EDUCATION REVIEW OFFICE – 2011/12 ESTIMATES QUESTIONS …

2011/12 Estimates: Vote Education Review Office Questions for Written Response: June 2011

EDUCATION REVIEW OFFICE – 2011/12 ESTIMATES

QUESTIONS FOR WRITTEN RESPONSE 1 Will the Department’s/Ministry mission statement or vision be changed

over the 2011/12 year, if so, what are the details of these changes? Why were these changes made, and what is the objective behind such changes? Answer: There are no plans for the Education Review Office to change its vision statement over the 2011/12 year.


2 Does the Department/Ministry plan any restructuring in the near

future; if so, what restructuring is planned in 2011/12 and when will this occur? What evaluations have been carried out prior to any proposed restructuring (provide these to the committee)? What restructuring occurred during the past financial year: provide details of structural change, the objective of the restructuring, staffing increases or reductions as a result, and all costs associated with the change including costs of redundancy? Answer: ERO does not plan any restructuring in 2011/12, although the Chief Review Officer will finalise reviews this year of its support services, evaluation services group, and ERO’s capacity to respond to Pacific education issues. ERO did not undertake any restructuring during the past financial year. Whether any restructuring will be necessary as an outcome of the proposal to merge ERO and the New Zealand Qualifications Authority will not be known until officials have completed their due diligence.


3 What new services or functions do the Department/Ministry or its

associated agencies respectively intend to introduce in the forthcoming financial year? Describe these and estimate their cost. Answer: The Education Review Office does not plan to introduce any new services or functions in the forthcoming financial year.


4 What services or functions do the Department/Ministry or its

associated agencies respectively intend to cut or curtail in the forthcoming financial year? Describe the service or function concerned and estimate the cost saving.

Answer:

The Education Review Office does not intend to cut or curtail any services or functions in the forthcoming financial year.


5 What user charges will be collected by the Department/Ministry or its

associated agencies in the forthcoming year? Please break this down by existing user charges, extended user charges and new user charges. Answer: No user charges will be collected by ERO in the forthcoming financial year.


6 How much funding has been allocated to capital works by the

Department/Ministry or its associated agencies respectively in the forthcoming financial year? How does this figure compare to that allocated and that spent in 2010/11? Answer: Please refer to ERO’s 2011 Statement of Intent at page 21. ERO has forecast an expenditure of $1 million on capital works in 2011/12, compared to an estimated actual expenditure of $1.392 million in 2010/11 ($1.692 budgeted).


7 What polls, surveys or market research does the Department/Ministry

or its associated agencies respectively intend to undertake in the following financial year? Please provide the following details:

Who is to conduct the work Date the work is to commence Estimated completion date Estimated total cost Whether tenders were or are to be invited; if so, how many were

received. Answer:

ERO has not budgeted for any market research in 2011/12.


8 How much is estimated will be spent on campaigns or publications in the forthcoming financial year? How does this compare to campaigns

or publications launched or distributed in 2010/11, and at what cost? Provide copies of any evaluations of campaigns undertaken in 2010/11. Answer: ERO expects to spend approximately $125,000 on publications in the forthcoming financial year, similar to that spent on publications in 2010/11. The publications released in 2010/11 were the national evaluation reports, the annual report and the statement of intent, all of which are available on ERO’s website www.ero.govt.nz.

ERO will not be undertaking any public relations campaigns in the forthcoming financial year, and did not undertake any in 2010/11.


9 For each advertising or public relations campaign to be conducted or

commissioned or planned by the Department/Ministry or its associated agencies respectively, in or for the 2011/12 financial year, please provide the following:

Details of the project including all communication plans or

proposals, any reports prepared for Ministers in relation to the campaign and a breakdown of costs

Who is to conduct project Type of product or service generally provided by the above Date the work is to commence Estimated completion date Estimated total cost Whether it is intended that the campaign will be shown to the

Controller and Auditor-General Whether tenders were or are to be invited; if so, how many were

received. Answer: ERO does not expect to conduct or commission any advertising or public relations campaigns in the 2011/12 financial year.


10 Have any advertising or public relations campaigns been planned in

relation to the 2011/12 Budget; if so, provide full details of costs, intended scope of campaigns, names of all consultants/contractors engaged to work on campaigns.

Answer:

ERO has not planned any advertising or public relations campaigns in relation to the 2011/12 Budget.


11 How many public relations and/or communications staff and

contractors/consultants does the Department/Ministry employ; what is the total salary budget for these staff; and how does that compare with each of the last five financial years?

Answer: One full time and one part time staff members are employed in ERO as public relations/communications staff at a total salary cost of $159,000. This cost is slightly less than 2009/10, but otherwise it has remained much the same over the last five financial years. ERO does not employ any public relations or communications contractors or consultants.


12 How many external contractors or consultants will be engaged or

employed by the Ministry in 2011/12 and what is the estimated total cost? How does this compare to each of the previous five years, both in terms of the number engaged and the total cost? For each consultant or contractor that has been engaged in the last five financial years please provide the following details:

Name of consultant or contractor Type of service generally provided by the consultant or contractor Details of specific consultancy or contract Budgeted and/or actual cost Maximum hourly and daily rates charged Date of the contract Date the work commenced Completion date Whether tenders were invited; if so, how many were received Whether there are proposals for further or following work from

the original consultancy; if so, what are the details? A copy of all reports prepared or delivered as a result of the

consultancy or contract. Answer: ERO has budgeted to spend $275,000 on consultants and contractors in 2011/12. We expect the numbers engaged to be similar to those engaged in the previous five years but anticipate the costs to be lower. Attached are tables setting out the details of the consultants and contractors engaged in 2010/11 (to 31 May 2011) and 2009/10.


Contractor/Consultant 2011/12

Type of Service Detail of Service Actual Amount ‐Hourly Rate

$

Duration Tenders ‐ Future Work

Report

Acemark Consulting Group Risk and Assurance meetings Risk and Assurance Committee member

2,200 ‐ as per Govt rates

December 2010 No ‐ no further work

N/A

Asnet Tech Ltd Video conferencing technical services Connect video bridge

1,950 ‐ daily rate

July‐August 2010

No ‐ previously used ‐ yes to future work

N/A

Brendan Piper Microsoft Reporting Services and Financial Management Information Systems Support

Report writing 6,025 ‐ $100 per hour

October 2010 ‐ March 2011


N/A

Catalyst Consultants Ltd Sybase House refit Building design 7,800 / $120 per hour

March 2011 No ‐ previously used ‐ yes to future work

N/A

Catalyst Net Ltd Computer consultancy Software Installation

3,900 ‐ $120 per hour

August 2010


N/A


Contractor/Consultant Type of Service Detail of service Amount $

Duration Tenders Report


Copeland Wilson Associates (CWA)

Website development consultancy Website developers

23,960 ‐ $120 per hour

September 2010 – February 2011


N/A

Crown Law Office Crown law advice Legal advice 5,525 ‐ as per Govt rates

April – May 2011


N/A

Dr. Keith Greaney Education Research Research 1,000 ‐ flat fee March 2011 No ‐ Will not use again

N/A

E Gov Watch Website review Website review 2,550 ‐ flat fee February 2011 No ‐ No further work

N/A

Eclipse NZ Ltd Financial Management Systems support

Software maintenance

6,845 ‐ $185 per hour

August 2010 – May 2011


N/A

Fusion 5 Payroll system support Software maintenance

1,188 ‐ $150 per hour

May 2011 No ‐ prev used ‐ yes future work

N/A




Gallup Organization Staff survey Engagement 19,960 ‐ flat fee

February – May 2011

Yes ‐ SSC tender ‐

N/A


yes to future work

Hay Group Ltd Job evaluation work Job evaluation 2,377 ‐ varies as per service

October 2010 and February 2011


N/A

Key Business Partners Ltd Risk and Assurance Risk and Assurance Committee member


January – April 2011


N/A

Korora Consulting ERO communication strategy ERO communication strategy

4,400 ‐ $1100 per day

October 2010 No ‐ no to future work

N/A

Learning Media Search engine optimisation Website services 2,820 ‐ $120 per hour

May 2011 Now CWA N/A

Morrison Kent Legal fees Property Legal Services

11,280 ‐ varies as per service

August 2010 – April 2011


N/A



OPRA Consulting Group Staff interviews Exit interviews 3,630 ‐ flat fee August 2010 – May 2011

Yes ‐ On going contract

N/A


Organization Development Co.

