The Inspectorate and quality assurance in schools SDPI

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 BU 1 -North & Dublin North BU 6: ESRU BU 2 -South East & Dublin South BU 7: Teacher Education Policy BU 3 -West & Mid-West BU 8: Curr & Assessment Policy BU 4 -South BU 9: Spec Education Policy BU 5 -Midlands & Dublin West BU 10: 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 Quality of External Evaluation National and International Reporting on Outcomes Additional Supports and Services to Students Continuum of Teacher Education 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 harold_hislop@education. gov. ie