Understanding the Education Review Office (ERO)
The Education Review Office (ERO) is the government agency that evaluates how well early childhood services and schools educate and care for children. It also publishes national reports that show trends and findings from its evaluations.
ERO was established to check the quality of education in Aotearoa and to share those findings publicly so families and communities can see how services are performing.
ERO’s primary role is quality assurance. It reviews how well early childhood education (ECE) services support children’s learning and wellbeing and highlights areas where services can improve.
However, there are questions over its performance
How ERO differs from the Ministry of Education
ERO is not a regulator. It does not licence services, enforce minimum standards, or take compliance action.
The Ministry of Education is responsible for licensing ECE services, checking they follow the rules, and providing funding to services that meet those rules. Because Ministry staff visit services, follow up on complaints, investigate serious incidents, and monitor compliance, they gain first‑hand knowledge of what is happening in ECE services.
This practical, on‑the‑ground understanding is essential because the Ministry also advises the Government on policy, drafts new policies, develops curriculum documents and resources, and sets the funding rules and requirements that all ECE services must follow.
The Education Review Office has a different role. ERO is more independent and neutral because it is not a regulator. ERO focuses on child outcomes, and encourages services to build strong systems for continuous improvement.
In contrast, the Ministry of Education often has to balance providers’ financial interests and respond to sector lobbying. This means the Ministry’s role is more political and operational, while ERO’s role is more evaluative and child‑focused.
How often the Education Review Office reviews ECE services
For small or standalone ECE services (those not part of a group with 8 or more licences), the time between reviews can range from 1 to 5 years, with an average of around 3 years.
Before doing a full quality review, the Education Review Office first checks whether the service is meeting basic licensing requirements:
- If the service is not meeting requirements, ERO may return within 1 year
- If the service meets basic standards, the next review may be 3–5 years away
ERO no longer reviews every ECE service
If an ECE service is part of a large organisation with 8 or more services, ERO now reviews the governing organisation, not each individual service.
This change was introduced as part of ERO’s Savings Programme. ERO has said the new approach helps it work more efficiently and reduce workload (ERO Savings Programme Q&As, 11 June 2024).
What ERO looks at in Governing Organisation Evaluations
ERO focuses on:
- what the governing organisation knows about how its services are performing
- how the organisation supports improvement across its services
- the systems and processes the organisation uses to ensure quality
ERO may still visit a small sample of individual services within the organisation but of those it visits it does not produce individual reports on.
What this means for families and the sector
For medium and large service provider organisations
ERO now samples only a small number of services within medium to large providers, so reviews may not reflect the quality of every site. Many individual services in these organisations may not be reviewed for several years, and some may not be reviewed at all.
For small providers
Standalone services are reviewed at least every four years, so they face a heavier review burden than medium or large providers.
For parents
You will not find an ERO review for every ECE service on the Education Review Office website. Check other sources too – for example, the national register of early childhood services on the ECE Parents’ Council website, to see service standards, parent reviews, and ratings.
Practical effects
- Large providers can concentrate staff time and resources on the few services ERO samples instead of ensuring every one of their services is prepared to be reviewed.
- Because not every service is reviewed, families should use multiple information sources when choosing care.
- Smaller providers carry a greater review burden, which can be time‑consuming and resource‑intensive.
From time to time, ERO gathers information on a specific topic – such as science, infant‑toddler care, or awareness of Te Whāriki – by reviewing services over a set period. It uses that information to produce a public report on the topic. These reports are valuable because ERO has legal access to services and service data that is often unavailable to researchers and other organisations.
The benefits of ERO’s reviews
ERO reviewers are trained in evaluation. When they visit an early childhood education (ECE) service, owners and managers must provide requested documentation and answer questions. This external review:
- Supports internal evaluation. The review process prompts services to examine their own practice and systems.
- Builds capacity. Reviewers routinely ask about a service’s own evaluation systems, which helps providers collect useful information and assess their policies and practice more critically.
- Highlights strengths and areas to improve. Reports give services clear feedback they can use to plan improvements.
Common misconceptions
Different interpretations of rules. It’s normal for ERO and the Ministry of Education to interpret regulations differently because they have different roles. ERO focuses on quality improvement, while the Ministry is responsible for licensing and compliance and is the regulatory authority.
ERO cannot issue sanctions or penalties. Inspecting and enforcing licensing rules is the Ministry of Education’s responsibility, not ERO’s.
ERO does not act for the Ministry of Education. It does not automatically report breaches to the Ministry. The Ministry may request information from ERO, but ERO does not operate as the Ministry’s enforcement arm.
