our Ref: OIA-26-443
23 June 2026
Phillip Fry
[FYI request #34783 email]
Dear Phillip,
Re: Official Information Act request regarding ERO’s new school reports I refer to your email to the Education Review Office dated 25 May 2026 requesting the following
information under the Official Information Act 1982 (OIA):
1. The names of any external contractors, consultants, or companies engaged in relation to the
revised reporting framework, including consultation, communications, research, design,
facilitation, or stakeholder engagement work.
2. A brief description of the services provided by each external party.
3. Any final reports, summaries, presentations, or deliverables produced by external contractors or
consultants relating to this work.
4. Any final risk registers, issue logs, mitigation plans, assurance documents, or governance
summaries prepared in relation to the revised reporting framework.
Please find our full response below. I note that a number of responses under the OIA and advice to the
Minister on this topic are now available on our website.
1. The names of any external contractors, consultants, or companies engaged in relation to the
revised reporting framework, including consultation, communications, research, design, facilitation,
or stakeholder engagement work.
2. A brief description of the services provided by each external party.
3. Any final reports, summaries, presentations, or deliverables produced by external contractors or
consultants relating to this work.
Prime Research NZ was used to support this work by organising and facilitating the first round of focus
groups with parents. What they
provided to us has been summarised and made available on our
website, and is therefore refused under section 18(d) of the OIA.
4. Any final risk registers, issue logs, mitigation plans, assurance documents, or governance
summaries prepared in relation to the revised reporting framework.
Two papers were submitted to the Organisational Performance Committee (OPC) as part of this work.
The first, in September, provided an initial update on progress and set the context for a subsequent
paper in October, which contained the full proposal.
Ko te Tamaiti te Pūtake o te Kaupapa
The Child – the Heart of the Matter
I have decided to withhold the September paper in full under section 9(2)(g)(i) of OIA. I consider that
release would be likely to inhibit the free and frank expression of opinions between officials, which is
necessary to maintain the effective conduct of public affairs.
The October paper, which contains the substantive proposal, has been released to you in full.
In considering the public interest, I believe it has been met through the proactive release of all advice
provided to the Minister on this matter on our website, together with the full release of the October
paper.
Please note that it is our policy to proactively release our responses to official information requests
where possible. We do not publish requesters' personal information.
You have the right to seek an investigation and review by the Ombudsman of this decision. Information
about how to make a complaint is available
at http://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz or freephone
0800 802 602.
Ngā mihi,
Sharon Kelly
DCE – Review and Improvement Services (acting)
Ko te Tamaiti te Pūtake o te Kaupapa
The Child – the Heart of the Matter
Organisational Performance Committee
Date of meeting: 15 October 2025
Item title: Reporting proposal
Author: Zoe Lindsay RIS
Sponsor: Shel ey Booysen
1982
Purpose
This paper is to provide the committee with an update of the proposed school
reports and share examples.
Act
This paper seeks feedback from the Committee.
Summary
This paper provides rationale and background for proposed new report
format and provides examples and guidance.
Attachments
Appendix 1: Draft 1-page summary reports examples
Appendix 2: Draft full reports examples
Appendix 3: Ofsted briefing
Information
Note
This is a fol ow up from the paper provided for 18
Noted
September 2025.
Official
the
under
Released
2
Ko te tamaiti te pūtake o te kaupapa. The child – the heart of the matter.
Reporting proposal
Background
This proposal outlines the intended purpose and audience for ERO (Education Review Office) reports,
emphasising their role as accessible and transparent communication tools. It includes the proposed
changes and enhancements to reporting for all state and state integrated schools.
What do we want our report to do?
1982
ERO reports have multiple audiences. ERO reports should clearly show what schools do well and where
they need to improve, in a way that is easy for everyone to understand.
Act
ERO reports should also:
• fulfil important regulatory and public accountability functions
• be a key communication tool for a range of stakeholders, including parents school leaders, boards,
staff, whānau, and the wider community
• provide a transparent account of how well the school is performing
• offer recommendations and priorities for future improvement, supporting the school’s ongoing
development
• identify improvement actions and ensure that the school's activities are clearly defined and
Information
measurable.
How can we promote consistency and quality in reporting?
• Underpin reporting with ERO frameworks and comprehensive guidance.
• Report on the things that matter and the most important foundations for school quality and outcomes
and conditions that support success.
Official
• Align reporting across school types (primary and secondary)
• ensure that evaluation processes and language are consistent and in line across the country.