Leadership development programme Staff coaching 2,500 ‐ flat fee March 2011 No ‐ Yes to future work

N/A

Shenagh Gleisner Risk and Assurance Risk and Assurance Committee member


March 2011 No ‐ Yes to future work

N/A

Charlene Scotti Consultant Review of Pacific Capacity

8035 ‐ $120 per hour

Nov 2010 – March 2011

No ‐ One off work contract

In draft

Silicon Information Technology consultancy Server upgrade 1,050 ‐ $150 per hour

December 2010 No ‐ previously used ‐ yes to future work

N/A

Word Pro Website editing Website editing 1,046 ‐ $44 per hour

Oct/Nov 2010 No ‐ No to future work

N/A

Write Ltd Style Guide Style Guide 2,040 ‐ flat fee December 2010 No ‐ previously used ‐ yes to future work

N/A


Contractors/Consultants

2009/10 Type of Service Amount Duration Tenders Title of Report

ADVANCED NETWORKS GROUP LTD Computer network testing 1,418.76 December 2009 No ‐ used previously for similar work N/A

ANDERSON LLOYD LAWYERS Legal advice 1,210.65August‐September 2009

No ‐ used previously for similar work N/A

BRENDEN PIPER Microsoft Reporting Services and Financial Management Information Systems support 23,300.00

July 2009‐May 2010


CATALYST.NET LTD Database work 10,400.00 October 2009 No ‐ used previously for similar work N/A

CERTUS SOLUTIONS LTD Information Systems support 145.00 February 2010 No ‐ used previously for similar work N/A

COMPETENT CONSULTING LIMITED Electronic document management records system 1,050.00 April 2010 No N/A

COPELAND WILSON&ASSOCIATES LTD Website Redesign 11,128.00 April 2010 Yes ‐ 3 were received N/A

ECLIPSE (NEW ZEALAND) LIMITED Financial Management Information implemented systems support 5,571.25

August 2009‐April 2009 Yes ‐ 19 were received N/A

ENDERBY ASSOCIATES LTD Professional development for support staff 500.00 September 2009 No N/A

FUSION5 Human Resource Systems Support 5,080.00August 2009‐May 2010 Yes ‐ 14 were received N/A

GSB SUPPLY CORP LTD Purchasing brokerage fees 2,500.00 May 2010 No ‐ used previously for similar work N/A

HAY GROUP LIMITED Job evaluation work 21,338.01 September 2009 No ‐ used previously for similar work N/A


Consultant Type of Service Amount Duration Tenders Title of Report

KONICA MINOLTA Advice on scanning 2,100.00 February 2010 No

Digitisation Report for Accounts Payable Process

LIVERTON LIMITED Outlook email support 1,120.00 March‐April 2010 No N/A MOMENTUM CONSULTING GROUP LTD Human Resource consultancy (126.33) July 20009 No ‐ used previously for

similar work N/A

MORRISON KENT Legal advice 3,811.33October‐November 2009


QUIGG PARTNERS Legal advice 150.00 March 2010 No ‐ used previously for similar work N/A

SUE SUCKLING Risk and Assurance work 5,741.42October 2009‐March 2010


SUI GENERIS SOLUTIONS LTD Review Templates update 5,775.00October 2009‐May 2010


SWIM LTD Records management work 3,836.25August 2009‐March 2010


THE GALLUP ORGANISATION PTY LTD Staff engagement survey 18,377.00

July 2009/Oct 2010

Yes ‐ by the State Services

Gallup Engagement Survey

THOUGHTS PARTNERS LIMITED Staff coaching 343.75 August 2009 No N/A WORKPLACE TRAINING COMPANY Report writing 6,642.66 July 2009 No N/A


Consultant Type of

Service Amount

$ Duration Tenders Title of Report

KEY BUSINESS PARTNERS LIMITED Risk and Assurance work

10,844.15October 2009‐April 2010


WRITE GROUP LTD Writing ERO review reports

9,360.00 May 2010 No Document Review for Education Review Office ‐ February 2010.

H SIMONS

Consultancy on Review Methodology

1,574.00 February 2010 No N/A

InfocentriK Limited

Electronic document management records system

39,240July 2009 ‐ 30 June 2010 Yes N/A

Total 192,430.90


ERO no longer has the details of the contractors and consultants engaged in previous financial years following changes in its financial management system. However ERO spent $165,084 in 2006/07, $160,630 in 2007/08, and $315,442 in 2008/09.


13 Does the Department/Ministry expect to hire more or fewer

contractors in the 2011/12 year than it did in 2008/09 and what is the difference in the amount expected to be spent in 2011/12 year compared to 2008/09? If the Department/Ministry expects to hire more contractors in the 2011/12 year compared to 2008/09 year, why are more contractors required? Answer: ERO expects to hire a similar number of consultants and contractors in 2011/12 as it did in 2008/09. It has budgeted to spend $275,000 in 2011/12 compared to $312,000 in 2008/09.


14 How much is being budgeted in the 2011/12 financial year for

redundancy payments for the Department/Ministry and its associated agencies and how does that compare to the amount budgeted and that spent in each of the last five financial years?

Answer: ERO is budgeting $35,000 for a redundancy in the 2011/12 year. No staff members were made redundant in 2010/11. In 2009/10 five staff members were made redundant at a cost of $130,000. In 2008/09 two staff members were made redundant at a cost of $140,999. ERO had no redundancies in the previous two years.


15 How many people are expected to receive redundancy payments in the

2011/12 financial year, and how does that compare to each of the last five financial years?

Answer: Please see the answer to Question 14. ERO is budgeting for one redundancy in the 2011/12 financial year.


16 How many personal grievances are estimated to be settled in 2011/12

and at what estimated cost? How does this compare to the personal grievances lodged by former employees over the last five financial years? For each year please, provide the number of personal grievances, the number of personal grievances settled and cost to the Department/Ministry.

Answer:

There were no personal grievances lodged by staff/or former employees of the Education Review Office in the last 12 months. There was one personal grievance lodged in 2008/09 and this was settled at a cost of $4,500 and three weeks special leave. There were no others in the last five financial years.


17 How many will proceedings with the Employment Relations Authority

or Employment Court are estimated to be dealt with in 2011/12? How does this compare with proceedings lodged by staff or former employees with the Employment Relations Authority or Employment Court in the last five financial years? For each year please, provide the number of proceedings settled and the costs to the Department/Ministry.

Answer: No staff or former employees of the Education Review Office lodged any proceedings with the Employment Relations Authority or Employment Court in the 2010/11 financial year, or in any of the last five financial years.


18 Has the department/Ministry set aside contingency funds for the

settlement of personal grievances in 2011/12? If so, how much and involving how many claims?

Answer:

ERO has not set aside contingency funds for the settlement of personal grievances in 2011/12.


19 How many arbitration cases involving staff are estimated to be settled

in 2011/12 and at what estimated cost? How does this compare to arbitration cases involving staff over the last five financial years? For each year please, provide the number of arbitration cases, the number of personal grievances settled and the cost to the Department/Ministry.

Answer:

There have been no arbitration cases involving ERO staff in 2011/12, and none in the last five financial years.


20 How many of the total staff complement are expected to be employed

by the Department/Ministry in 2011/12 are considered to be frontline staff and how does that number compare to the number of frontline staff in each of the past five financial years?

Answer:

As at 31 May 2011, 179 of ERO’s staff are considered to be frontline staff. In 2010 the number was also 179; in 2009 187; in 2008 178; in 2007 201; and in 2006 205.


21 Are any changes in the balance between frontline staff and back office

staff planned in the 2011 financial year; if so, please provide details. Answer:

There are no changes planned in the balance between frontline and back office staff in ERO in the 2011/12 financial year but ERO will continue to look carefully at the need to fill back office positions as vacancies occur.


22 How does the Department/Ministry define frontline staff for the

2011/12 year and how has that definition changed over the past three years?

Answer:

ERO currently defines frontline staff as those staff whose role and duties are directly related to the carrying out of reviews of schools and early childhood services and the production/publication of institutional and national evaluation reports. This definition has not changed in the past three years.


23 How many permanent staff are currently employed within the

Department/Ministry or its associated agencies? How does this compare to the last five financial years?

Please breakdown by: Role (eg. policy/admin/operational) Classification (full and part time) Office (eg. geographical location)

Provide detailed explanations for any fluctuations in staff numbers of plus or minus 10%. Answer:

The following table shows staff numbers in ERO since 2006, by office and role. The figures for 2011 are as at 31 May 2011.

Office 2011

(31May) 2010

2009 2008

2007 2006

Auckland

Review Staff 42 40 44 45 45 47 Support Staff 7 6 6 4 5 6

Managers 1 1 - 1 1 1

Hamilton


Managers - - 1 1 1 1

Rotorua

Review Staff - - 7 7 8 7 Support Staff - - 1 1 1 2

Managers - - - - - -

Napier



Wanganui


Managers - - - 1 1 1

Wellington

Review Staff 21 16 17 13 15 18

Support Staff 3 2 3 3 3 3

Managers 1 1 1 1 1 1

Nelson Review Staff - 5 5 5 7 7

Support Staff - - 1 1 1 1



Office 2011 (31May)

2010

2009 2008

2007 2006

Christchurch


Managers 1 1 1 - - -

Dunedin


Managers - - - 1 1 1

Corporate


Managers 9 9 9 9 12 13


24 How many staff are currently employed in policy positions and how many does it expect to have in the 2011/12 financial year? How does this compare with each of the last five financial years? How do these positions breakdown by policy area?

Answer:

ERO does not employ any staff in policy areas, and has not done so in any of the last five financial years. ERO is not a policy agency and does not have a direct policy function.


25 How many unfilled policy positions are there currently within the

Department/Ministry and how many unfilled policy positions does it expect to have in the 2011/12 financial year? How does this compare with each of the last five financial years? How do these positions breakdown by policy area? How is the Department/Ministry continuing to carry out policy work in the absence of staff in these positions?

Answer:

Please see the answer to Question 24. ERO does not have any policy positions.


26 What work, if any, will be done by Department/Ministry staff around

mergers of departments, ministries or other government funded agencies in the 2011/12 year and for each such project, what departments, ministries or other government fund agencies are being considered for mergers?

Answer:

Please see the answer to Question 2. ERO’s chief executive and senior managers are involved in the SSC led due diligence with respect to the proposal to merge ERO and the New Zealand Qualifications Authority. In respect to any other work being undertaken I refer the Committee to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of State Services announcement on 31 May 2011 discussing proposals for mergers and reviews of government agencies.


