Quality assurancein Flemish education

autonomy – support – accountability

Inspectorate of educationDirk Lambrechts, inspector

Contents

• Historical overview• New legislation

• Quality education• Support

• Accountability• Opportunities

• Threats

Historical overview

• Before 1991– Individual (subject) inspectors assessing

individual teachers by means of class visits

Historical overview

• Decree of July 1991 (1992 – 2009)1. Full inspection of all financed/subsidised schools

(elementary, secondary, part-time artistic education, adult education) and pupil guidance centres by the community inspectorate

2. Seperation between control and counselling• Control: community inspectorate

– Accountability (advice for further recognition)– Quality enhancement and feedback (recommendations)

• Counsellling: pedagogical counselling services – Guidance to teachers– Support to schools organised by educational networks (Flemish

community education, subsidised public education, subsidised free education)

Historical overview

Decree of July 1991 (1992 – 2009)

3. Curriculum Entity (Educational Development Division) developed the minimum curricula.

4. Accountability: inspections focus on minimum time tables, minimum curricula with final objectives and developmental objectives

5. Inspectorate has no authority over the pedagogical methods used

6. Uniformity of inspections: identical procedures and set of instruments (CIPO cf. later).

Legislation 1991 Quality of education = responsibility of

Flemish government

Flemish governmentRules and regulations

Schools

Autonomy

Inspectorate

Accountability (+ support)

PedagogicalCounsellingServices

Support

New legislation 2009 Quality of education = responsibility of

schools

Schools

Autonomy

Flemish Government

Rules and regulations

Inspectorate

Accountability (+ support)

PedagogicalCounsellingServices

Support

2009 Decree on quality of education

• Art. 4 §1: Every school is responsible for the quality of the education it provides.

• Art. 4 §2: Providing quality education = respecting rules and regulations issued by the government

2009 Decree on quality of education

• Art. 5: The school has to have ‘policy capacity’ so that it is able to implement good policy

• Art. 6: The school has to critically question itself and to investigate in a more systematic way the quality of its education.

2009 Decree on quality of education

• Part II & III: The government provides money for in-service training and for pedagogical counselling services.

• Part IV: At least once every 10 years the inspectorate will inspect each individual school

Quality education - expectations

1. Respecting the rules and regulations

2. QA - monitoring, assuring the quality of the educational processes

3. Capacity to establish good policy

Role of the inspectorate

-

- Check the 3 “conditions” for quality educations

- Write school reports

- Advise further recognition

Inspectorate’s point of view

-Check the 3 conditions for quality education

?• Rules and regulations

Focus on a limited number of rules and regulations

regarding the ‘recognition’ of schools

Recognition of schools

• Follow a common core curriculum (attain final objectives and pursue development objectives)

• Use an infrastructure that complies with safety, habitability and health standards

• Facilitate inspections by the inspectorate

• Engage in participation laid down by decree

• Have a contract with a pupil guidance centre

• Ban smoking

• …….

Inspectorate’s point of view

-Check the 3 conditions for quality education

?2. Internal quality assurance

Focus on minimum standards for internal quality assurance

Minimum standards for quality assurance

1. Plan actions purposefully

2. Support internal processes

3. Check the effectiveness of actions/processes

4. Develop/improve internal processes

Inspectorate’s point of view

-Check the 3 conditions for quality education

?3. Policy capacity

Focus on organisational and individual factors that are likely to contribute to

policy capacity

Factors contributing to policy capacity1. Willingness to reflect

2. Setting common goals

3. Creating involvement through participative leadership

4. Effective communication

5. Co-operation and mutual support

6. Consistency of initiatives

7. Responsiveness to internal and external expectancies

8. Willingness to innovate

Taking up the job

1. Structural framework: CIPO-modelContext – Input – Proces – Output

2. Differentiated inspection programme based on risk analysis

3. Developing a data warehouse to support risk analysis

4. Same inspection procedures for all types of education

Taking up the job

1. Structural framework: CIPOContext: indicators and variables that provide stable information regarding location,

infrastructure, organising body, …

Input: indicators for the conditions under which a school must develop its processes: staff, socio-economic situation of pupils, ..