• Use digital tools including AI.
the
Reporting achievement and attendance
Reporting on achievement helps parents and whānau by showing how wel students are doing and where
improvements are happening. It gives up-to-date information so school and ERO can respond quickly and
under
helps link evaluation findings to planning for future improvements. Tracking achievement and attendance
over time makes it easier to see progress across all schools.
However, reporting achievement as percentages can be misleading because it shows student learning as a
point in time number and does not show important things like growth, effort, or different learning needs. It
also makes it hard to see progress or added value and can lead to unfair comparisons between schools.
Percentages as a measure do not explain the chal enges students face or the context of the community in
which the school is based.
Released
How to other jurisdictions report achievement and attendance information?
3
Ko te tamaiti te pūtake o te kaupapa. The child – the heart of the matter.
Achievement and attendance raw data are published separately in both the UK and Australia.
• Ofsted do not report achievement or attendance as percentages, this information is reported
separately for primary and secondary schools, rather like the MOE publishes Education Counts data in
NZ.
• Western Australia discusses performance and outcomes, no explicit percentages are published
• Ireland’s approach is similar to ERO, for example
: Almost all children show sustained progress across
the curriculum.
• The Northern Territory focus is on how the school uses their analysis of student outcomes including
academic performance, attendance, behaviour, and wellbeing. Achievement outcomes are not
explicitly reported.
1982
• In British Columbia’s Ministry of Education updates the StudentSuccess.gov.bc.ca portal annually which
features performance metrics like foundation skills and graduation rates, and others for student
progress reporting. They have moved away from heavy testing and ranking towards local and
Act
continuous school improvement initiatives and are using a new framework for Enhancing Student
Learning (like the SIF)
Recommend that ERO continue to include an overall judgement and narratives of progress and
improvement and qualitative insights into teaching practices, student engagement, and wel being.
It would be useful to investigate ways to include better growth data (e.g., value-added measures).
Futureproofing
Information
To make school quality reporting future-proofed and long-lasting it’s important to consider a design that
can be flexible and adapted when things change, is grounded in equity and context and focused on
meaningful learning outcomes. This report proposal recommends that ERO:
•
Report on student outcomes, progress and achievement
Official
o Learner/Student Achievement and progress
o (Foundational) Literacy / Reading and writing
o (Foundational) Numeracy/Mathematics
the
o Attendance & Retention (retention secondary only)
o Inclusion & Wel being
o Equity
•
Include more focus on progress and improvement in narrative findings rather than any further shift
under
towards static achievement or attendance raw data or percentages or graphical depictions of raw
trend data.
•
Report on the most important foundations for school quality and effectiveness identified in the
School Improvement Framework. These overarching areas provide flexibility for narrative
comments to focus on progress and improvement overtime. A summary table would provide a
high-level judgement of the quality of education provision at the time of the review.
Released
o Leadership
o Teaching & Learning
o Curriculum
o Assessment
o Support for learners with additional needs
4
Ko te tamaiti te pūtake o te kaupapa. The child – the heart of the matter.
o School Improvement
o Governance
o Health and Safety
•
Māori Medium Educations (rumaki & reo rua)
o Learner Success
o Conditions for success
The areas above align with the current government priorities as well as reflecting long standing priority 1982
areas for ERO and the education sector. A narrative findings section of the report will provide context and
explanation and can be flexible to changing priorities.
Include more contextual information in the About The School section to explain challenges and strengths.
Act
This includes EQI and an explanation.
Retain and embed sequenced key steps for improvement to align with school improvement planning.
New reporting proposal
Recommend that ERO consider publishing 3 reports with links embedded in the Summary Report:
1. New 1 page summary report (come up with our own name)Information
This report would be a one-page summary report. It would include information about the school, ERO
judgements and findings against the outcomes and conditions in a simple a table format. Reported
judgments would be based on ERO’s final judgement against the School Improvement Framework (SIF).
The table would include the single word judgment and a short statement. Draft statements have been
written based on the SIF and current reports. Official
This report would include links to the ful er report and eventual y to the School Data Summary.
the
2. New ful school report with key next steps for improvement
This report would include 4 sections as well as Regulatory and Legislative Requirements section.
1. About the school
2. Outcomes and conditions summary (as above)
under
3. Outcomes and conditions findings (the narrative story to unpack the summary)
4. Key next steps
5. Summary statement about ERO’s confidence – with recommendations
3. Publish
School Data Summary (website only initially - with link embedded in the summary report
overtime).