27 How many staff in total are currently seconded to Ministerial offices

and are these staff members’ salaries paid by the department/ministry or by Ministerial Services? How does this number compare with the number of staff seconded to ministerial offices in each of the last five financial years?

Answer:

One member of ERO’s staff is currently seconded to work in the Office of the Minister Responsible for the Education Review Office and this has been the case over each of the last five years. The staff member’s salary is paid by ERO.


28 What are the direct costs of servicing ministerial offices budgeted for

in 2011/12? And how does this compare with each of the last five financial years?

Answer:

The only direct cost to ERO of servicing the Minister’s Office is the cost of the seconded staff member’s salary, and this has been the case in each of the last five financial years.


29 How many temporary staff are currently employed within the

Department/Ministry or its associated agencies. How does this compare to the last five financial years? Please breakdown by: Role (e.g. policy/admin/operational) Classification (full and part-time) Office (e.g. geographical location) Provide detailed explanations for any fluctuations in staff numbers of plus or minus 10%.

Answer:

The following table shows the number of temporary staff employed by ERO each year since 2006. Information about role and classification is not kept, but generally temporary staff are employed in support or review roles to cover short term vacancies. The figures for 2011 are as at 31 May. The numbers of temporary staff have increased in 2011 while organisational changes made the previous year are settled in, and to ‘backfill’ review staff employed on national evaluation work arising from evaluations commissioned and funded by the Ministry of Education.

Year Fulltime Part-time Total

2011 6 9 15

2010 - 4 4

2009 3 4 7

2008 5 4 9

2007 3 3 6

2006 6 6 12


30 Provide a breakdown by role (e.g. policy/administration/operational)

and location of the Department's/Ministry's staff numbers in comparison to each of the last five financial years, by gender.

Answer:

The following table provides a breakdown by role, location and gender of ERO’s staff numbers for each year since 2006. The figures for 2011 are as at 31 May.

Office 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006

Auckland M F M F M F M F M F M F

Review 6 36 7 33 10 34 9 36 8 37 10 37 Support 7 6 6 4 5 6 Managers 1 1 1 1 1

Hamilton

Review 11 10 12 11 7 9 5 12 5 12 5 2 Support 2 2 3 3 2 2 Managers 1 1 1

Rotorua

Review - - - - 4 3 4 3 5 3 5 2 Support - - - - 1 1 1 2 Managers - - - -

Napier

Review 7 8 1 6 3 7 4 7 4 9 Support 2 2 2 2 2 2 Managers

Wanganui

Review 4 6 4 6 4 8 3 9 2 8 1 10 Support 3 3 2 2 2 2 Managers 1 1


Office 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006

Wellington M F M F M F M F M F M F

Review 3 7 1 15 3 14 1 13 2 13 4 14 Support 3 2 3 1 1 1 2 1 2 Managers 1 1 1 1 1 1

Nelson

Review - - 2 3 2 3 3 2 3 4 2 5 Support - - 1 1 1 1 Managers - -

Christchurch

Review 5 12 6 11 6 13 5 13 7 15 8 13 Support 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 Managers 1 1 1

Dunedin

Review 4 8 5 7 5 8 4 7 5 7 5 8 Support 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 Managers 1 1 1

Corporate

Review 3 12 3 11 3 12 4 7 4 11 3 10 Corporate 12 21 11 25 10 23 10 25 8 29 5 33 Managers 5 4 4 5 5 4 4 5 6 6 7 6


31 What is the anticipated staff turnover for 2011/12 and what was the

staff turnover for 2010/11 by category; provide this information both as a percentage and in numerical terms? Is the turnover rate cause for any concern, if so, what are the major issues and how will these be addressed in 2011/12?

Answer:

ERO anticipates a staff turnover of about 10 percent in 2011/12. As at 31 May 2011, the staff turnover was 9.3 percent, with 21 staff members having left during the year to 31 May. This turnover rate is not of concern.


32 How many staff have resigned since 1 July 2010, what were the

reasons for the resignations, and what are the possible implications for the Department/Ministry in 2011/12?

Answer:

21 staff have left ERO since 1 July 2010. They included retirements, review officers who left ERO to take up other positions primarily back to the teaching sector, staff leaving for family/health reasons, and one death. There are no significant implications for ERO in 2011/12.


33 Have any staff made redundant been re-employed as contractors or

consultants and continue to be employed in 2011/12; if so, was this negotiated as part of the redundancy, severance or other termination packages?

Answer:

No staff who have been made redundant have been re-employed as contractors or consultants and continue to be employed in 2011/12.


34 How much is the estimated cost of all redundancy, severance or other

termination packages for the 2011/12 financial year? How does this compare to the total value of all redundancy, severance or other termination packages paid out in the last financial year?

Answer:

Please see the answer to Question 14.


35 How much is the estimated cost in $10,000 bands of all individual total

amounts paid out in redundancy, severance or other termination packages in the 2011/12 financial year? How does this compare to the individual total amounts paid out in redundancy, severance or other termination packages since 1 July 2010

Answer:



36 What is budgeted to be spent on performance bonuses, payments or

additional leave in 2011/12? Were staff given any form of bonus or incentive payment or leave in the past financial year; if so, why, and what were the specific incentive payments or leave received and at what total cost? What were the specific criteria for such performance payments? Has there been any changes to the criteria since November 2008; if so, what specific changes and why? What was the range of performance bonuses or payments given to staff in the past financial year (in $1,000 bands), and what is estimated will be given in 2011/12 (in $1,000 bands)?

Answer:

ERO is budgeting $50,000 for performance bonuses and one-off payments in 2011/12. 22 staff were paid a performance bonus in the 2010/11 financial year at a total cost of $40,350. These were one-off payments to recognise performance on special projects and outstanding performance of duties, where salary increases were not appropriate. The criteria for performance payments in ERO are:

Outstanding performance of duties where a salary increase is not appropriate; or

Performance over and above normal expectation in respect of a particular project or task.

Where performance payments are made ERO’s guideline is that these should be within a range of 2.5 to 5% of salary. No changes to the criteria have been made since November 2008. The range of payments made in 2010/11 in $1,000 bands is shown in the table below. It is not possible to estimate the range in $1,000 bands that might be given in 2011/12. Bands $ Number of Staff

Under 1,000 5 1,000 – 1,999 12 2,000 – 2,999 2 3,000 – 3,999 0 4,000 – 4,999 0 5,000 – 5,999 1 6,000 – 6,999 1 7,000 – 7,999 1


37 In $10,000 bands, what are the salary levels of all staff, and how does this compare with the salary levels for each of the last five financial years?

Answer: The following table sets out the salary levels of all ERO’s staff in 2011 (as at 31 May) and in each of the last five financial years.

$

2011

2010

2009 2008 2007 2006

20-29,999 - - - - - -

30-39,999 8 10 9 8 15 18

40-49,999 19 17 20 21 17 14

50-59,999 5 6 7 9 10 10

60-69,999 6 5 6 15 23 25

70-79,999 56 63 72 85 106 109

80-89,999 65 62 61 45 38 39

90-99,999 15 19 16 14 14 18

100 - 110,000 19 17 20 8 2 2

110 - 120,000 7 4 2 2 4 3

120,000 and above

11 10 10 11 8 11


38 How are collective employment contract bargaining negotiations

proceeding at the Department/Ministry or its associated agencies respectively?

Answer:

The ERO/PSA collective employment agreement expired at the end of March 2011. While the PSA has given notice that they wish to enter into negotiations for a new collective, bargaining is not expected to commence until later in the 2011 year.


39 Will wage negotiations be fiscally neutral in 2011/12; if so, how will

this be managed (ie will any output areas be affected)? Answer:

Wage negotiations in 2011/12 will be fiscally neutral. This will be managed through the implementation of new and more flexible review methodology, and reducing the costs of the services it purchases, ie working smarter. No output areas will be affected.


40 Provide a summary of any CEC negotiations completed in the 2010/11

financial year, and an outline and timeline of negotiations to be conducted in 2011/12?

Answer:

ERO did not undertake any collective employment agreement negotiations in 2010/11, but expects to engage in negotiations with the PSA in the latter half of 2011 calendar year.


41 Did any CEC negotiations completed with unions provide any form of

additional incentive such as a cash payment or bonus not offered to non-union members; if so, what was the specific incentive, how many staff received or will receive the incentive and when was the incentive paid or will be paid?

Answer:

Please see the answer to Questions 38 and 40.


42 How many staff are on collective and individual employment

contracts respectively? How does this compare with the numbers of staff on collective and individual employment contracts for each of the last five financial years?

Answer:

The following table sets out how many ERO staff are currently on collective and individual employment agreements, and how many there were on each type of agreement in the last five financial years.

2011

2010 2009 2008 2007 2006

Collective Agreement

155 162 174 160 181 193

Individual Agreement

56 51 49 58 56 56


43 How much is budgeted to be spent on accident compensation cover for

staff in 2011/12? How does this compare to the last five financial years?

Answer:

ERO is budgeting $107,000 for accident compensation for the 2011/12 financial year The total amount spent on accident compensation for each of the last five financial years is set out in the table below. The figure for 2010/11 is an estimated one.

Year $000 2006/07 99 2007/08 103 2008/09 109 2009/10 97 2010/11 97


44 What provisions and plans are being implemented by the

Department/Ministry and its associated agencies in the 2011/12 financial year to account for the savings in back office functions, such as administrative and support functions, from 1 July 2012? How is the Department/Ministry planning to meet these savings in the next financial year? What is the projected total cost of these savings based on current information?

