This page contains a quick guide to the steps in the EER process, and a possible timeline for a ‘typical’ EER.
These timings can vary according to the circumstances of the individual TEO and NZQA’s own requirements.
You can also find information on the EER rubrics we follow.
On this page
Steps in the EER process
| 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 to 12 weeks before EER | Lead Evaluator discusses TEO’s self-assessment summary and possible pre-EER scoping meeting |
| Develop scope of EER | 6 to 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 to 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 |
←
Scroll
→
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 how key evaluation questions are linked to the tertiary evaluation indicators