The process of external evaluation and review

Steps in the external evaluation and review process

Below is a quick guide to the steps in the EER process. For the usual timeframes for each step of the process, see the table below.

This timeline details the most common deadlines for a ‘typical’ EER. Timings can vary according to the circumstances of the individual TEO and NZQA’s own requirements.

Activity When? What happens?
Send initial contact letter 12 months before EER TEO notified of date of EER
TEO submits self-assessment summary 16 weeks before EER TEO emails summary to NZQA
Lead Evaluator contacts TEO 10-12 weeks before EER Lead Evaluator discusses TEO’s self-assessment summary and possible pre-EER scoping meeting
Develop scope of EER 6-10 weeks before EER
Up to 6 months for polytechnics, wānanga, ITOs, GTEs
Lead Evaluator develops scope and EER agenda
Finalise scope of EER 4-6 weeks before EER Confirmation and draft agenda sent to TEO
Conduct EER During scheduled week of EER visit Evaluative enquiry carried out
Evaluators to reach indicative ratings and judgements
Closing meeting reports on strengths and weaknesses
Write draft EER report Following EER visit Peer and editorial review
Feedback from other NZQA teams and government agencies
Draft report to TEO Within 30 working days of EER TEO provides feedback to Lead Evaluator (10 days)
Final report to TEO 10 days following feedback from TEO Lead evaluator considers feedback; changes made to report if warranted
Reconsideration of final report Following receipt of final report At TEO request, report reviewed by independent party for process issues
Waived by TEO if not required
Publish final report 10 working days after release of final report to TEO and no reconsideration request Report published on NZQA website

External evaluation and review rubrics

Rubric 1: Criteria for rating Educational Performance for Key Evaluation Questions and Focus Areas

Excellent - Performance is exceptional
- Highly effective contributing processes
- Very few gaps or weaknesses
- Any gaps or weaknesses have no significant impact and are managed very effectively
Good - Performance is generally strong
- Effective contributing processes
- Few gaps or weaknesses
- Gaps and weaknesses have some impact but are mostly managed effectively
Marginal - Performance is variable
- Inconsistent contributing processes
- Some gaps or weaknesses have some impact, and are not managed effectively
Poor - Performance is unacceptably weak
- Ineffective contributing processes
- Significant gaps or weaknesses have significant impact, and are not managed effectively
- Does not meet minimum expectations or requirements

Rubric 2: Criteria for rating Capability in Self-Assessment for Key Evaluation Questions and Focus Areas

Excellent - Self-assessment is exceptional and comprehensive
- Strong evidence of improved outcomes brought about by self-assessment activities
- Very few gaps or weaknesses
- Any gaps and weaknesses have no significant impact and are managed very effectively 
Good - Self-assessment is generally strong and comprehensive
- Evidence of improved outcomes brought about by self-assessment activities
- Few gaps or weaknesses
- Gaps or weaknesses have some impact but are mostly managed effectively
Marginal - Self-assessment is inconsistent in quality and coverage
- Limited evidence of improved outcomes brought about by self-assessment activities
- Some gaps and weaknesses have some impact, and are not managed effectively 
Poor - Self-assessment is generally ineffective or weak
- No or minimal evidence of improved outcomes brought about by self-assessment activities
- Significant gaps or weaknesses have significant impact, and are not managed effectively
- Does not meet minimum expectations or requirements 

Rubric 3: Criteria for judgements about organisational-level Educational or ITO Performance

Highly Confident - The most important needs of learners and all other stakeholders have been comprehensively met
- Highly effective processes have contributed to valued outcomes
- No significant gaps or weaknesses
- Very strong evidence that performance will continue to be exceptional
Confident - Many important needs of learners and most other stakeholders are being met
- Effective processes contribute to valued outcomes
- Gaps or areas of weakness are not serious and are effectively managed
- Strong evidence that performance will continue to be consistent and sound
Not Yet Confident - Some important needs of learners and other stakeholders are being met
- Some inconsistency in processes that contribute to valued outcomes
- Not all gaps or areas of weakness are effectively managed, or evidence of improvement is only partial
- Limited evidence that future performance will be consistent and sound
Not Confident - Several important needs of learners and other stakeholders are not being met, or are only partially met
- Significant inconsistency in processes that contribute to valued outcomes
- Key gaps or areas of weaknesses are ineffectively managed
- Strong indications that future performance may fail to meet minimum expectations

Rubric 4: Criteria for judgements about Capability in Self-Assessment

Highly Confident - Comprehensive, ongoing identification and review of all areas of priority need
- Consistently high quality of self-assessment information and processes
- Findings are used insightfully to make improvements and achieve valued outcomes
- Very strong evidence that exceptional self-assessment will continue to guide and inform performance
Confident - Effective identification and review of majority of areas of priority need
- Generally high quality of self-assessment information and processes
- Findings are used to make a range of improvements and achieve valued outcomes
- Strong evidence that effective self-assessment will continue to guide and inform performance
Not Yet Confident - Partially effective identification and review of some areas of priority need
- Inconsistent quality of self-assessment information and processes
- Findings are used to make some improvements and achieve some valued outcomes
- Limited evidence that future self-assessment will be used to guide and inform performance
Not Confident - Largely ineffective identification and review of areas of priority need
- Significant weaknesses in the quality of self-assessment information and processes
- Findings are not used to make improvements
- Strong indications that future self-assessment may fail to meet minimum expectations

Tertiary evaluation indicators

See the table that links the key evaluation questions to the tertiary evaluation indicators (JPG, 161KB).

Links to other sections of the guide

What is external evaluation and review?

How does EER begin?

How are EERs planned?

How does EER enquiry occur?

How are EER judgements made?

How are EER findings reported?

What happens next?

Back to External evaluation and review

 
Skip to main page content Accessibility page with list of access keys Home Page Site Map Contact Us newzealand.govt.nz