Answer:

ERO has taken and will continue to take a number of initiatives that will contribute to meeting its required baseline reductions, including:

a reorganisation of ERO’s structure through 2009 and 2010 enabling the closure of offices in both Rotorua and Nelson, providing on-going savings in leasing and associated accommodation costs;

reductions in the amount of space leased by ERO in other offices; utilising the All of Government purchasing property initiatives; a reduction in the number of vehicles operated by ERO throughout

the country; the installation of video conferencing in all ERO’s offices during

2010/11, reducing the amount of travel by staff; not filling some support vacancies and finding ways of working

more efficiently; the rationalisation of ERO attendance at conferences and seminars;

and generally cutting internal office operational costs such as power.

These initiatives are expected to contribute up to $600,000 in savings.


45 How many staff are currently members of workplace savings schemes

(e.g. KiwiSaver, the State Sector Retirement Savings Scheme and the Teacher’ Retirement Savings Scheme) and how does this compare to the last five years?

Answer:

Currently 182, or 86 percent, of ERO’s staff are members of workplace savings schemes. This percentage has remained much the same over the last five years.


46 What provisions, plans and savings are being implemented by the

Department/Ministry and its associated agencies in the 2011/12 financial year to account for the ending of the central funding of employer contributions to workplace savings schemes (e.g. KiwiSaver, the State Sector Retirement Savings Scheme and the Teacher’ Retirement Savings Scheme) on 1 July 2012 as announced in Budget 2011?

Answer:



47 What is the estimated cost to the Department/Ministry of the

Government’s changes the central funding of employer contributions to workplace savings schemes on 1 July 2012 as announced in Budget 2011? How is the Department/Ministry planning to meet these costs in the next three financial years? What is the projected cost of these changes based on current information in next three financial years?

Answer:

The estimated cost to ERO of the changes to the central funding of employer contributions to workplace savings schemes in 2011/12 is $242,000, increasing to $279,000 in 2012/13 and $302,000 in 2013/14 and out years. Please see the answer to Question 44 in respect to savings being made in ERO’s operating budget.


48 Has the Department/Ministry considered any options that involve

reducing staff or reducing pay increases to help cover the cost of the Government’s changes to the central funding of employer contributions to workplace savings schemes that were announced in Budget 2011; if so, what were all of these options?

Answer:

ERO has not considered any options that involve reducing staff or reducing pay increases to help cover the cost of changes to the central funding of employer contributions to workplace savings schemes announced in Budget 2011, but will factor the changes into its overall business planning. Please also see the answer to Question 44 setting out a range of initiatives that ERO is implementing to meet its baseline reductions.


49 What is the average annual leave entitlement for staff employed by

the Department/Ministry and its associated agencies, does this include or exclude any departmental/ministry holidays; if so, how many? How does this compare with each of the last five financial years?

Answer:

All staff in ERO have an entitlement of five weeks’ annual leave, incorporating the three days between Christmas and New Year formerly known as “ERO office holidays”. This has been the case in each of the last five financial years.


50 How many staff, in actual numbers and as a percentage, are entitled

to 4 weeks annual leave, between 4 and 5 weeks annual leave, 5 weeks annual leave, or more than five weeks annual leave, excluding any departmental/ministry holidays, and how does this compare with each of the last five financial years?

Answer: Please see the answer to Question 49.


51 How much is being allocated for overseas travel by officials at the

Department/Ministry or its associated agencies respectively in the forthcoming financial year and what proportion of operating expenditure does this represent? How does this compare with the total amount spent in the last five financial years?

Answer:

The amount allocated for overseas travel in the forthcoming financial year is $50,000. This represents 0.17% of ERO’s total operating expenditure appropriation for 2011/12. This is less than that spent in 2010/11, which is estimated to be about $80,000, a similar level to that spent in the previous five financial years.


52 What assets are planned to be sold by the Department/Ministry or its

associated agencies respectively in 2011/12, and how does that compare to 2010/11?

Answer:

Assets are sold by ERO as part of its planned asset replacement programme. Assets sold in 2010/11 included computers, motor vehicles and various items of furniture and office equipment. Similar types of assets will be sold in 2011/12.


53 How much floor space does the department/ministry lease, what is the

annual cost per square metre in each specific building, and how does this compare with each of the last ten years?

Answer:

As at 31 May 2010 ERO leased 6,716 square metres of office space in 9 offices throughout New Zealand. From October 2010, ERO leased 6534 square metres in 8 locations; from 22 February 5,895 square metres; and from July 2011, 5,477 square metres. In 1998 ERO leased a total of 5,950 square metres of office space in ten locations; in 2002 a total of 6,262 square metres; in 2005 a total of 6,811 square metres; and in 2008 a total of 7,137 square metres.

The average cost per square metre in each building over the last ten years is set out in the table below:

Office $psm $psm $psm $psm $psm $psm $psm $psm

1998 2003 2005 2008 2010 October

2010 February

2011 July 2011

Auckland 201 165 179 225 225 225 225 225 Hamilton 139 137 137 154 155 155 155 155 Rotorua 157 145 145 150 - - - - Wanganui 60 60 60 90 95 95 95 95 Napier 153 153 169 169 169 169 169 169 Wgtn Region (

100 145 167 167 191 191 191 300

Wgtn Corporate

177 214 292 295 368 368 368 362.50

Nelson 132 133 133 182 182 - - - Christchurch 165 165 190 190 185 185 - - Dunedin 90 99 132 140 140 140 140 140


54 How much floor space does the department/ministry lease for its head

office in Wellington, what is the annual cost per square metre in each specific building, and how does this compare with each of the last five years?

Answer:

As at 31 May 2011, ERO leases 1,411 square metres of office space for its corporate office in Wellington at an average annual cost of $368 per square metre. From 1 July 2011, ERO will lease 1,093 square metres for its corporate office at a cost of $362.50 per square metre.

In 1998 ERO leased 1,346 square metres of office space for the corporate office at a cost of $177 per square metre; from 2002 to 2005 - 1,351 square metres at a cost of $214psm; from 2005 to 2006 - 1,351 square metres at a cost of $292psm; from 2006 to June 2008 - 1,411 square metres at a cost of $295psm; and from July 2008 to 30 June 2011 - 1,411 square metres at a cost of $368.


55 What is the budgeted amount for each renovation, refurbishment or

redecoration project in offices or buildings of the Department/Ministry and its associated agencies respectively that is expected to cost more than $10,000 in the 2011/12 financial year? For each, please provide the following details:

- Details of the project - Location of the project - Name of provider(s) or manufacturer(s) - Type of product or service generally provided by the above - Estimated cost of the project - Estimation completion date - Whether tenders were invited, if so, how many were received - List separately any single item of furniture worth more than

$5000 and its cost. Answer:

In 2011/12, ERO has budgeted to spend $350,000 on renovations, refurbishment or redecoration of its office premises in Christchurch, Dunedin and Whanganui. The projects and their estimated costs are: Christchurch: replacement of office destroyed in the February earthquake – estimated cost $175,000. No premises have yet been identified. ERO hopes that this project will nonetheless be completed before the end of the 2011 calendar year. Dunedin: refurbishment/redecoration of current premises at John Wickcliffe House as a result of a reduction in space agreed with the landlord – estimated cost of $50,000. No provider yet determined but the project is expected by November/December 2011. Whanganui: moving to new, smaller premises in February/March 2012. A new building has been identified but lease conditions are still being negotiated – the estimated cost of the project is $125,00, but no design work has been carried out or tenders yet called.


56 What offices of the Department/Ministry or its associated agencies are

planned to be closed in the 2011/12 financial year and for each what is the location of the office, how many staff are employed there and what is the annual budget of the office?

Answer:

ERO is not planning to close any offices in the 2011/12 financial year.


57 What offices of the Department/Ministry or its associated agencies are

being considered for closure in the 2011/12 year and for each what is the location of the office, how many staff are employed there and what is the annual budget of the office?

Answer:

ERO is not considering the closure of any of its offices in the 2011/12 year.


58 What offices of the Department/Ministry or its associated agencies

were closed in 2010/11 and how much is the closure of each office expected to save the Department/Ministry in 2011/12 financial year?

Answer:

While ERO closed its office in Nelson in 2010, consolidating the work of that office on the Wellington regional office, staff were retained, either working from home or from the Wellington office. ERO expects to save an estimated $50,000 per annum from the closure of the Nelson office, excluding of course, any staff salaries and associated personnel costs.


59 In how many buildings does the Department/Ministry lease space

where staff are present and how many of those buildings have current code of compliance with the local earthquake standards? For each building that does not have current code of compliance, what is the address of that building and how many Department/Ministry staff work in that building?

Answer:

ERO currently leases space in seven buildings in Auckland, Hamilton, Napier, Wanganui, Wellington and Dunedin, and each of the building owners has advised that their buildings meet local earthquake compliance standards. Having said this, I am advised that this was the case for the Pyne Gould building in Christchurch after the September 2010 earthquake, yet that building was destroyed in the February 2011 earthquake.


60 How many staff have Koru Club memberships paid for by the

Ministry/Department, and how does this compare with each of the last five years?

Answer:

25 ERO staff currently have Koru Club memberships paid for by the department. This compares to 45 in 2005/06, 48 in 2006/07, 42 in 2007/08, 33 in 2008/09, and 37 in 2009/10.


