Transcript Associate Inspectors supporting evaluation work

The Inspectorate and
quality assurance in
schools
SDPI Summer School, NUI Galway
June 2008
Harold Hislop
Assistant Chief Inspector
Overview
• The Inspectorate: structures, role and
remit, influences on our work
• Our approach to evaluation
• Lessons from evaluations of schools
• What happens after inspection?
• Moving forward
STRUCTURE, ROLE AND
THE CONTEXT OF OUR WORK
Organisation
Chief Inspector
(Head of Division and a member of MAC)
Regional Subdivision
Policy Support Subdivision
Deputy Chief Inspector
Deputy Chief Inspector
BU1-North & Dublin North
BU6: ESRU
BU2-South East & Dublin South
BU7: Teacher Education Policy
BU3-West & Mid-West
BU8: Curr & Assessment Policy
BU4-South
BU9: Spec Education Policy
BU5-Midlands & Dublin West
BU10: Central Services
Other deployments: Regional Services, Planning Unit, Teacher Education
The Inspectorate
• Centralised inspectorate
– A division of the Department of Education and Science
• Statutory remit under Education Act 1998
– Evaluate the quality and effectiveness of educational provision at
primary and second level
– Support and advise schools, teachers, boards of management
– Advise the Minister on educational policy and provision
Inspectorate
May 2008
Inspectors
Senior
management
Assigned
elsewhere
Regional
subdivision
108
6
9
Policy
subdivision
26
6
5
What influences
the way we work?
The learner
• Every learner entitled to high quality provision
Legislation and Government
• Statutory remit under the Education Act and
other legislation
– Clear remit and clarity to work of the organisation
• Programme for Government
• Departmental Strategy Statement 2008-2010
– Each department must draw up a strategy statement within 6
months of Minister taking office
– Series of high goals, objectives and strategies by which these
are carried out
What influences
the way we work?
Public Service Reform
• Series of initiatives that have been designed to
improve the delivery and accountability of public
services
• Requirement to have strategy statement
• Requirement for annual business plan
– Inspectorate Business Plan for year
– Each business unit has a business plan
• Performance management (PMDS)
–
–
–
–
Each staff member agrees role profile (targets for year) with manager
Mid-year and end of year reviews
Performance rated on 5-point scale (5 highest, 1 lowest)
Eligibility to apply for promotion and the award of annual increments
dependent on ratings
What influences
the way we work?
Partnership
• Legislation places strong duty on Inspectorate to
consult about the way in which it carries out
evaluative work
Professionalism
• A commitment to placing the learner first
• Strong historical tradition which ensures
Inspectorate has close links with teaching
profession
• Maintenance of good, professional working
relationships with schools, management bodies,
teachers, students and in more recent times,
parents
OUR APPROACH TO EVALUATION
Our approach
So what is the Inspectorate’s
approach to inspection and
evaluation?
Quality is the business of everyone
involved in the delivery of education
Inspectorate wants to promote
improvement and assure quality
through providing external
perspective
We are all responsible
for improvement
Developing
professional
capability in
schools is
central
Continuum of
Teacher
Education
Quality of
External
Evaluation
National and
International
Reporting on
Outcomes
Additional
Supports and
Services to
Students
Internal
Professional
Capability of
Schools
Professional
foundations
of Teaching –
Teaching
Council
Curriculum
Development
and Review –
NCCA
School
Development
Planning & Self
Review
Leadership
Development
in Schools
Emphasis in evaluation
of schools is changing…..