ERO is not an ongoing support agency. After a final report is agreed with a service, ERO generally has no further contact until the next scheduled review. ERO can affirm good practice, but it does not provide mentorship. Praise in a report is useful, but it is not the same as ongoing guidance or coaching.
Advance notice. Services usually receive about four weeks’ notice before a review, giving them time to prepare. This can influence what reviewers see during the visit.
Time between reviews. Reviews can be up to four years (or longer) apart. This means a published report may not reflect current staff, leadership, or practice.
Reviewer background. ERO reviewers are skilled evaluators, but they are not required to have worked in early childhood education or hold ECE qualifications. This can affect what they notice and the questions they ask.
Limits to relying on ERO reports. An ERO report is only one source of information. A finding of non‑compliance by ERO may not lead to the same conclusion from the Ministry, and a positive ERO report does not guarantee that a service is meeting all regulatory requirements. After an incident or complaints from parents or staff, the Ministry may identify breaches that ERO did not detect during its review. For a fuller picture of any ECE service, it is wise to also look at other sources of information, such as standards and parent reviews in the national register of early childhood services on the ECE Parents’ Council website (myece.org.nz).
Practical takeaway
ERO reviews provide valuable, independent feedback and help services strengthen their own evaluation practices. However, ERO reports have limits: they are snapshots in time and do not replace other sources of information. You should use ERO reports alongside other evidence when judging a service’s current quality.
How Much Should We Value Education Review Office Reviews of ECE Services?
OPINION
Warwick Marshall
February 2016
If you have ever bought a car or a house you may have arranged a pre-purchase inspection report so you can be assured it isn’t a lemon or a leaky home. How much would you value a car inspection if done by a train mechanic?
You might feel better if it was done by a truck mechanic because a truck is more similar to a car than a train. Even better perhaps if a panel beater turned up. Though, perhaps you might have assumed the person inspecting the car would actually be experienced and qualified with, well, cars! A car mechanic perhaps?
How about ERO reviews of ECE services? How much should we value and trust them?
Do you feel assured knowing that the reviewer will have some kind of tertiary qualification? Maybe you can rest easy knowing the reviewer will usually have some management experience in an educational setting. Do you feel better knowing the reviewer will have undergone a training process to become an evaluator and will participate in professional development? Though, perhaps you might have assumed the person reviewing an ECE service would actually be experienced and qualified in, well, ECE! An ECE teacher perhaps?
How many ERO reviewers are ECE, primary or secondary qualified? How many are without teaching qualifications? What proportion of ECE services are reviewed by an actual ECE qualified reviewer? Compare this with the proportion of primary and secondary schools reviewed by a reviewer with actual relevant qualifications. Unfortunately it seems that this data is currently unavailable.
For a house pre-purchase inspection would it make sense to have the builder inspect the wiring, the plumber to check the load bearing wall or the electrician to report on the kitchen sink? Certainly a qualified builder can inspect most things but you’ll find some very big disclaimers on the inspection report and advice to the buyer to consult with the ‘experts’ (electrician, plumber) to be sure of no problems. And, you’d be a mug if you’re a builder doing inspections without indemnity insurance; getting it wrong could cost you hundreds of thousands.
So what is the cost of ERO reviewers getting it wrong? It likely won’t cost the ERO or the reviewers anything because no-one will know they got it wrong. But, the cost to the children could be on going misery, developmental problems and insecure futures all of which accumulate to massive costs to society.
However, maybe we need not fret because ERO assures that the specialist expertise needed is evaluation, not sector expertise. The reviewers follow a manual of standard procedures, use criteria and work in teams to make robust judgements. And, a partnership approach with the ECE service means their perspective contributes to the overall judgments too. Be reassured that a reviewer qualified in ECE may from time to time actually review an ECE service.
Comments received from members on the Education Review Office
- One of the things I have always wondered about is the way centres know well in advance when the review is going to be so it is easy to get things up to date, bring in more equipment or staff for the day so things look better. How would it be using the motoring analogy if instead of roadside checks for warrants and registration you were sent a letter that in three months’ time you were to call in at your local police station on a certain day to show them you had a current warrant and registration and this happened every three years. I bet a lot of people would only get them done every three years and the rest of the time wouldn’t bother. This is how I think ERO reviews work. There should be spot checks if they are to find anything out.
- I spoke to Iona Holsted the head of the Ministry of Education who a few years ago headed ERO, and I suggested spot checks to her. The response was lukewarm and as I recall was something along the lines of “We have too many centres to see to do spot checks”. I remain baffled by this when the ERO’s stated intention is “The child, the heart of the matter”. It seems to me that a more accurate statement would be “Paperwork, the heart of the matter”!