61 How many staff have the use of ipads, laptops, cellphones,

blackberrys, or other portable electronic devices paid for by the Department/Ministry; how many will have the use of more than one; what proportion of all staff have the use of these devices; what is the estimated cost; and how do these numbers compare to the previous five years? Answer: ERO has 172 mobile phones and 26 blackberrys. No staff member has more than one cellphone. The cost for the use of these phones in the financial year from 1 July 2010 to 31 May 2011 was $134,833. ERO currently has 172 laptops. All ERO staff can have the use of a laptop. This has been the case in the previous five years. One staff member has an ipad. In 2009/10 ERO had 195 mobile phones and 29 blackberrys. No staff member had more than one phone. The cost for the use of these phones in the financial year from 1 July 2009 to 30 June 2010 was $128.364. The increased use of blackberrys in 2010 corresponds with the closure of the ERO Nelson office – these staff are now working from home. The blackberrys are also used as a cost effective replacement for laptops for staff who need to access email when out of the office. In 2008/09 ERO had 248 mobile phones. The total cost for the year was $69,046. There was one PDA (Personal Digital Assistant) in use. No staff member had more than one phone. In 2007/08 ERO had 244 mobile phones and 5 PDAs. Five of the 244 mobile phones were car phones. Two staff members had more than one phone. The total cost for the use of these phones in 2007/08 was $89,184. In 2006/07 ERO had 238 mobile phones, including 6 PDAs. Six staff had more than one phone. The total cost for the year was $95,115.

All reviewing staff have the use of a cellphone. In 2006 cellphones were issued to all ERO’s review officers, who travel to schools and centres on a daily basis, for ease of communication and for safety purposes while they are away from the office. Cellphones are also issued to managers and those support staff available on call outside of normal office hours. Sufficient phones are also available for use by temporary or contracted review officers.


62 Does the Department/Ministry have a policy about the use of personal

email accounts (e.g. gmail accounts) in the workplace; if so, what policies are in place and do those policies include a prohibition on the use of such accounts for official government business?

Answer: The current policy set for ERO’s email filtering does not allow the use of private email such as hotmail, gmail and so on. This key reason for this is the security of ERO’s systems. A small selection of managers have access to private mail accounts to assist in testing the safety of the use of private mail by staff.


63 How many staff have the use of vehicles paid for by the

department/ministry; what are the estimated costs; and how do these numbers compare to the previous five financial years?

Answer: There are 8 ERO staff who have either partial or full use of vehicles paid for by ERO.

ERO makes an adjustment to salaries for those staff to cover the cost to ERO of the personal use of the vehicles.

The numbers have reduced from previous years – in 2010/11 the number was 14 and in 2009/10 it was 27.


64 How much has the Department/Ministry or its associated agencies

respectively budgeted to spend on internal conferences and seminars, including travel costs, and what is the purpose of each seminar in 2011/12? How does this compare to the 2010/11 financial year? What are the measures used to evaluate the success or effectiveness for internal conferences or seminars?

Answer:

Apart from meetings of review officers and support staff and their managers for the purpose of training and development, ERO is not planning to hold any internal conferences or seminars in 2011/12, and did not hold any in 2010/11.


65 How much has the Department/Ministry or its associated agencies

respectively budgeted to spend on staff training in 2011/12; and what percentage of the vote does the amount represent? How does this compare to the previous five years?

Answer:

ERO has budgeted to spend $511,000 on professional learning and development for its staff in 2011/12. This represents 1.80 percent of its vote. This is similar to the amount spent in each of the previous five years.


66 What specific activities or events will the Department/Ministry or its

associated agencies respectively conduct that contributes towards staff morale in the forthcoming financial year?

Answer: ERO will not be undertaking any specific events in the forthcoming financial year that contribute specifically towards staff morale, but will continue those regular activities that reflect ERO’s ongoing commitment to the welfare of its staff.

ERO maintains an active communication process with all the staff of the organisation to inform them of ERO’s operations, events and developments. This includes a weekly electronic newsletter of staff movements, events of interest and individual staff successes, for example in fields of study. ERO has a substantial Intranet network so that staff can readily access information about the organisation. In a well-established programme of individual and group training for staff, ERO is always mindful of staff morale and always aims to provide the best possible environment for its staff to work in.


67 Please provide a list all reports that were prepared in relation to the

Department's/Ministry's baseline update for 2011/12.

Answer: The first Baseline Update for 2011/12 is due in October 2011 and a second one is due in March 2012.


68 What are the five main issues facing the Department/Ministry in the

2011/12 financial year, how will these be addressed in this and coming years, and how are these issues an outcome of previous years? What specific resource commitment is required to address each specific issue?

Answer:

The focus for ERO over the next financial year will include: responding to the growth in the number of early childhood

services; further implementing its review methodology for schools; ensuring a system-wide influence through its national evaluation

programme; and managing its fiscal pressures.

Growth in early childhood services ERO currently reviews early childhood services on a three-year cycle. This sector has seen considerable growth in numbers. For instance between 1 July 2007 and 1 July 2009 there was a 10 percent increase in the number of early childhood services. ERO intends to review its early childhood review methodology in response to this pressure. Further implementing the school review methodology As part of its refocused approach to reviewing schools, ERO will continue to implement its differentiated review methodology for schools in 2011/12. This will continue to focus reviews on assessing the extent to which the school’s curriculum promotes student learning, engagement, achievement, and progress. The differentiated review timing, and resource allocation, takes into account each school’s performance and self-review capacity. Return timing now depends on school performance, enabling ERO to target its evaluations to schools that need the most support – those where students are not progressing and achieving well. ERO will also continue to build the evaluation capacity in schools as a part of the methodology.

Ensuring a system-wide influence This year ERO again, will provide between 12 and 20 national evaluations that will promote improvements to the education system by influencing and advising the development of education policy and practice. National Evaluation topics will continue to be in line with the Government’s education priorities.


Managing fiscal pressures ERO will continue to put in place proactive measures to manage its fiscal pressures. Planned initiatives that will enable ERO to continue to operate effectively within its baselines, amid rising costs, are documented on page 20 of the 2011 Statement of Intent.


69 Please provide a copy of the current work programme and list of

projects to be progressed in 2011/12. Answer:

ERO’s work programme for 2011/12 is described in the Main Estimates documentation for the Education and Science Sector, specifically in the Information Supporting the Estimates 2011/12, B 5A Volume 2. The quantity of accountability reviews of early childhood services, schools and other education providers is outlined on pages 96/97; the quantity of education evaluation reports is outlined on page 98.


70 Please provide a copy of the purchase agreement/output plan for

2011/12 and identify the key changes from the previous financial year. Provide a copy of the reports against the performance agreement/output plan that have been provided to the Minister for the last financial year. What are the primary areas of concern that will impact on the Ministry's performance in 2011/12?

Answer:

ERO will not be developing a separate output plan for 2011/12 as this would only duplicate the information already in the Main Estimates documents. I have agreed ERO would not need to develop a separate output plan.

As documented in the Main Estimates, the quantity of outputs to be delivered is forecast to be similar to 2010/11.

I received the half-year progress report against the 2010/11 Output Plan from the Chief Review Officer early in January 2011, and a copy of this report is attached below. The end of year report will not be completed until late in July/early August 2011.

I do not expect there to be any particular areas of concern that will have an impact on ERO’s performance in 2011/12 apart from that referred to in ERO’s 2011 Statement of Intent (Page 17) which states “ERO has reduced review activity in Christchurch as a result of the earthquake in February 2011. This may continue to have an impact on the number and frequency of reviews undertaken in the Christchurch region.”


EDUCATION REVIEW OFFICE

PERFORMANCE REPORT FOR PERIOD JULY 2010 - DECEMBER 2010


ERO PERFORMANCE REPORT TO DECEMBER 2010 1 Purpose of this Report 1.1 ERO provides a formal report to the Minister on progress against its

strategic intent every six months. This report covers the six months to December 2010.

2 Outputs and Effectiveness 2.1 In the 2010 Statement of Intent, ERO aimed to:

improve student achievement, the quality of teaching and learning, governance, self-review and leadership through independent reviews; and

influence the development and implementation of education policy and practice through system-wide evaluations.

Outputs 2.2 For the six-month period ended 30 December 2010, outputs delivered by

ERO were as follows:

ERO Outputs: Quantity Delivered

Departmental Output Estimates Range

Actual 31/12/10

% of Estimates Minimum

1. Accountability Reviews – Early Childhood Education Services

1.1 Education Reviews – Early Childhood Education Services

1,240-1,400 483 39.0

* 1.2 Post-review Assistance to Early Childhood Education Services

80-120 14 17.5

2 Accountability Reviews – Schools and Other Education Service Providers

2.1 Education Reviews – Schools 710-840 440 62.0

* 2.2 Homeschooling Reviews 25-35 4 16.0

2.3 Private School Reviews 35-45 16 45.7

3 Quality of Education Reports and Services

3.1 Education Evaluation Reports 12-20 7 58.3

* 3.2 Policy Services 25-30 14 56.0

* 3.3 Ministerial Services 145-210 46 31.7

3.4 Contractual Services 5-10 1 20.0


* Demand driven 2.3 For the full year, ERO expects to deliver outputs within the ranges specialised in the

Main Estimates.

2.4 National Evaluations completed to date:

Working with National Standards within the NZ Curriculum (1) August 2010

Quality in Early Childhood Services August 2010

Alternative Education: Good Practice Providers September 2010

Kura Kaupapa Māori – Board/Whānau Training September 2010

National Standards Interim report October 2010

Kiwisport November 2010

ECE Literacy December 2010

Effectiveness 2.5 In the course of its work, ERO seeks to inform and influence three target

groups (schools and early childhood education services, parents and communities, the Ministry of Education and government agencies) and has developed measures to determine the likely impact on these groups.