Proces: indicators and variables for pedagogical and organisational processes, set up to achieve the objectives

Output: indicators that show to what extent the objectives are attained

School performance within the local context

Interrelationship of indicators and variables

CONTEXT

INPUT

PROCESSES

GENERAL

Leadership Development of vision Decision making Quality assurance

STAFF

HRM organisation evaluation

Professionalisation new teachers professionalisation of

staff

Results Final

objectives Developmental

objectives

OUTPUT

LOGISTICS

Management of logistics infrastructure equipment Financial means Safety and well-being health hygiene environment safety

EDUCATION

Curriculum

Organising/planning the education Contents of the education

Pupil’s guidance

External vs internal guidance Guidance of learning capacities social and emotional guidance sociale en emotionele begeleiding

Evaluation

practice of evaluating pupils reporting

Pupils’ progress School career

of pupils Attendance

Outcomes Results in

following educational stage

Employment

Satisfaction pupils staff other

stakeholders

identification coordinates type of school

Legislative framework General legislation Specific legislation

history Changes in management Changes in structure

Site Buildings / area situated characteristics of surrounding

area

personnel Pupils characteristics

CIPO

Taking up the job

2. Differentiated inspection programme

Focus on a limited number of subjects/courses and processes

Choice of subjects and processes after analysis of data, facts and figures

Well-balanced choice: estimated ‘strong’ + estimated ‘weak’

Pre-inspectionData

analysisSchool

visit

Inter-pretation and deliberation

Focus of inspection

Data analysisPrevious reports, database with reference tables, other

School visit

Documents, observations, talks

Interpretation and careful deliberation of findings

Focus of inspection

Taking up the job

3. Setting up datawarehouse

Schools provide a minimum amount of data in preparation of the inspection

Most data from datawarehouse

Reference tables

Data aggregated over several years – data changes in recent years

4 Leerlingen

4.1 Procentuele spreiding van inschrijvingen

4.1.1 Verdeling aantal inschrijvingen per hoofdstructuur

Hoofdstructuur Schoolwaarde Knipperlicht Minimum Kwartiel 1 Mediaan Kwartiel 3 Maximum Gemiddelde Aantal

Gewoon Kleuteronderwijs 29% < Kwartiel 1 7% 36% 40% 44% 83% 40% 383

Gewoon Lager Onderwijs 71% > Kwartiel 3 17% 56% 60% 64% 93% 60% 383

4.1.2 Verdeling aantal inschrijvingen per leerjaar

Gewoon Lager Onderwijs

Leerjaar Schoolwaarde Knipperlicht Minimum Kwartiel 1 Mediaan Kwartiel 3 Maximum Gemiddelde Aantal

1e leerjaar 19%   7% 16% 18% 21% 36% 19% 435

2e leerjaar 13% < Kwartiel 1 8% 15% 17% 19% 26% 17% 435

3e leerjaar 17%   9% 15% 17% 19% 28% 17% 435

4e leerjaar 22% > Kwartiel 3 8% 14% 16% 18% 26% 16% 435

5e leerjaar 14% < Kwartiel 1 6% 14% 16% 18% 29% 16% 435

6e leerjaar 15%   5% 13% 15% 18% 43% 15% 434

Taking up the job

4. Fixed procedure

Pre-inspection / pre-analysis

Differentiated inspection: 3/6 days in school

Report format

School inspection

Pre-inspection3 / 6 days inspection

School report

DataAnalysis

School Visit

Inter-pretation

Deliberation

TalksObservationsDocuments

RecognitionFinal

objectivesDevelop-mental

objectives

QualityAssurance

PolicyCapacity

Only whenAdvice = negative

AdviceFurther

recognition

Focus of inspection

Deliberation

Reaction of schools ?

1. Responsible for the quality of their own education

What is quality education?

Every school may have its own idea of quality!

Do you have quality education when you just follow rules and regulations?

Reaction of schools ?

2. Responsible for monitoring the quality of educational processes

Do we have to set up a system of TQM?

Do we have the means to monitor our own quality?

What does ‘monitoring of quality’ imply?

Reaction of schools ?

3. Policy capacity

Who will support us to achieve policy capacity?

What is policy capacity?

We’ve other things to worry about!

Final thoughts

• Schools are willing but reluctant to take up the responsibility

• Inspectorate has to redirect the way it looks at schools

• Avoid bureaucratic systems of quality management

• Inform schools about the concept, the procedures, the instruments of inspection

• Speak the same language (quality assurance, policy capacity, aspects of quality, …)

• …..

Thanks for your attention