This national report accompanies the report entitled Working with Te Whāriki (2013), and is a
response in part to the 2011 ECE Taskforce report which recommended that an
evaluation of Te Whāriki take place.
This report makes use of the curriculum direction that the learning valued in a
service should guide planning, implementation, assessment, and self review. The
sample size for this report was 387: 17% services were found to be highly
effective in identifying priorities for children, 34% had good articulation of
priorities but alignment between articulation and assessment needed more work.
24% had minimal reflection of priorities planning and assessment and poor or no
alignment between documentation and articulation. 5% had not set priorities. Of
this number only 40% considered responsiveness to Māori children is a priority,
and a 20% had considered priorities for Pasifika.
ERO’s key recommendations were:
·
learning valued by the service should be visible
in assessment information
·
curriculum should be responsive to Māori and
Pacific children
·
self review should focus on priorities are
realised through the curriculum
The report is broken into several sections identifying
effective practice and less effective practice. In terms of identifying
priorities for children’s learning, effective practice included: teachers
walking the talk, priorities included whānau aspirations, and planning and
assessment were clearly linked to identify curriculum priorities. Teachers were
up-to-date with research and supported by professional development programs, service
priorities were identified through self review and there was a culture of
improvement within services. Leaders in these settings promoted a coherent
approach to curriculum provision. In settings where there was less effective
practice there was often: a lack of purpose, shared understanding, and intent
when it came to linking curriculum to practice. Curriculum was largely focused
on the provision of resources and activities, children were often viewed from a
deficit perspective, and the services were often associated with weak leaders
or high staff turnover.
In terms of assessing children’s learning, effective
practices included: the principles and strands of Te Whāriki were valued and visible within assessment documentation,
assessment informed the curriculum, and assessment showed planned next steps leading
to progress over time. In those settings where assessment was less effective,
only tentative links were made to the curriculum, there was limited evidence of
teacher role in children’s learning progress, and for some, learning priorities
had not been identified.
In terms of sharing information about children’s learning,
effective practices included: well developed links between the curriculum and
priorities for learning, opportunities for parents to contribute were offered
and followed up, and assessment documents reflected identify priorities for
learning. In those settings where practices were less effective, priorities
were often not visible, assessment was not well aligned to strands and goals,
assessments were records of things that happened rather than records of
learning progression, and in transition to school, the focus was on social competency
rather than recognising learning priorities.
In terms of using information about children’s learning,
effective practices included: using a highly collaborative structure in
evaluation processes, self review was responsive to priorities and linked to
the principles and strands of the curriculum, there was a strong alignment between
identified priorities, assessment practices, curriculum decisions, self review,
and teaching practices. Children’s interests, strengths, and dispositions were
used to inform priorities alongside parent aspirations. Less effective
practices created self review processes that reinforced poor practice, teachers
were not good at reflecting priorities in the practice, or recognising quality.
In terms of responsiveness to Māori children only 14% were
found to be responsive, these services included whānau, consulted iwi, and
responded in a coherent way to Ka Hikitia
and Tātaiako. 25% were found to
be partially responsive, 28% were limited in the provision for these children
and 26% were found to not be providing a responsive curriculum. In terms of
responsiveness to Pacific children only 6% were found to have responsive
practices including robust self review, recognising the importance of Pacific
Island cultures in practice, developing partnerships, forming relationships,
and using external research to inform practice. 15% were found to be partially
responsive 21% were limited in the provision for these children, 13% had no
awareness of what responsiveness might entail, and 45% had no Pasifika children
or strategy.
No comments:
Post a Comment