2.6 ERO has programmed the following activities in 2010/11 to assess its impact:

collect feedback from schools and early childhood services, using a range of survey techniques, to determine the impact of education reviews; and

seek feedback from schools, early childhood services, and the Ministry of Education on the use of ERO’s national evaluation reports.

2.7 The results of these activities will be analysed and reported to you at the end

of the financial year. The information will also be reported in the annual report.

2.8 ERO has engaged Victoria University’s School of Government to review

ERO’s performance measures. Cost –effectiveness 2.9 ERO’s aim to provide a cost-effectiveness service will be demonstrated by

maintaining its review frequency (one-third of schools and early childhood services reviewed annually) and high effectiveness rating (80 percent), while maintaining and/or reducing its service cost and input levels over the medium term.


3 Implementing Government’s Priorities – ERO’s Strategic Initiatives 3.1 ERO has taken a proactive approach to respond the Government’s priorities for

building strong learning foundations for literacy and numeracy, increasing levels of educational attainment and providing value for money services.

3.2 The approach is reflected in the ongoing development of ERO’s review methodology for schools. Based on recent evaluation research, theory and practice, the approach incorporates initiatives to:

raise the evaluation capacity of schools (and to make schools’ self-review and ERO’s external review more complementary);

differentiate its evaluation of schools according to their capability and performance, and to focus more on student achievement in literacy and numeracy;

align its national evaluation programme to Government priorities; and

roll-out its strategy to promote Māori success (He Toa Takitini).

3.3 The refocused approach is designed to shift the emphasis of ERO’s work from

accountability, to developing schools’ capability to self-review, and now to complementary evaluation – to balance external reviews (ERO) and internal (school) self review according to each school’s circumstances. This shift in focus positions ERO to better respond to developments in the school sector, specifically in terms of curriculum, self-review and school improvement capability.

3.4 While the focus to date has been on implementing the methodology for schools, ERO has commenced work on redesigning its early childhood methodology. The new methodology will allow ERO to give greater attention to the quality and effectiveness of services’ self review.

Building Evaluation Capacity (self-review complementarity)

3.5 The Building Capacity in Evaluation (BCiE) project is the umbrella under which many of the current initiatives were instituted. As they each take their own shape, for example, as the evaluation indicators are updated, the methodology project is implemented and the first round of school self review workshops is completed, BCiE takes more of a back seat. It is still the foundation on which these current initiatives and future developments are based but it has served its purpose as a catalyst for change.

3.6 Two tasks remain from the original conception of the project, both are close to completion:

the preparation of a scholarly paper underlining the evaluation theory on which the project was based; and

producing a support document based on the self review workshops (Making self review work for you) incorporating good practice case studies.


Differentiated Evaluation of Schools

3.7 The refocused approach enables ERO to emphasise external evaluation for schools with limited capacity to undertake their own self-review, and emphasise internal evaluation for schools that have effective self-review.

3.8 In 2010, ERO commenced a differentiated review project to further refine its school review methodology to support this complementary approach. This allows ERO flexibility in providing more support for schools where ERO was not confident in their ability to drive their self-improvement (those given a 1-2 year return time frame) and less to those where ERO is highly confident (those given a 4-5 year timeframe).

3.9 This is an approach which supports the Government‘s value for money focus, alongside its commitment to strengthening learning foundations and increasing levels of educational attainment. It enables the Government to focus its resources on the educational achievement of its students, especially those at risk of underachievement.

3.10 The approach is receiving favourable responses from the sector. In addition to

seeking feedback about the approach, ERO is monitoring its review cycle to determine the placement of schools within the differentiated review categories. Of the reviews completed between 1 July 2010 to 30 December 2010:

17 percent will be reviewed again within 2 years (in these cases the school will receive a longitudinal review. These reviews will typically take the form of a workshop with the school where a plan for improvement is completed. ERO will evaluate and report on the school’s progress against that plan);

75 percent have been placed on the “regular” three year cycle; and

8 percent will be reviewed again within 4-5 years.

3.11 As a part of the future work programme, initiatives in 2011 will include:

the further development of the methodology for schools on longer review returns;

the review of the Te Aho Matua and Kohanga Reo review processes;

the review of national reporting frameworks for Te Marautanga O Aotearoa and Nga Whaneketanga Rumaki Māori (Māori Medium national standards);

the development of tools to evaluate the refocused approach; and

aligning the processes of ERO and the Ministry of Education to support the schools involved in longitudinal reviews.

Aligning the National Evaluation Programme

3.12 The aggregation of national review data gives ERO an opportunity to provide a broader picture of the topical issues, initiatives or policies of interest to the sector and Government. By seamlessly integrating national reporting priorities with its evaluation processes, ERO is well-positioned to report on the progress of the Government education policies.


3.13 In 2010, ERO also commenced a work programme to evaluate the implementation

of the national standards. To date information gathered from 2010 school reviews has been used to provide ongoing briefing and a full national evaluation report published in October 2010.

3.14 Future briefings will be provided and another further report in accordance with

agreed timeline.

Improved Outcomes for Māori

3.15 To meet its commitment to the Treaty of Waitangi and its stated intention to focus on promoting success for Māori learners, ERO has established a working group to progress the development of an evaluation approach that will make a more significant impact on improving outcomes for Māori students.

3.16 The evaluation of the provision of education and care for Māori children in early

childhood services, completed in 2010, focused on the extent to which services:

responded to the aspirations and expectations of parents and whānau of Māori children; and

focused on realising the potential of Māori children to become competent and confident learners.

Improved Outcomes for Pacific students

3.17 In order to provide a context for the review of how ERO approaches the goal of lifting Pacific student achievement, a paper was requested that would set out the key issues. The resulting paper, outlined the history of Pacific peoples in New Zealand, the issues facing Pacific peoples, and students in particular, and how ERO currently approaches Pacific needs and issues.

3.18 In order to complete the report, the literature was canvassed from policy documents, to national research reports and international comparative studies. A synthesis of this information showed that the problems faced by Pacific peoples are multi-faceted and complex. The answers are not simple but require an inter-agency approach within relevant cultural frameworks. ERO has a long established interest in and relationship with Pacific peoples but with the growing Pacific population, particularly of school age, and with the continuing level of disparity, it is important to review how we can best use our roles and expertise to contribute to positive outcomes for Pacific students.

3.19 ERO has in progress a project to identify changes as required to respond to the

issues raised in the literature review.


4 Delivering Better Smarter Services for Less (2009/10 PIAs) 4.1 ERO’s Performance Improvement Actions (PIAs), agreed in June 2010, summarise

the initiatives described above. As follows:

Delivering Better Services

Objective Performance Improvement Actions Progress

Support improvements to the education system, consistent with government policy:

by building the evaluation capacity of schools;

through ERO’s national evaluation programme

Implement initiatives to build self-review capacity in schools and kura in accordance with the work programme agreed with the Minister

Publish its Evaluation Indicators for:

- reviews of schools

- reviews of early childhood services – by December 2011, or to date agreed by Minister

Per the programme of national evaluations agreed with the Minister, ERO to evaluate and report on the priority areas of:

‐ early childhood education

‐ student achievement (literacy and numeracy)

‐ the New Zealand Curriculum

‐ success for Māori and Pacific students

Project team established.

Evaluation indicators for school reviews are ready for publishing. Work has commenced on early childhood services’ evaluation indicators.

Reports completed in 2010:

‐ Quality in Early Childhood Services

‐ ECE Literacy

‐ Working with National Standards within the NZ Curriculum

Other reports currently in planning, data gathering, analysis or writing stage.


Delivering Smarter Services


Increase the value of services delivered by:

implementing an improved review methodology that enables ERO to reallocate its resources to schools experiencing difficulties*

Implement refocused methodology for 1 and 2 year returns (longitudinal reviews for schools experiencing difficulty) and 3 year returns (regular cycle for school reviews) – currently being implemented in 2010

Revise the methodology for 4 and 5 year review returns (where ERO has confidence in the school’s ability) - by June 2011, or to date agreed with Minister

Develop the plan for the review of methodology for ERO reviews of early childhood services - by June 2011

A methodology for longitudinal reviews has been established, trialled and implemented across all regions. S

upplementary training for review officers in facilitation provided.

MOE and ERO have worked closely together to ensure the two departments are working alongside each other to support the schools involved in longitudinal reviews.

Completed consultation with the Ministry of Education regarding the interface between the SAF and ERO with particular reference to Longitudinal Reviews

New reporting format for reviews being implemented for terms 1 and 2 of 2011

The methodology for 3-year return reviews continues to be refined as staff become more familiar with the processes.

Continuing consultation across ERO re the methodology.

Tentative model for 4-5year reviews proposed as part of 4th wave PLD.

Development of the theoretical base for a consistent (complementarity) approach across all reviews is ongoing

As a first step in this process the Evaluation Indicators (Early Childhood Services) are being updated and will be completed to draft stage by June 2011.

Preliminary consultation and scoping work in the first half of 2011. The project will be


completed with full implementation of the new methodology by June 30 2012.

* It should be noted that the improved review methodology will also help make improvements to the education system

Delivering For Less


Improve productivity by reducing backroom costs (enabling a greater commitment to frontline services)

In addition to the $200,000 returned in 2009/10, ERO will seek an ongoing reduction (from internal review) – with the aim of achieving permanent reductions - in the order of:

‐ $150,000 in 2010/11; and

‐ a further $100,000 in 2011/12.