From
A policing model of external inspection
o Locates control and development outside the school
o Idea that quality can be “inspected into” the school
o Requires significant personnel resources
To
Promoting internal control and development
o Recognises that change must be fostered within organisations
o Based on a vision of school as a professional organisation
o Sees inspectors and school personnel as co-professionals
Our dominant
philosophy is formative
 Purposes of inspection
o Assure quality in education system
o Provide an external perspective on the work of the school
o Affirm good practice
o Constructively identify areas for improvement
o Facilitate school self-evaluation
o Recommendations provide a platform for development
We commit to…
• Take account of school context
and school self-review
• Courtesy, respect and fairness
• Sensitivity to individual teachers
and schools
• Fostering positive relationships
with the school community
• Fair and accurate judgements
based on evidence
• Clear and transparent review
mechanism: Review Procedure
under Section 13(9) of Education Act
Influences on
evaluation approach
• School improvement literature
– Research and professional development of staff
• Curriculum reform and review
– e.g. Links with NCCA
•
•
•
•
Socio-economic demands for high quality education
Govt commitment to transparency and service
International reviews of education: e.g. PISA
International educational bodies
– OCED Education Committee; OECD Centre for Educational Research
and Innovation (CERI)
– EU policy on education (e.g. teacher competencies, education for
citizenship, Lisbon agenda)
Co-operation with
other inspectorates
• North-South
– Management cooperation, staff exchange
• Britain & Ireland (Ofsted, Estyn, HMIe, ETI & DES)
– Participation in joint meetings
– Sharing of good practice
• Europe
– European Network for the Evaluation of Educational Systems
• Joint projects led by Ireland or in which Ireland participates
– Standing International Conference of Inspectorates
• e.g. Papers from Ireland on inspection practices and outcomes
• New Zealand
– Study visits, exchange of speakers/lecturers
Evaluation Support
and Research Unit
• Develop evaluation techniques and tools
– Inspection models, tools to collect and analyse evidence,
reporting styles and templates
• Design and lead specialised evaluations
– Respond to demands/needs of Department, school system,
learner groups
– Design specialised evaluations, train inspectors
– Oversee writing of composite national report
• Publishing house for the Inspectorate
• Research on issues such as inspection models,
trends and developments
• Chief Inspector’s Report every three years
LESSONS FROM THE
INSPECTION PROGRAMME
Inspections in 2007
Inspection types
WSE Primary
WSE Post-primary
Subject inspections-stand alone
Subject inspections within WSE
Programme inspections
Centres for education
Probationary teachers (primary)
Colásití samhraidh
Schools/centres
241
59
538
219
15
22
2362
45
Issues from WSE in
post-primary schools
Management
• More effective….
– Aware of responsibilities, identified priorities for school
– Have participated in training
• Less effective…
– Broader range of individuals needed in some cases
– Not actively involved in policy review, need to be proactive
– Not really engaged in need to bring about improvement
Issues from WSE in
post-primary schools
In-school management, Planning
• More effective
– Principal & deputy principal communicate effectively,
cooperate fully in running effective school
– Mix of pastoral, curricular and organisational duties for
middle management; clear duties; effectively implemented;
regularly reviewed for good of school
– Collaborative policy making process; high level of staff
participation
– SDP focussed on core areas of teaching and learning
– Time for planning but not at the expense of min teacher
contact time for students
Issues from WSE in
post-primary schools
In-school management, Planning
• Less effective
– Poor leadership; poor cooperation between Principal and
Deputy; poor cooperation between in-school management
team
– SDP not well developed – paper and/or recent exercise
rather than a continuous process for improvement
– Middle management posts not well structured to changing
needs of school
– Planning and review not impacting on teaching and the
quality of students’ learning
– Teacher deployments / Teacher absenteeism
Issues from WSE in
post-primary schools
Curricular provision & Teaching and learning
• More effective
– Curricular provision, options and timetabling kept
under review and suited to needs of students
– Generally good standards in teaching and learning in
most schools
– Teachers have opportunities to teach at all levels and
all programmes
– Teacher preparation and range of methodologies
– Good range of assessment strategies including good,
formative feedback to students
– Full entitlement of students to 28 hours tuition
Issues from WSE in
post-primary schools
Curricular provision &Teaching and learning
• Less effective
– Subject provision and choice: lack of informed choice; blocks gender
stereo-typed; Streaming in some schools; “Taster” programmes badly
used
– Timetabling practices and lack of curriculum balance for some students
– Limited or poor teacher preparation
– Methodologies not taking account of range of learning needs – broader
range needed; more active; ICT
– Subject department planning needs to share good methodological
practice and see it implemented
– Assessments not co-ordinated, poor feedback to students; lack of
homework policies
– 28 hours tuition eroded - 22 hours/18 hours per teacher not fulfilled
Issues from WSE in
post-primary schools
Supports for students
– School need to be genuinely accepting of SEN students;
admissions not conditional on resources;
real supports for students following entry
– Resources must be deployed for intended purposes
– Curriculum access sometimes limited
– All teachers fully on-board re integration – rarely the case
– Resource teachers – often very fragmented – fillers
– Need for named teacher to have co-ordination role for
delivery of SEN supports
– Need for training opportunities for all teachers
– Need to consider reasonable accommodations in school
examinations
– Parental involvement in SEN usually good
Composite reports
Teaching
and learning
in post-primary
schools
• Findings and recommendations based on
analysis of subject inspection reports
• Emphasis on advice as well as evaluation
• “Good practice” and “Concerns” boxes
Forthcoming reports
and….