Released
This would allow time to develop the portal and allow better reporting of data e.g. a banner/school page
for each school with key information for parents similar to the MOE Dashboard.
5
Ko te tamaiti te pūtake o te kaupapa. The child – the heart of the matter.
This is in line with other jurisdictions where school attendance and achievement data are published
separately to school review reports.
About the school section
Reports across Australia, New Zealand, the UK, and Ireland all include a section on the school
demographics, school context and community. An
About the School section typically provides a
comprehensive overview of the school’s context, beginning with its location and catchment area—whether
urban, rural, or coastal—and considers relevant socio-economic indicators. It includes details on enrolment
1982
numbers and the type of school, offering insight into both size and character.
Student diversity is highlighted, often noting the proportion of students from Indigenous backgrounds,
Act
minority ethnic groups, those with special educational needs or disabilities, and students for whom English
is an additional language. Including the EQI number help to contextualise the school’s particular challenges
and strengths. Most reports also provide a statement on staff and leadership, mentioning any recent
changes in leadership, staffing numbers, and the presence of specialist staff.
The curriculum and qualification provided by the school are described in terms of alignment with national
or state curriculum frameworks, as well as any special programmes offered, such as the International
Baccalaureate Primary Years Programme, enrichment opportunities, or vocational pathways.
Information
Physical and learning environments included in overseas reports with reference to modern infrastructure,
specialist facilities, integration of technology and digital safety initiatives, and the use of local environments
and community resources. Final y, reports often describe how the school’s vision and values guide its
context, shaping both the culture and strategic direction of the school.
Propose that new reports include an extended the
About the school section would include a table of school
Official
information and written statement about the school context, vision etc in line with other jurisdictions and
feedback from schools and parents. the
Learner success & wellbeing, progress & achievement
This section would be included in the 1-page summary report and would be the 1st section of the full
combined report. under
Judgments wil continue to be made by evaluators against the School Improvement Framework. Evaluators
would choose from drop down statement that align to each judgement. Judgement would be best fit from
across all elements of the SIF domain. Evaluators are already doing this during reviews and writing a
narrative statement. This shift is to publish the key word judgment in reports. (Needs improvement, Taking
Steps to improve, Embedded, Excelling).
Equity
Released
The proposed reports include a judgment and statement on equity. This in based on how wel the needs of
disadvantaged and historically underserved students are met. This would clearly report on the quality of
support and outcomes for Māori and Pacific learners, learners with additional needs, disadvantaged or at-
6
Ko te tamaiti te pūtake o te kaupapa. The child – the heart of the matter.
risk students. The narrative statement in the full report would include a comment on internal disparity and
how groups experience success within the same school conditions.
The equity statement should refer to how wel all learners achieve comparable levels of success. It goes
beyond simply providing equal access or opportunities and should focus on the impact of the provision of
education in each school on student outcomes with the aim to reduce disparities in achievement. Within-
school equity focuses on how different groups of learners who experience the same school conditions such
as teaching and learning achieve at similar levels and identify achievement gaps.
1982
School conditions for success
Judgments are made by the evaluators against the School Improvement Framework. Evaluators would
Act
choose from drop down statement that align to each judgement. Judgement would be across al elements
of the SIF domain.
Narrative summary for the full school report will be underpinned by the synthesis and evidential file.
AI wil be used to write the findings and guidance given to writers for prompts that focus on improvement
and the current state of the school. The focus wil be on highlighting strengths and actions the school is
taking for improvement, offering a more nuanced and contextual view of performance.
Key next steps
Information
How do other jurisdictions report next steps for improvement?
Ofsted reports include clear improvement actions for any area rated below “Expected Standard” which
includes specific, actionable recommendations. Areas for improvement are identified through the review
process and evidence provided by the school under each evaluative area. Areas identified for improvement
Official
are shared with the school on day two of the review and they are told about what the school needs to
improve,
giving sufficient detail so that those attending understand their part in improving it.
the
In Queensland, the review process centres on appreciative inquiry, highlighting effective practices and
exploring ways to further improve them. By focusing on what is working wel , schools work with reviewers
to identify context-specific factors that contribute to their success. Review reports present key findings
along with tailored improvement strategies that reflect each school’s unique circumstances, challenges,
and strengths. These strategies are aligned to the School Improvement Tool domains and the School
under
Improvement Hierarchy which ensures that recommendations are both relevant and actionable within the
school’s particular context.