Support the Better Administrative Support Services (BASS) programme

Support the All of Government contracts

ERO is on track to meet these saving targets, which will be incorporated in the March 2011 baseline update round.

The Treasury did not require ERO to complete the BASS exercise for cost/benefit reasons.

ERO continues to support whole of Government contracts as they are rolled out. To date, ERO has signed up to the motor vehicles and stationery contracts.

4 ERO Capability (2010/11 Highlights) 4.1 The number of staff at 30 December is 209 FTEs. ERO’s establishment numbers

have been capped at 220 FTEs.

Gallup Engagement Survey

4.2 ERO has continued to action the results of the September 2009 Gallup Engagement Survey. A follow-up survey is planned for March 2011.

Professional Learning and Development

4.3 A Professional Learning and Development (PLD) programme was implemented over 2010. The programme identified and established the competencies and skills needed to support the effective implementation of ERO’s new review methodology, as well as promoting a shared understanding throughout the regions of key principles that underpin the methodology. The programme will continue to be rolled out over 2011 through the work of a national internal reference group and regional PLD teams.

4.4 There are 12 staff currently enrolled in the Post-Graduate Diploma in Evaluation,

provided through the Wellington campus of Massey University


4.5 In 2010 two staff members graduated from the first round of their support staff qualifications. This includes qualifications for Business Administration and Public Service Leadership.

Efficient and Effective Infrastructure

4.6 To support improvements to ERO’s capability, further initiatives completed (or commenced) in 2010/11 included:

the implementation of an ERO-wide communications strategy and associated work plans;

participation in the All-of-Government procurement initiative (vehicles and stationery) and Better Administrative and Support Services programme;

reviewing office accommodation requirements as each location lease nears its completion. To date the Wellington Regional office is relocating to new premises and the Corporate Office is being redesigned. Both moves will reduce space and provide substantial ongoing cost savings;

the launch of ERO’s new website – designed to increase the public’s awareness, understanding, and use of ERO’s information and services;

the implementation of video-conferencing facilities throughout all ERO sites. This has reduced both internal and external travel costs;

establishing an internal evaluation function, including committee and work programme to begin early 2011;

developing systems and base information for budgeting review hours;

the reduction of ERO’s car fleet;

reviewing and updating ERO’s emergency and business continuity plans; and

the working from home initiatives – supporting the internal reorganisation objectives and enabling a reduction in cost.

Partnership with PSA

4.7 In 2010, ERO and the PSA worked together to develop a Remuneration Practice Document to guide the implementation of remuneration structure negotiated as part of the CEA. The document is with PSA members for consultation and should be finalised and in use early in 2011.

4.8 ERO has continued to meet regularly with the PSA in 2010 under the ERO/PSA Working Relationship Agreement.


5 Output Class Costs 5.1 The table below sets out output class costs for the six months ending 31 December

2010.

ERO Output Class Costs

Departmental Output Classes

Full Year OBU

Actual 31/12/10

% of Full Year OBU

$000 $000

Accountability Reviews – Early Childhood Education Services

10,458 4,368 41.8

Accountability Reviews - Schools and Other Education Service Providers

15,716 8,242 52.4

Quality of Education Reports and Services

2,860 1,201 42.0

29,034 13,811 47.6

5.2 Expenditure in all output classes was below appropriation. ERO expects to be

within appropriation by the end of the financial year. 6 Quality and Timeliness

6.1 ERO sets specific standards for all its outputs.

6.2 Managers have attested that they have met the quality standards over the six

months to 31 December.

6.3 Timeliness criteria were met for Output Class Three Quality of Education Reports and Services outputs.

6.4 For Output Classes One and Two Accountability Reviews, 75 percent of unconfirmed reports are to be sent to the early childhood service or school within 20 working days of the end of the ERO review team’s last day on site, 85 percent within 25 working days and 98 percent within 35 working days. Performance against these criteria was as follows:


Education Review Reports: Timeliness

2010/11 Timeliness Standard

%

Actual Timeliness

%

Education Reviews Early Childhood Education Services

Unconfirmed report sent within 20 working days



75

85

98

84

92

99

Education Reviews of State Schools




75

85

98

87

95

100

Education Reviews of Private

Schools




75

85

98

88

100

100

6.5 Performance against these criteria was met for all sectors. With six months

remaining for the financial year the expectation is that ERO will achieve its full year results within standard.

7 Financial Performance 7.1 The following is a summary of ERO’s financial performance for the six months to

31 December 2010 reported to the Treasury as part of the monthly Crown Financial Information System reports.


Statement of Financial Performance

7.2 Revenue for the six months to 31 December was $4,000 above budget. Actual $14.437M Forecast $14.433M Variance $0.004M

7.3 Revenue is expected to be on budget by the end of the year. 7.4 Expenses for the six months to 31 December were $192,000 (1%) below budget. Actual $13.811M Forecast $14.003M Variance ($0.192M)

7.5 ERO expenditure is also expected to be on budget by the end of the year.

Statement of Financial Position 7.6 Total assets were $47,000 more than forecast for the six months due to timing of

expenditure.

Statement of Cash Flows 7.7 The closing cash balance was $71,000 more than forecast due to timing of

expenditure.

Statement of Contingent Liabilities 7.8 There were no contingent liabilities as at 31 December.


71 How many evaluations of policies or programmes are planned to be

completed this year? What policies or programmes are planned to be evaluated this year or have evaluations completed this year? What is the indicative cost, who is conducting the evaluation (if known) and when is it due for completion and results reported?

Answer:

ERO is planning to conduct an evaluation of its new approach to reviewing early childhood education. It will be carried out internally and any costs incurred will be met from within ERO’s existing operational budget. ERO does have a Risk and Assurance/internal evaluation work programme (with a total budget of $30,000) that promotes internal business improvement and quality to its services. The Risk and Assurance/internal evaluation functions are detailed on pages 18 and 19 of ERO’s 2011 Statement of Intent.


72 What reviews of departmental contracting policies or practices are

planned to be started/finished this year? When will/are they expected to be completed?

Answer:

There are no reviews of departmental contracting policies or practices planned by ERO for the 2011/12 financial year.


73 What reviews of departmental "capability" are planned to be started

or completed this year? What aspects of capability are being reviewed? Who will undertake these reviews and when will these be completed?

Answer:

ERO has commenced a review of its capacity to respond to Pacific education issues. The initial phase of the review is being carried out by Charlene Scotti, an education consultant from Auckland, and the project is expected to be completed in 2011/12.


74 How much funding for specific projects, policies or programmes has

been carried forward from the previous financial year? For each, please provide the following details: Name Location Name of provider(s) Estimated cost Estimation completion date.

Answer: The Education Review Office does not intend to have any expense and capital transfers from 2010/11 to 2011/12.


75 How many projects or contracts signed in 2010/11 that were due to be

completed in 2011/12 are now expected to be shelved, curtailed or pushed into out years and for each, what was the project name, what was the total budgeted cost, what is the actual cost to date, what was its purpose and why will it not be completed in 2011/12?

Answer: ERO has no projects or contracts that have been shelved, curtailed or pushed out into future years.


76 What IT projects, if any, are expected to be shelved or curtailed in the

2011/12 year and how much will have been spent on each project before it is shelved or curtailed?

Answer: There are no IT projects expected to be shelved or curtailed in the 2011/12 year.


77 What IT projects, if any, started since 1 January 2009 that have not

been completed are expected to be completed in 2011/12 and what was the total budgeted cost of the project when it was begun and what is the expected final cost on completion

Answer:

There are no IT projects that have started since 1 January 2009 that have not been completed.


78 How much expenditure is planned in this vote for software licensing

fees in the 2011/12 financial year and how does this compare with spending in each of the past five financial years?

Answer: The Education Review Office plans to spend $159,000 for software licensing and maintenance fees in 2011/12. Up to 31 May 2011 ERO had spent $130,865 on software licensing and maintenance fees. In 2009/10 ERO spent 131,630; in 2008/09 $116,885; in 2007/08 $101,781; and in 2006/07 $127,129.


79 How many websites does the Department/Ministry plan to run in

2011/12 and for each, what is it called, what is its URL, when was it established, what is its purpose and what is the annual cost of operating it?

Answer: ERO has one website and does not plan to run anymore in the 2011/12 year. The URL is www.ero.govt.nz The website has been in operation for more than 10 years. The purpose of the website is to enable public access to ERO’s evaluation reports on schools and early childhood services as well as access to ERO’s Education Evaluation Reports on national educational issues which are based on information compiled by ERO through its reviews of individual schools and early childhood services. The annual maintenance fee for the website is $8,640.


80 What carbon neutral initiatives will be undertaken by the

Department/Ministry this year and what are the expected costs/savings of each such initiative?

Answer:

ERO has no plans to undertake any particular carbon neutral initiatives in 2011/12.


81 In preparing bids for Budget 2011, what consultation took place with

other political parties as required by Cabinet Office Circular CO (09) 07? Please specify: number of meetings when they took place who attended what items were discussed what changes, if any, were made to Budget bids following this

meeting the titles of any reports prepared for, or generated after the

meeting Please attach: Copies of any reports prepared for, or generated after the

meeting Copies of agendas for any meetings

Answer:

There were no budget bids this year.


82 How many Budget bids were submitted for this vote for Budget 2011? Answer:



83 How many Budget bids were successful for this vote in Budget 2011? Answer:



84 How many successful Budget bids received funding of less than 75%

of that sought?

Answer: Please see the answer to Question 81.


