In this section, the example of the Netherlands is discussed, demonstrating the freedom of internal evaluators which implements RBA to improve their own schools and showing how the role of external evaluators is to supervise and improve schools based on the data provided by the internal evaluators.
It should be first clarified that the Dutch RBA is used to cover not just teaching but also management, curriculum, school building and safety in order to attribute an overall grade to a school. The alternative system that was presented to the participants in this research, on the other hand, focused exclusively on teacher evaluation, since teacher evaluation is the main focus of this study. Furthermore, the Kuwaiti education system does not give schools overall grades or ranking so in order to propose a similar system based on the RBA that includes overall grades in the Kuwaiti context, a more comprehensive study that focuses on this particular topic would be needed.
RBA were introduced in the Netherlands in 2008. Before this date, inspections were carried out by the Netherland Inspectorate of Education (NIE) once every four years, whereas now, schools are evaluated by school boards that are expected to monitor and develop their schools by applying a quality assurance system. The NIE inspects schools when they are deemed at risk of failing (Ehren, n.d.).
According to the NIE (2012; 2009), the inspections begin with collection of data on a school. These data consist of three elements: signals, complaints and publicity; accountability documents; and student results (see Figure 6.1). Signals: complaints and publicity includes complaints from students, parents or teachers about the school and the quality of the school. Signals about low quality can also be picked up from public media, such as newspapers or social media, and from complaints made by organisations. The second element, accountability documents, consist of reports that are provided every year
to the NIE by school boards to inform them about the school’s finances, its achievements and the quality of education provided by the school. The third element is students’ academic achievements, such as the results of independent tests or institutional exams, which are collected to analyse students’ learning at different levels to determine if their outcomes are as expected. With regard to providing accountability documents, schools should conduct self-evaluations (Nusche, Braun, Halasz, & Santiago, 2014) since this is a more logical approach (NIE, 2012).
After collecting three sets of data, the risk analysis is initiated by the NIE. This consists of two steps: primary detection and expert analysis. The first step consists of applying the standards and rules to determine the level of risk to the quality of education and then providing this information to inspectors. If the school is not at risk, it does not undergo any further investigation: this means that the school is trusted by NIE until the next annual analysis, and if the school continues to be deemed not at risk in subsequent annual analyses, it is only visited once every four years as a basic inspection (general inspection for all schools). However, if the school does carry some risk in terms of any of the three data elements, it progresses to the second step, which warrants further investigation by inspectors. They will investigate the school’s risk and combine it with the organisational memory (previous record) of the NIE and public information about the school, e.g. its website. After that, if there seems to be nothing to cause concern, they will decide that the school does not require inspection and can be trusted until the next report filed in the next school year. If there are still doubts about the risk at that point, the school will be investigated by inspectors (NIE, 2012).
For schools that are deemed to have a certain level of risk, the inspectors meet with the school board to let it know about the school’s problems and to see whether the board can resolve them. In most cases, inspectors decide to conduct an inspection to improve the school’s quality by focusing on aspects that need improvement. Inspectors then write the inspection arrangement, which provides the school with an outline of the problems and some information about how to improve the school, along with a deadline for implementation of the arrangement. The final stage is intervention: the inspectors work to monitor the actions taken by the school to make the improvements outlined in the
all identified school quality issues are resolved at this point, then the school is trusted and a verdict of “no risk” is given until the next risk analysis is provided (NIE, 2012).
According to the NIE (2009), five domains for the core frameworks of primary and secondary education are used to determine a school’s level of risk. For primary schools, they are as follows:
1) Outcomes
• The students’ outcomes are at the appropriate level. 2) Teaching and learning processes
• The curriculum encourages and prepares students for further education and for
society.
• The teachers allow the students to take an appropriate amount of time to master the
curriculum.
• The teachers are able to provide clear explanations, organise activities and
encourage students to be interactive and involved in learning.
• The teachers adapt the curriculum, time for learning the subject matter, and
teaching to take into account differences between pupils.
• The school climate should be characterised by safety and respectful interaction. For
example:
- Safety: students’ and staffs’ feelings of being safe in school are taken into account.
- Respectful interaction: the parents are involved in the school through the school’s encouragement in joining the school’s activities.
3) Special needs provision and guidance:
• The teachers systematically monitor their students’ progress, and the school uses
standardised instruments to monitor students’ learning and development.
• The school guides the students in order to assist them to develop their capabilities. • Extra care is provided to students who need support.
4) Quality assurance
• The school has a quality assurance system such as an annual evaluation of students’
achievements, regular teaching and learning evaluations, and improvement activities.
• This covers a special needs plan, examination regulations, and the planning of
teaching time.
According to the NIE (2012) certain evaluation and monitoring methods are used by inspectors in schools deemed at higher risk. Firstly, students are interviewed and asked about safety, support and guidance received, teaching and attention from teachers and the time allocated to the curriculum. Parents are also interviewed to determine their involvement in the school. Teachers, the school board, and other members of staff are interviewed about the indicators of all aspects of the quality of education provided. Secondly, classes and some events or certain school facilities are observed in order to assess and evaluate the quality of education provided (NIE, 2012).
Figure 6.1: The Risk-based analysis in the Netherlands
• Cited in NIE (2009, p.5).
In terms of teacher evaluation, this falls under the responsibility of the school board. Many school boards delegate the responsibility to the school principal and the school principal may delegate to a member of the leadership team or to department heads to conduct teacher evaluations for all teachers at least once every four years. There is flexibility for the school board to design or use the framework for teacher evaluation. Overall, teachers in the Netherlands are evaluated for formative purposes in order to help them with their professional development and to provide them with support to prevent underperformance.
2 Procedure
Pupils and their parents must be able to rely on their school providing education of sufficient quality. That is why the Inspectorate inspects the quality of education. This inspection is risk-oriented. Every year, we conduct a risk analysis to check for indications that a school is performing below standard. On the basis of this risk analysis and, if need be an additional school visit, we determine the degree of inspection a school requires. This means that each school receives tailored inspection. The school board is responsible for the quality of the education provided by a school, for the school’s financial situation and for its compliance with statutory rules and regulations. The board is accountable for the results. For that reason, we address the board directly.
Our procedure can be schematised as follows:
Outcome Risk analysis Basic inspection Annual accounts Quality study Tailored inspection
Weak or unsatisfactory perfor- mance regarding quality and/or compliance
Failure signals
Risks
No risks No shortcomings Shortcomings
Risk analysis
A school’s1 annual risk analysis usually takes place at a fixed date, after the new outcome
data has been processed. In principle, however, the Inspectorate may conduct the risk analysis at any given moment, for example, when serious failure signals have been detected. A risk analysis focuses on the outcomes, annual accounts and failure signals. The outcome involves pupils’ achievements and their developmental progress. The annual accounts pertain to school data on staff (turnover), pupils and the financial situation. Failure signals include, for example, complaints lodged by parents or media reports.
use depends on the regulation of each school and school board (Nusche, Braun, Halàsz, & Santiago, 2014).