• Looking at MTW and Construction Studies
• Looking at Home Economics
• Looking at Geography
• Looking at Guidance
SO WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN
AFTER INSPECTION?
So what should happen
after inspection?
• Underlying principle: School self-review and
improvement at heart of effective school
• Primary responsibility for following through on
recommendations rests with board and staff
– Must take ownership of need for change and implementation of
change programme
• Others may be involved to limited extent
– Patron, support services, Department of Education and Science,
Inspectorate
So what should happen
after inspection?
• Full circulation of the report
• Read and examine the strengths and areas for
development
• Review the school’s planning and self-evaluation
– Review needs to include board, senior management, staff and
possibly parents and students
– Have these processes identified similar priorities?
– What should our priorities now be?
– Does the self-review and planning process need to be improved?
• What actions will we take now?
– Action plan
– Identify where assistance is needed
• Implementation, monitoring and review to ensure
real improvement happens
Will DES be
involved?
Involvement of DES and Inspectorate ….
• is proportionate to need
– concentrated on schools with very serious failings and
those with significant problems
– concentrated on learning outcomes
• facilitates coordinated approach from DES and
support services
Where serious
weaknesses….
• At post-inspection feedback
– Areas for development will be made clear
– School encouraged to use support services
• School should invite in the necessary support
services; work commences with school
• DES/Inspectorate may follow-up
MOVING FORWARD
Moving forward
• Range of models of inspection
– Use these proportionate to need
– SI and WSE complement each other
– Improve use of data from one to plan other
• Thematic evaluations
– Carried out as part of main WSE or SI cycle
– “Leadership in schools”; English as an additional
language
Moving forward:
WSE
• WSE has several strengths
– Involvement of school community
– Good quality evaluative information, well-respected
– Has successfully focussed on inspection for improvement,
not on “naming and shaming”
• Areas for development
– Resource intensive; more focussed; shorter forms
– Improve evidence base: over-preparation, over-control,
better analysis of data in advance
– Views of learners and parents: questionnaire data
– Greater emphasis on skills across curriculum and on
teaching and learning across the whole school
– Tighter recommendations; shorter reports
Moving forward
Social Partnership Agreement
delivering School Self-Evaluation
 Towards 2016 embeds the Inspectorate’s
Looking at Our School framework in the
partnership agreement with teachers
 The agreement will facilitate the
systematic implementation of school
self-evaluation in all primary and postprimary schools
 Agreement specifically mentions schools
assessing performance in teaching and
learning
Self-evaluation in
schools
• Schools and individual teachers must address selfevaluation, for example….
–
–
–
–
Analysis of learning outcomes and examination results
Examining uptake of subjects and levels
Looking at success of retention
Peer observation by teachers, by curriculum leaders, by principal
• Making clear judgements and acting on them
– Identifying strengths and weaknesses in school, in departments, in
teaching
– Judgements based on evidence
– Commitment to necessary professional development and change
• Inspectorate will publish support materials to assist
in implementing robust self-evaluation
LOAS levels
used in publications
Significant strengths
Very good; highly commendable; of a very
high quality; highly effective; very
successful; few areas for improvement
More strengths than
weaknesses
Good; effective practice; good quality;
valuable; competent; fully appropriate
provision but some areas impacting on
student learning require improvement
More weaknesses than
strengths
Scope for development; fair; provision has
evident weaknesses impacting on student
learning
Significant weaknesses
Poor; clearly unsatisfactory; insufficient;
ineffective; requiring significant change,
development or improvement to improve
student learning; experiencing significant
difficulties
DISCUSSION
Harold Hislop
Inspectorate Evaluation Support & Research Unit
Department of Education and Science
Marlborough Street
Dublin 1
[email protected]