Quality in schools: a case to develop school based policies and
approaches
PISA teamDepartment of Education – Ghent
University – BelgiumBeijing – July 24-25, 2009
http://allserv.ugent.be/~mvalcke/CV/[email protected]
Structure
• Context• Quality and school autonomy• School level quality assurance• System level quality assurance• Research• Example: pupil language background• School performance feedback system• Discussion
Context
• Belgium: 11.000.000 inhabitants
• 3 regions ~language (Dutch, French, German)
• Each region its own educational administration!– Flanders 5.5 million inhabitants
Data for Flanders !!!
Context: structure of education
Context
• Compulsory education for all children from 5 to 18
• Freedom of Education• Education is costless
• Choice: everybody can organize education IF they respect “standards” (government, city, province, schurch, private organisations, …)
• Equal opportunities in education
Context ~ Quality Assurance
• Financial support for education
• Final attainment goals: guiding principle
• School autonomy
• Participation of parents and external partners
• More info: www.ond.vlaanderen.be
Context ~school autonomy
Context ~ school autonomy
• Government– Defines “final goals of education”– Defines basic organisational criteria (e.g., minimum
two evaluations/year, …)
• Government does NOT define curricula, learning materials, teaching approach, evaluation approach, examinations, number of hours/subjects,
Context ~ school autonomy
• Consequences– Schools can be very different– Schools can make choices in view of context,
type of learners, geographical issues, philosophy, organisation, …
– Parents can make a choice for a “specific” school
School autonomy
• Example of differences
• Ghent City schools
• Large % of migrant population
School autonomy: example
Ni hao
Reflecting and talking about different Reflecting and talking about different characteristics of all familiescharacteristics of all families
Diversity in staffDiversity in staff
School autonomy: example
School level quality assurance
• Each 7 years complete review of school
• Schooldoorlichting“X-ray of the school”
• Objective: prove that you have the adequate orgabnisation to attain the final objectives
School level quality assurance
• What is quality of a school?
• Quality ≠ test scores of pupils– Example: compare school X in a poor area
with large unemployment and school Y in a rich urban area. Can we say that – based on exam results that Y > X?
• Schools can differ in output!
• Key question is “added value”.
School level quality assurance
• X-ray of school: CIPO-Model
School level quality assurance
• School prepares a “self study report” and centres on CIPO– School variabels, tacher variables, student
variables, context variables
• School “visitation” by team of educational experts (formerly inspection team)
School level quality assurance• Visitation
• Discussions with all actors
• Documentation: agenda, instructional materials, infrastructure, tests/assessment, instructional approaches, administration, strategic plans, profesisonal development, team,
• Three days
School level quality assurance• Result:
– Positive report– Positive with minor remarks (6-12 months time)– Negative (2%/year)
No more subsidizing; closing of school or merging with other school
• Results are PUBLIC!!
System level quality assurance
• National level (peilingsproeven)– Specific test (math, language, French, …)– Sample of Flemish schools– Conclusions ate curriculum level: final
attainment goals
• International level– PISA– PIAAC
Research: school autonomy focus
• Marzano, Pickering & Pollock: What works at school?
• 35 years meta-analysis of research
• Factors at – school level– teachers’ level– pupils’ level
• Quality ≠ attention to be paid to one or a set of factors!
• Quality = school factors X teacher factors X pupil factors
• Decisions about factors should be interlinked! Need for a policy at school level!
School quality
Performanceand development
of the pupil
Home situation
Background knowledge
Motivation
Feasible program
Challenging objectives and effective feedback
Involvement parents and society
Safe, orderly environment
Collegial andprofessional culture
Directing andredesigning programs
Pedagogical actions and didactic approach
Classmanagement
School quality
• After controlling for differences in pupils, the impact of factors at teacher level is decisive: 67% of differences in pupils is due to differences in teacher variables!!
Example: language differences
• Example of differences
• Ghent City schools
• Large % of migrant population
Example: language differences
• Flemish cities ~large concentration of migrant children (Turkish/Moroccan)
• Hard to find a solution for the low school results of this group of children– More drop-out– More school failure– More restarting in same grade– Overrepresented in professional SE
Example: language differences
• ‘Dutch only’policy in language of instruction
• Problem: mother tongue of % children ≠ Dutch
– Mother tongue critical to develop cognitive schema
– Develop basic knowledge in mother tongue and transfer to second language (Cummins).
Example: language differences
• City of Ghent: experiment in primary education ~formal place to mother tongue of migrant children.
• Project “Development of academic competences through the development of the mother tongue”
Example: language differences
• Objectives project:– Development positive attitude towards languages– Well-being of all children– Enhance language skills in general of all children
• Target group– Kindergarten– Grade 1 and 2 of primary school
A multilingual supervisor supports the home language of the children and translates to the teacher.
Stimulating the development of Dutch vocabulary through the use of the mother tongue
Ex. Turkish translations of books to take home
Reading aloud in the home languages
Example: language differences
Preparation year: 2007-2008
Start project: 2008-2009
Duration of the project: 2008-2013
School performance feedback project
• School performance feedback project
• Tests are available; e.g., math, language, sciences, …
• Norms are available that link performance to school, pupil variables
• Schools can compare performance with “comparable” schools
School performance feedback project
Tests
Background info pupils,
teacher, school
Typical test results
1. Teacher selects test items
2. Teacher administers test3. Teacher enters school,
class, pupil information
1. Teacher enters pupils responses
2. Teacher gets results
3. Teacher gets info abbout added value
E F F E C T S
P R E
D I
C T
O R
S
Context related
◦ School improvement –accountability
◦ Pressure and support
◦ Support needs◦ Support set up◦ I nternal - External
School and user
related
◦ Functions/ expectations of SPF use
◦ Prior knowledge and experience in data use
◦ Priorities in task scheme◦ Statistical knowledge and skills◦ Perception of school
performance level
School performance
feedback(system)related
◦ Perception of relevance◦ Perception of
interpretability◦ Perception of validity and
reliability◦ Perception of user-
f riendliness
Supportrelated
Type offeedback use
I nstrumentalConceptualSymbolicStrategicPupil directedMotivating
Successivesteps
Reading and discussing
DiagnosisPlanning
I mplementation
Evaluation
Receiving feedback
I nterpretion
F E
E D
B A
C K
U
S E
I ntended – Unintended Desirable – Undesirable
Product - Process
Quality in schools: a case to develop school based policies and
approaches
PISA teamDepartment of Education – Ghent
University – BelgiumBeijing – July 24-25, 2009
http://allserv.ugent.be/~mvalcke/CV/[email protected]
