Transcript KAM'oon

KAMoon VeVa 2007-2009
”COME ON”
- More impact on Evaluation by
networking 2007 – 2009
Leonardo-mobility project for staff, who are working in the
administration
Germany 14-20.9.2008
TARGET OF THE PROJECT
The objective of the project is to make a mutual comparison among
Finnish partners (KAM, KPEDU, RKK,OSEKK) to see at what stage
each partner is when it comes to quality and evaluation work and to
get international comparability into the Finnish evaluation system as
well as the federation’s or institute’s own evaluation system. The
objective is to clarify what kind of indicators there are in use and
how they are utilised in development work. Furthermore, the
objective is to get additional information about the vocational
education systems in Europe: acknowledging informal and formal
know-how especially as to how it is realized in practise in the
chosen partners' work communities in the target countries.
OBJECTIVES OF THE VISIT
The aim of our visit was to find and to learn more about good
practices in quality management and educational system in
Germany. Also one objective of this visit was to get tools for the
administration and for the development of our own policy. Also one
objective was to clarify if the international workplace learning is
possible between Finnish and German colleges.
Educational Municipal Federation
Of the Kalajokilaakso Region (KAM)
The Federation of Education
in Central Ostrobothnia
14
Member municipalities
3
Contract municipalities
Rovaniemi
Operation area 110,000
inhabitants
Units/Locations
Central Ostrobothnia
71,000 inhabitants, 25 %
Swedish-speaking
The Federation of Education in Central Ostrobothnia
•
Oulu Vocational
College is a part of the
Oulu Region Joint
Authority for
Education (OSEKK).
•
OSEKK’s founding
municipalities include
Oulu, Hailuoto,
Haukipudas, Ii,
Kempele, Kiiminki,
Liminka, Lumijoki,
Muhos, Oulunsalo, YliIi, Tyrnävä, Raahe and
Oulainen.
Founding municipalities
FINANCING OF VOCATIONAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING
STATUTORY CORE
FUNDING
BASED ON
UNIT COSTS
PERFORMANCE-BASED
FINANCING
BASED ON
OPERATIONAL
OUTCOME
- impact
- processes
- staff
BASED ON
THEME
ENTITIES
- themes
- development
plan
OUTCOMEBASED FUNDS
QUALITY
AWARD
About this visit and evaluation
In the big EFQM evaluation:
What are your own targets and how you have
reached them?
In this evaluation:
Strengths of the school
Differences compared with Finnish system
EFQM-Model
INABLERS
RESULTS
People
9%
Leadership
10 %
People
Results
9%
Key
Policy &
Strategy
8%
Processes
14 %
Customer
Results
20 %
Performance
Results
15 %
Partnerships
& Resources
9%
INNOVATION AND LEARNING
Society
Results
6%
1. LEADERSHIP (and MANAGEMENT)
Commitment, Openness,
Experience.
Close relationship with the
regional government.
Leadership/management
supports teaching.
Teams that support
leadership/management in
process development.
Information systems that
support
management/leadership
School management is
regulated by: ministery,
regional gov., and local
gov.: Leadership is
determined by these
factors
Goal and indicator
orientated
management is limited
2. POLICY AND STRATEGY
Aims and visions are
expressed in the
beautifully organised
School Programme
brochure
E.g. Healthy School project
School level strategic planning
is thin because operations are
regulated by local/regional
goverment. The school has
more operational freedom
with issues related to practical
running of the school.
No feedback system or
indicators to support the
construction of school
strategy.
3. PEOPLE (STAFF)
The teachers are motivated to
teach and develop their teaching
and pedagogical skills.
Timetables are planned taking
into consideration teachers
wishes.
Teachers can participate and
influence the decisions made in
the school: teachers conference,
school conference, teachers
council, teams
In-service-training of
teachers is organised
randomly and is not
followed systematically.
Funds allocated to the
In–service-trainig of
teachers are minimal.
4. PARTNERSHIP…
Partnership with different
administration levels,
other schools, working
places and chamber of
commerce seems to work
out well and have
permanent principles.
School inspections support
the development of
teaching and the school.
Do the relationships support
the educational processes of
the school? What is the added
value they bring to the school
and teaching?
Does the school have any
partnerships that support the
pedagogical development?
4. …AND RESOURCES: finances, buildings,
equipment, materials and technology
Very small economical risks.
There are enough classrooms and
they can be described as spacious
Number of IT classroom and ITequipment meets the demand.
Limited financial resources
available to school development.
Has the school estimated if they
need external funding and has any
plan been made to utilise various
EU-funds available?
Some classrooms are used jointly
with the neighbouring grammer
school.
Teachers do not have individual
study rooms and neither do the
students have an allocated study
room.
Sustainable development and
waste re-cycling well organised.
The decorating of the rooms
doesnt support group working
4. …AND RESOURCES:
information and
knowledge
Teachers are highly qualified and
motivated.
Moodle virtual learning platform
meets the needs of teachers and
students with its two separate
portals.
Most of the required forms
available in the teacher’s portal of
Moodle.
Four language external webpages.
Systematic feedback and
indicators are not in use.
Difficult to develop the
school in a systematic
way.
5. PROCESSES
Delegated process ownership
(teams).
Teaching organised in a systematic
way e.g. timetables for next six
months are available.
Study counceling services are good
and they are clearly visible and in a
positive manner: use of
noticeboards and leaflets.
Systematic use of training room and
student agreement concepts.
Possibility and scope of virtual
studies
Have the most important
processes been documented
and are written operational
guidelines available e.g. in
Moodle?
Who approves of the
curriculums and course
descriptions?
How, if at all, do students
participate in the planning
process of teaching?
6.-9. RESULTS:
customer results, people results,
society results, key performace results
Healthy school- aims seem to have
been met: the school is tidy and
there is a feeling of belonging and
togetherness among staff and
students alike.
The effects of the use of Trainingroom have been positive – classes
are more peaceful and the quiet
students are also able to
participate more than previously.
International co-operation is
active; teacher and student
exchanges.
40 – 50 virtual courses available.
Feedback is not collected from
students and stakeholders in a
systematic manner.
Relatively high drop-out rate.
No information was given
concerning measurable indicators
and their performance. For
example the rate of students who
are employed on graduation day.
Regional government keeps
statistics on teaching and the
numbers of students in a study
group. How is this information
used?
• Kiitos mielenkiinnosta!
• Kiitos mielenkiinnosta!