Transcript PowerPoint-presentatie

The Netherlands Inspectorate of Education
INVOLVING THE
UNINVOLVED:
HOW ABOUT PUPILS at RISK
in the DUTCH INSPECTION
FRAMEWORK ?
Agnes Vosse
Miriam Baltussen
Ben de Goei
Fije Hooglandt
Piet van de Pol
September 28th
Haarlem – Carlton
The Netherlands Inspectorate of Education
Is it possible to identify
Whether a mainstream school provides
GOOD education
for PUPILS at RISK
with the Dutch FRAMEWORK?
YES / NO
Agnes Vosse
Miriam Baltussen
Ben de Goei
Fije Hooglandt
Piet van de Pol
September 28th
Haarlem – Carlton
Dutch - Framework - Mainstream
The Netherlands Inspectorate of Education
Quality aspects
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Outcomes
Curriculum
Learning Time
School climate/environment
Educational practice
Modified Provision
Pupils’ assessment and support
Additional provision/guidance
Quality Framework
Dutch - Framework - Mainstream
The Netherlands Inspectorate of Education
1. Outcomes
1.1
* The results of the pupils at the end of primary
1.2
*
school are at least at the level that may be
expected based on the characteristics of the pupil
population.
The results of the students for Dutch language and
mathematics during the schoolperiod are at least at
the level that may be expected based on the
characteristics of the pupil population.
1.4 Pupils with special needs make progress according
to their capacities.
Dutch - Framework - Mainstream
The Netherlands Inspectorate of Education
Quality aspects
1. Outcomes
2. Curriculum
3. Learning Time
4. School climate/environment
5. Educational practice
6. Modified Provision
7. Pupils’ assessment and support
8. Additional provision/guidance
9. Quality Framework
Quality Framework
The Netherlands Inspectorate of Education
(Mainstream & Special Education)
Outcomes
•
•
•
•
Is the school Outcome-oriented?
Does the school analyse the Outcomes?
Is the analysis on school level and classroom level?
The school is aware of the educational needs of its population?
Curriculum
• Does the school offer extra language curriculum for pupils
who need this?
Outcomes in Mainstream
The Netherlands Inspectorate of Education
• Important factor of school quality
• On each level: school, group, individual
• Focus on Outcome-oriented approach of Inspectorate
• Schools are also supposed to focus on gifted pupils
(to prevent underachieving)
• Annual risk analysis of all schools’ (based on outcomes)
The Netherlands Inspectorate of Education
RISK ANALYSIS in Mainstream
Annual –continuing - procedure
• Outcomes on school level with norms for risk
• Primary detection based on the average school scores
(compared to similar populations)
• Annual risk analysis for outcomes at the end of school
• Low results? (over a period of 3 years)  
• Further investigation with outcomes during school
(year 3, 4 & 5 = class 1, 2, 3)
• Still/also a risk?   school visit
WHEN TO VISIT A SCHOOL in
Mainstream
The Netherlands Inspectorate of Education
What type of visits:
• Risk visit as a result of risk analysis
•
•
•
•
4-years visit
Special themes
Visits for Annual report
Final visit after school improvement process
The Netherlands Inspectorate of Education
School visit always includes
• Outcomes
(Mainstream)
(inspection norms for results at the end and during
the school period)
• Pupils’ Assessment & Support / Provision
(no norms for Pupils at Risk)
   How to judge if the school performs up
to standards for Pupils at Risk of Underachieving
PUPILS AT RISK (Mainstream)
The Netherlands Inspectorate of Education
If schools exclude pupils from the assessment at the
end of the school in year 8 ->
Outcomes indicator 1.4: ‘Pupils with special needs make progress
according to their capacities’
Individual Educational Plan (IEP) requirements
• School formulates realistic Progression Goals
• School designs the Learning Path linked to an
• Established Completion Level, related to an established Exit
Destination
• Does the school follow the progression, according to the goals
• Do the pupils make progression as expected?
Dutch - Framework - Mainstream
The Netherlands Inspectorate of Education
JUDGING if the school performs satisfying
for PUPILS at RISK of UNDERACHIEVING
Judging the indicator:
• Norm: sufficient development in 80% (roughly)
• Not always possible to judge (not sufficient tests moments for
measuring progress
• Individual progression (1.4) is NO NORM INDICATOR
Bottlenecks
• The more IEP’s we see, the better we judge (sharper)
(Especially in Primary and Special Education)
• In other sectors the judgement is much milder
• Interrater reliability between inspectors
• Focus on ‘average outcomes’: don’t we overlook the schools that are weak
for pupils at risk?
How about specific situations?
The Netherlands Inspectorate of Education
Example School ‘Horizon’
1. Outcomes at the end & during school period (1.1 & 1.2)
1. Pupils with special needs make progress according
to their capacities (1.4)
6. Modified Provision (in classroom) 4 indicators:
lesson content, instruction, processing task, learning time
Indicator
sufficient
insufficient
insufficient
7. Pupils’ assessment and support (Norm indicator):
* The school uses a comprehensive system of standardized
tools and procedures for monitoring the performance and
development of the pupils.
insufficient
8. Additional provision/guidance (Norm indicator):
* The school provides the support in a systematic and planned
manner.
insufficient
Other dilemmas (1)
The Netherlands Inspectorate of Education
IEP’s – Inspectorates
• For Inspection a legal document, for schools enormous workload
• From 2012 progression goals are legally required, (indicator 1.4)
• What about the feasibility of the plans?
• Is the inspection able to assess the effectiveness of the additional
provision?
• Do we have a complete image of the support system?
• Do we combine all relevant information to get the picture?
• How about social risks like bullying or other unsafe stuations?
Other dilemmas (2)
The Netherlands Inspectorate of Education
Schools
•
•
•
•
•
•
Did the school assess the problems in time?
Does the school have enough expertise to give the support?
Does the school assess the effect of the support?
Are there criteria for success?
Is the support system embedded in the school system?
Are there criteria for the external chain of support?
CONCLUSIONS
The Netherlands Inspectorate of Education
Pupils at risk in mainstream
• Outcomes and yearly risk-analysis (cognitive)
• Inspection & school trend: outcome-oriented approach, at school
level, but also group & individual level
• All school visits (after risk-analysis) ánd 4-years-visit ánd themevisit: always judgements on provision included;
• Provision is norm-indicator (but will not lead to a poor judgement
for the school on its own)
• Inspection has no criteria for outcomes for pupils at risk
• Near future with new legislation:
Passend Onderwijs  Zorgplicht (duty for providing Fitting
Education for each child, also handicapped)
The Netherlands Inspectorate of Education
PUPILS AT RISK (Mainstream)
Do we identify whether a mainstream
school provides GOOD education for
PUPILS at RISK
with the Dutch FRAMEWORK ?