ERO ‘School Evaluation Indicators’: a tumbling, fractured, tautologous, pretentious assembly

A fantastical set of  ‘School Evaluation Indicators’ were recently published by the education review office; put together by a group of government-aligned academics; and now forming the basis of ERO’s newly developed Raising Achievement Plan (RAP) being imposed on schools.

The indicators are disgraceful at many levels: were the academics who wrote the school evaluation indicators for the education review office bereft of their humanity for the occasion? if once were teachers, did they think back on the suitability in purpose and expression of those indicators? did they consider the usefulness of such jargon-laden, coldly-abstract, humanly-distant indicators? did they consider the effect on teachers of that tumbling, fractured, tautologous, pretentious assembly? did they think of their responsibility in the interests of children to be clear, incisive, and practical? were they aware that such lists – lists beyond sense, practicality, and applicability – provide the education review office with a readymade means to trip up schools (on the whim, personality, and mood of the reviewer, or because the reviewer wants to stamp out individuality or independence) in a way that is unfair but beyond countering?

And where are teachers and schools? Much talk of evidence based, but where is the evidence basis for excluding teachers from the development of curriculum documents they have to work with and make work? There is none. The evidence used is that which is self and career serving: elitist academics standing on the backs of teachers and children.

The lists go on and on in turgid, overlapping, relentlessness: a parody of themselves, a wound on the English language, and an exploitation of teachers and children. You have failed as academics to use your knowledge to present the central tasks of teaching in a transparent and classroom-practical way. Your attention was not to teachers and children; it was to your patronage.  I don’t believe the origins of the lists lay within the group of academics, but in other lists that in being transposed were complicated further rather than clarified.

Much of my professional life has been spent working on lists, lists always considerably reduced from their starting point, expressed in accessible language, useful and enhancing for teachers – a distilling of the essence of a curriculum area or school function. I felt it was my responsibility as a person who worked with teachers to do nothing less.

A typical indicator from the education review office document: Evaluation, inquiry and knowledge building for improvement and indication – Policies, systems and processes and teaching practices embed evaluation, inquiry and knowledge building activities into the way the organisation plans for, and takes action to, accomplish its vision, values, goals and priorities.’

Another from the same section: ‘Leaders and teachers are data literate: posing focused questions; using relevant data; clarifying purpose(s); recognising sound and unsound evidence; developing knowledge about statistical and measurement concepts; making interpretation paramount; and having evidence-informed conversations.’

I would like the reader to think of the demands of being a teacher and a requirement like this (amidst hundreds more in the document and hundreds more in other documents) being imposed on them.

The list of ‘Principles for selection of indicators’ says the indicators must be ‘observable or measurable’. The education review office might have made this a demand, but members of the group to allow themselves to be organised by it, have betrayed their humanity and teachers. What is the evidence for just such a decision? The ‘observable or measurable’ dictum is an ideological instrument to allow education review officers to move around demanding measurable data to the terrible disadvantage of teachers and children.

As well, given the power imbalances in the way the education review office works, its bullying  hierarchical structure, the narrowness of its curriculum perspective, I find the association of Maori concepts in this education review office document disturbing. To me, the translation of those concepts (manaakitanga, whanaungatanga, ako) into educational outcomes disorders them and draws attention away from the nauseating nature of the indicators in the rest of the document. Are the Maori concepts, those avowedly spiritual concepts, subject to the same requirement to be ‘observable or measurable’?

More on this in the next posting.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Education Review Office and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to ERO ‘School Evaluation Indicators’: a tumbling, fractured, tautologous, pretentious assembly

  1. Bruce Hammonds says:

    I have a copy of the ERO School Evaluation Indicators and feel exactly as you do Kelvin. Where do these Wellington technocrats come from?. Certainly not much to do with the realities of teaching and learning. They love their lists these linear technocrats – research or evidenced based what a joke but one with terrible consequences of those being measured and compared with them. This is corporate control at its worst. Sure to kill any vestiges of creativity in our school leaders – or should we be honest and call them managers.

  2. Kelvin says:

    Thanks Kelvin

    ERO’s latest list that they are so proud of is so nauseating and they will go about their business so seriously.

    Do they really believe that their RAP directives are going to be the magic tool to enable schools to significantly change the pattern of achievement in NZ?

    I really do not like this definition of acceleration – ‘Achievement is accelerated when a student makes more than one year’s progress over a year, on a trajectory that will indicate they are achieving at or above the standard at the end of year 8 or sooner’.

    Teacher’s are simply not resourced sufficiently or supported to be able to do this, even if it were possible for most children.

    The nightmare seems to be getting darker.

  3. Kelvin says:

    You are absolutely right Kelvin. The cabinet paper just released is very alarming …not surprise … but it clearly indicates the direction of this government … not that it hasn’t been clear for a while but some people seem blind to it!!

    It has got to the stage where there has to be some sort of an uprising from the profession and it has to be led by our lead organisations and principals as a whole.

    The RAP thing is just beyond the pail …

  4. stephen dadelus says:

    This is an appalling imposition on our profession by the government and its agents. NZEI and NZPF must act to protect the core of what we are about as we work in schools and classrooms with our children. There has to be a voice that says with the authority of the teaching profession ‘NO enough is enough. Its our curriculum; its our profession. come back when you have engaged with US. We need to bring to the light the horror story that is RAP! Parents and families need to know what this government has planned for their children and their hardworking and dedicated teachers. Maybe we need to evolve another voice force if those we have elected to represent us continue to bend to government demands.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s