Ce diaporama a bien été signalé.
Nous utilisons votre profil LinkedIn et vos données d’activité pour vous proposer des publicités personnalisées et pertinentes. Vous pouvez changer vos préférences de publicités à tout moment.

Inspections as a Twin Vehicle for School Development and Control

This presentation was given by Bente Barton Dalhberg from the Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training at the GCES Conference on Governing Education in a Complex World during the first Workshop A on shared responsibility in developing accountability mechanisms that work in Brussels on 17 October.

  • Identifiez-vous pour voir les commentaires

  • Soyez le premier à aimer ceci

Inspections as a Twin Vehicle for School Development and Control

  1. 1. Inspections as a twin vehicle for school development and control?
  2. 2. Introduction - The Norwegian context - Our system - Demographic, social and political conditions -The example - How the inspection is positioned and works in the system - Results so far The Norwegian example
  3. 3. Large differences in capasity and competence
  4. 4. Ministry of Education and Research The Directorate for Education and Training County Governors Local Municipalities own and run Primary and lower secondary education Adult education Counties own and run Upper secondary education and training Adult education Statelevel CentralRegionalLocalauthorities Independent schools and kindergartens Legal entities
  5. 5. RefLex (Reflex.udir.no) A self-assessment tool for schools and school owners Initiate a self-assessment process in the schools
  6. 6. Reflex is a measure to build a link between internal and external assesment Build capasity for local authorities, schools and stakeholders Enable to make changes by themselves, not because they are told to Encourage local authorities and schools to use their latitude in accordance with the common goals in the Education act
  7. 7. RefLex is also a compilation tool for school owners Local authorities can se where there is a need for change in the different schools or in general. Can be used to team up different schools with similar issues and also find best practice examples.
  8. 8. Feedback so far • “The informants at all levels...provide further feedback.. that the current supervisory methods are better suited to achieving the goal of good municipal services.” Translated from Difi-rapport 2015:19 • “The last main question that respondents in the survey were asked to come up with was concrete proposals to how a strengthened internal control in practice can reduce state supervision. This proved to be somewhat challenging, as there was a widespread belief among many informants that the amount of state supervision is not necessarily too big” Translated from KS FoU-prosjekt nr. 154023
  9. 9. Results so far • The inspections identified a lot fewer improvement areas in 2015 than in 2014 • About 30 percent of the identified improvement areas are improved before final report • 50 % of school leaders have used the self assessment tool. Most of them found practice not in accordance with the national standards. 9 out of 10 who found deviations carried out action in order to improve their practice.
  10. 10. Challenges and dilemmas • Moving target • Strong state – weak municipalities? Who sets the agenda? • One-size-doesn’t-fit-all • What really works over time? • Everybody loves autonomy but hates differences in outcome