85 How many Budget bids failed for this vote in Budget 2011? Please

provide the titles of all failed Budget bids. Are any of the failed Budget being considered for resubmission as part of Budget 2011; if so, which ones?

Answer:



86 How much, if anything, does the Department/Ministry plan to carry

over from the 2010/11 year into the 2011/12 year and what for what reason or reasons will these funds be carried over?

Answer:

ERO does not plan to carry over any funds from the 2010/11 year into the 2011/12 year.


87 What cuts or reprioritised savings to the Department’s/Ministry’s

budget for 2011/12 were the result of an under spend in 2010/11 year and for each, what budgets were under spent and why were they under spent?

Answer:

There were no cuts or reprioritised savings to the ERO budget for 2011/12 that were the result of an under spend in 2010/11 year.


88 How much is the Department/Ministry and its associated agencies

expecting to cut their overall budget by in 2011/12 and each of the out years as a result of Budget 2011 and what options are being considered about how and where such cuts will be made?

Answer:

The budget changes for the Education Review Office are shown in the attached table. The reductions in the 2012/13 budget and out years were the result of announcements in the 2011 Budget. The activities planned to meet these reductions are set out in answer to Q44.

Year 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 and out years

Offsetting Workplace

Savings Schemes

‐ 0.279 0.302 0.302

0.302

Expected changes to baselines

‐ 0.552 0.529 0.529 0.529

Total Budget 2011 Savings

- 0.831 0.831 0.831 0.831


89 Have any cuts or reprioritised savings to the Department’s/Ministry’s

budget for 2011/12 come from frontline services; if so, for each what is the name of the service, how much has been reprioritised and what was the reason for the reprioritisation?

Answer:

There are no cuts or reprioritised savings to ERO’s 2011/12 budget that have come from frontline services.


90 What savings or cuts have been reprioritised in Budget 2011; for each

please provide the name of the service, initiative or programme, how much has been reprioritised for each year and what was the reason for the reprioritisation?

Answer:

There are no savings or cuts reprioritised from Budget 2011


91 How much expenditure is planned in this vote for the services of

purchase advisors in the 2011/12 financial year and how does this compare with spending in the past five financial years?

Answer: The Education Review Office does not plan to incur any expenditure for the services of purchase advisors in 2011/12 financial year. This has also been the case for the past five financial years.


92 How much expenditure is planned in this vote for the 2011/12

financial year on fringe benefits and how many staff qualified for fringe benefits? What are the eligibility criteria for fringe benefits?

Answer:

The total amount of expenditure on fringe benefits planned for ERO’s vote for the 2011/12 financial year is $40,000. This expenditure is for ERO’s staff with the use of vehicles paid by ERO and this is part of their employment arrangements. The number of staff in this category is 8.


93 What mechanisms does the Ministry/Department have in place in

2011/12 for monitoring its achievement of goals against its stated objectives?

Answer:

ERO uses surveys to assess the effectiveness of its reviews on schools and early childhood services. From the surveys, ERO obtains feedback about what actions have been taken on its recommendations and how effectively the evaluation process has contributed to improvements in education delivery. From time to time, ERO also collects feedback from Government agencies about the effectiveness of its national evaluation programme.

The measures that ERO uses are documented in the “Operating Intentions” section of ERO’s 2011 Statement of Intent.


94 How much has been budgeted in the 2010/11 financial year for gym

memberships for staff and how does that compare to the last five financial years?

Answer:

ERO has a staff ‘wellness’ policy for its permanent staff that includes the following statement in respect to gym memberships - Assistance towards the financial cost will be limited to a maximum of $200 per year (upon production of receipts). A number of ERO’s staff avail themselves of this opportunity but ERO does not make specific budget allocation for gym memberships, and has not done so over the last five years.


95 How much has been budgeted for EAP or workplace counselling in

the 2011/12 financial year and how does that compare to the last five financial years?

Answer:

ERO has budgeted $7,650 for EAP or workplace counselling in the 2011/12 financial year. A similar amount has been budgeted in each of the last financial years.


96 What work has been undertaken or completed relating to changes in

Votes, or operational changes made in other Government Departments/Ministries which impacts on your Department/Ministry?

Answer: There have been no changes in votes to the Education Review Office, or operational changes made in other government departments, ministries, that have impacted on ERO.


97 What effect, if any, will the Christchurch Earthquakes have on the

Department’s/Ministry’s budget for 2011/12 and how have funds been reallocated to address any changes in spending priorities as a result?

Answer:

ERO’s office in Christchurch was destroyed in the February earthquake, and this is expected to have some effect on the budget for 2011/12 in respect to office accommodation costs. This has yet to be quantified, but any ‘savings’ resulting from this can be expected to be offset by costs incurred in changes to travel requirements and in costs incurred as a result of staff working from home. ERO is currently working with the Property Management Centre of Expertise to locate new premises and expects to incur capital costs in 2011/12 in setting these premises up. An additional capital amount of $175,000 has been set aside for this purpose.


98 How many staff, if any, were made redundant as a result of the

Christchurch Earthquakes during 2010/11 and how many of these staff are expected to be rehired in 2011/12?

Answer:

No ERO staff have been made redundant as a result of the Christchurch earthquakes during 2010/11.


99 What costs, if any, does the Department/Ministry expect to incur in

2011/12 as a result of the Rugby World Cup and what is the total amount and the nature of these costs? How do these costs compare to Rugby World Cup associated costs in each of the past two years?

Answer:

ERO does not expect to incur any additional costs in 2011/12 as a result of the Rugby World Cup, but does anticipate it may experience difficulty from time to time with travel and accommodation arrangements during the period of the actual competition and is planning accordingly.


100 How many of the early childhood education centres to be reviewed in

the 2011/12 year have been on yearly review in consecutive years since 2008 and what are the names and locations of those services?

Answer:

There are three early childhood education centres, scheduled for review in 2011/12, that have been on yearly review since 2008. They are:

Matawaia Te Kōhanga Reo, which is located in Kawakawa

Te Reo Kōhanga, which is located in Whangarei

Samoa Taumafai Aoga Amata, which is located in Tokoroa


101 How many early childhood education centres are expected to have a

supplementary review in the 2011/12 year and what are the figures for the previous 5 years?

Answer:

ERO has undertaken the following percentage (and number) of supplementary reviews: 165 early childhood centres in 2006/07 160 early childhood centres in 2007/08 156 early childhood centres in 2008/09 152 early childhood centres in 2009/10

The number of supplementary reviews to be completed in 2010/11 is estimated to be 145.


102 How many of the primary schools to be reviewed in the 2011/12 year

have been on yearly review in consecutive years since 2008 and what are the names and locations of those services?

Answer:

There are three primary schools, scheduled for review in 2011/12, that have been on yearly review since 2008. These are:

Te Kura Kaupapa o Piripono Te Kura Whakahou o Otara, which is located in Auckland.

Te Kura Kaupapa Māori o Te Matai, which is located in Te Puke.

Te Kura Mana Māori o Matahi, which is located in Waimana.


103 How many primary schools are expected to have a supplementary

review in the 2011/12 year and what are the figures for the previous 5 years?

Answer:

Prior to 2009/10, ERO undertook the following percentage (and number) of supplementary reviews:

12% (88) of primary schools in 2006/07



From 2009/10, under the refocused school methodology, ERO has kept a running percentage of schools (both primary and secondary combined) that will be reviewed again within 1-2 years. Because different criteria are used, the numbers will not be comparable to those of previous years.

In 2009/10, 20% (174) of schools reviewed were categorised in the 1-2 year return cycle. This is estimated to be about 15% (12) for 2010/11, and a similar number in 2011/12.


104 How many of the secondary schools to be reviewed in the 2011/12 year

have been on yearly review in consecutive years since 2008 and what are the names and locations of those services?

Answer:

No secondary schools to be reviewed in 2011/12 have been reviewed consecutively each year since 2008.


105 How many secondary schools are expected to have a supplementary

review in the 2011/12 year and what are the figures for the previous 5 years?

Answer:

Prior to 2009/10, ERO undertook the following percentage (and number) of supplementary reviews: 16% (29) of secondary schools in 2006/07

13% (25) of secondary schools in 2007/08

18% (29) of secondary schools in 2008/09

The numbers of schools estimated to have supplementary reviews in 2010/11 and 2011/12 are referred to in Question 103.


106 How much is merging the Education Review Office with the New

Zealand Qualifications Authority expected to save in 2011/12 and in out years?

Answer:

Please see the answer to Question 2. It is not possible at this time to quantify savings that might be achieved in the future as a result of the proposal to merge the Education Review Office and the New Zealand Qualifications Authority.


107 Will the merger of the Education Review Office and the New Zealand

Qualifications Authority result in job losses; and if so, how many? Answer:

Please see the answer to Question 2. It is not possible at this stage to determine whether or not there might be job losses as a result of the proposal to merge the Education Review Office and the New Zealand Qualifications Authority.


108 For the policy initiative “Vote ERO Savings”, please provide details

and an explanation for each of the appropriations in which savings are made?

Answer:

The $450,000 savings shown in each of the financial years 2011/12 to 2014/15 in the policy initiative “Vote ERO Savings” is the amount of ERO baseline reduction from the Performance Improvement Actions agreed with the Chief Review Officer, spread proportionally over ERO’s three appropriations.

EDUCATION REVIEW OFFICE – 2011/12 ESTIMATES QUESTIONS …

Documents

Transcript of EDUCATION REVIEW OFFICE – 2011/12 ESTIMATES QUESTIONS …