There are similarities with ERO and the use of a framework to identify areas for improvement. Evaluators
currently use areas identified throughout the review underpinned by the key SIF domains that research
shows bring about the most improvements. Next steps for adults are therefore predominantly in areas of
Leadership, Teaching and Curriculum, or framed through these lenses – and this aligns to our theory of
change. Next steps are tied closely to a school’s strategic improvement cycle and measured through goals
Released
set for Student Outcomes.
7
Ko te tamaiti te pūtake o te kaupapa. The child – the heart of the matter.
Summary Statement
Every school report would include a summary statement. This serves to provide the school community with
additional context about the purpose and rationale for any recommended interventions. This section is
designed to accommodate potential future changes in the TAH approach, particularly in relation to high-
performing schools, and offers flexibility for adjustments in both resourcing and scheduling as
circumstances evolve. The judgement statements included here are informed by an assessment of the
school’s capability and capacity to drive improvement.
The selection of summary statements by evaluators and managers will be guided by the categorisation 1982
work and use the criteria consistent with the ERO work focused on school improvement, ensuring that
recommendations are both relevant and aligned with identified priorities.
Act
Report writing process
We propose writing the reports in two ways. The summary tables and overall judgments will be completed
by the evaluator. The intention is that these wil be drop down options for consistency and clarity. A
guidance/parent’s explainer document wil unpack the options and meanings and a link included in each
report for the reader.
Evaluators will write the About the school statement. Guidance about the purpose and content of the
section will be provided. Evaluators will complete the school information table for this section. Next steps
Information
for development include considering ways that this could be automated and/or prepopulated.
The narrative findings for the full school reports will initially be written by AI from evidential file and
eventually a strongly guided and templated synthesis document. The examples included in this proposal
have been written in this way. As part of the writing and QA process the reports will be checked by the
evaluation team and a manager for accuracy, clarity and alignment.
Official
The key next steps, summary and recommendation will be identified by evaluators and managers.
the
MPP has been commissioned to develop a tool and guidance for EPs that enables sharper and better
sequenced recommendations and actions for improvement in ERO school reports. This will support EPs to
ensure improvement actions are purposeful, action orientated, and improvement focused, Next steps will
be sufficiently stepped out to support schools to know what to do and why relative to school capacity and
capability sufficiently paced - balancing school context and urgency
under
Once approved this will be integrated into new report design.
QA process
1. Evaluation team completes onsite review and activities and completes and updates the file with
evidence, SEST and synthesis.
2. At QA1Peer/MRIS work through the file and evidential base including the SEST and SIF synthesis.
Released
3. The QA team complete the first draft of the report from the file using AI to write the statement for
each section based on the school file with set prompts.
4. Writer reviews the whole report and sends to EP/MRIS for alignment checking.
5. Final check is with the QA team
6. This process will be built into current Asana processes and tasks.
8
Ko te tamaiti te pūtake o te kaupapa. The child – the heart of the matter.
Pilot and trial process
Reports will be trialled in Term 4. The trial will include all schools scheduled for review over a two-week
period. The report examples in this proposal have had a review in 2025 and have a report in QA or
published.
Managers will have opportunity to review and provide feedback at the managers hui in early November.
(decision pending).
Feedback from evaluators. Evaluators will have opportunity to feedback on the report’s proposal and new
1982
report format. This will be smaller group of evaluators from different offices. They will be asked to provide
written comment, and a meeting wil be held with them for fol ow up discussion
Act
TBC Feedback from the sector and parents. Schools who have report trialled in Term 4 alongside the
current report will be invited to discuss both reports and provide feedback. RIS will work with parents and
whānau to trial and seek feedback.
Risks
Previously identified risks and mitigation please refer to OPC paper 15 September 2025.
Identified risk: The use of AI to write schools reports. Using AI to write school review reports can
Information offer
efficiency and consistency, but it also comes with several risks that we will carefully manage.
• The QA process will ensure that evaluators validate, edit and confirm school reports. Co-pilot will
be used to write the initial draft of the school report.
• Only internal AI systems will be used to draft the initial version of the school report. Co-pilot will
Official
only be able to generate content from the school file which is school-specific and contextual.
• We will trial the use of co-pilot and collect feedback from evaluators and schools. The provides an
opportunity to refine the process before scaling up.
the
• Evaluators could be resistant as they feel it is a loss of professional judgment and control over their
work. We will manage this through professional development and clear communication about each
step of the process.
under
Released
9
Ko te tamaiti te pūtake o te kaupapa. The child – the heart of the matter.
