Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

School Inspectors pp 231–257Cite as

What Stated Aims Should School Inspection Pursue?—Views of Inspectors, Policy-Makers and Practitioners

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Accountability and Educational Improvement ((ACED))

Abstract

Apart from research investigating what works in the field of school inspections, research is also required into what aims inspections should pursue. These ‘desirable aims’ should be defined by the shared expectations of various stakeholders in the field of education, including inspectors as well as policy-makers and other professionals with a role in quality assurance in education. This chapter reports on a Delphi study within the Flemish education system with 15 stakeholders with the aim of contributing to the construction of an inventory of different aims that inspections should pursue, as well as the implications of these aims on the administration of inspections. The Flemish inspection system is characterized by the very strict distinction between school inspectors (to control schools) and school counsellors (to give advice to schools). Several assumptions underlie this policy, for instance the idea that an Inspectorate that controls schools, is not able to make an independent verification of the school quality when it is also involved in terms of providing advice to the school. The strict distinction is also related to the constitutional principle of ‘Freedom of education’, which—from an interpretative standpoint—implies that an Inspectorate should merely be focused on school output and results. This study shows that notwithstanding this policy, there is an increasing demand on Flemish school inspectors to contribute to school development and therefore to move beyond accountability-oriented aims. Based on a written questionnaire in the first research phase, three general aims and 62 stated aims were defined for an inspection to pursue. However, the second and third research phased showed that not different stakeholders could not reach a consensus with regard to every single aim proposed by the study. This chapter shows that raising questions on the purpose of school inspection, unearths differing views on fundamental issues and ideologies within the field of education policy and from there to different views on what inspections should look like.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

References

  • Andersen Consulting. (2002). Doelmatigheidsanalyse van de Inspectie van Onderwijs, de Pedagogische Begeleidingsdiensten en de Dienst voor Onderwijsontwikkeling. Eindrapport: Globale analyse en aanbevelingen [Expediency Analysis of the Inspectorate of Education, the School Advisory Services and the Department for Educational Development. Final report: global analysis and recommendations]. Brussels: Andersen Consulting.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ball, S. J. (2003). The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education Policy, 18(2), 215–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biesta, G. (2009). Good education in an age of measurement: On the need to reconnect with the question of purpose in education. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21, 33–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chapman, C., & Earley, P. (2010). School inspection/external school evaluation. In P. Peterson, E. Baker, & B. McGaw (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Education (3rd ed., pp. 719–725). Oxford: Elsevier.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Chong, H., Adnan, H., & Zin, R. M. (2012). A feasible means of methodological advance from Delphi methods: A case study. International Journal of Academic Research, 4(2), 247–253.

    Google Scholar 

  • Custer, R. L., Scarcella, J. A., & Stewart, B. R. (1999). The modified Delphi technique—A rotational modification. Journal of Vocational and Technical Education, 15(2), 50–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalkey, N. C., & Helmer, O. (1963). An experimental application of the Delphi method to the use of experts. Management Science, 9(3), 458–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dalkey, N. C., & Rourke, D. L. (1971). Experimental assessment of Delphi procedures with group value judgments. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Day, J., & Bobeva, M. (2005). A Generic toolkit for the successful management of Delphi studies. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 3(2), 103–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Earley, P. (1998). School improvement after inspection? School and LEA responses. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ehren, M. C. M., Altrichter, H., McNamara, G., & O’Hara, J. (2013). Impact of school inspections on improvement of schools—Describing assumptions on causal mechanisms in six European countries. Educational Assessment Evaluation and Accountability, 25, 3–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehren, M. C. M., & Honingh, M. E. (2011). Risk-based school inspections in the Netherlands: A critical reflection on intended effects and causal mechanisms. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37(4), 239–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faubert, V. (2009). School evaluation: Current practices in OECD countries OECD Working Papers. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson, N., Earley, P., Ouston, J., & Fidler, P. (1999). New heads, OFSTED inspections and the prospects for school improvement. Educational Research, 41, 241–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs, G. R. (2002). Qualitative data analysis. Explorations with NVivo. Berkshire, UK: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrington, H. J., & Harrington, J. S. (1994). Total improvement management: The next generation in performance improvement. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoy, W. K., & Miskel, C. G. (2008). Educational administration. Theory, research and practice (8th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hsu, C., & Sandford, B. A. (2007). The Delphi technique: Making sense of consensus. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 12(10), 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • IIEP. (2011). Roles and functions of supervisors In UNESCO/IIEP (Ed.), Reforming school supervision for quality improvement (pp. 32). Paris: International Institute for Educational Planning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janssens, F. J. G., & Van Amelsvoort, G. H. W. C. H. (2008). School self-evaluations and school inspections in Europe: An exploratory study. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 34, 15–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linstone, H. A., & Turoff, M. (1975). The Delphi method. Techniques and applications. London, Amsterdam, Ontario, Sydney, Tokyo: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lonsdale, P., & Parsons, C. (1998). Inspection and the school improvement hoax. In P. Earley (Ed.), School improvement after inspection? School and LEA Responses (pp. 110–125). London: Paul Chapman Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macbeath, J. (2006). School inspection and self-evaluation. Working with the new relationship. New York, NY/London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacKinnon, N. (2010). Inspection at the end of time. Systems thinking and formative engagement as a new basis for school evaluation and enhancement (pp. 118). Buckingham, UK: Vanguard Consulting.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacKinnon, N. (2011). The urgent need for new approaches in school evaluation to enable Scotland’s curriculum for excellence. Educational Assessment Evaluation and Accountability, 23, 89–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, P., & Smith, G. (1995). OFSTED: Inspecting schools and improvement through inspection. Cambridge Journal of Education, 25, 23–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNamara, G., & O’Hara, J. (2008). The importance of the concept of Self-evaluation in the changing landscape of education policy. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 34(3), 173–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michielsens, P. (2008). Onderwijstoezicht in evolutie [School inspection in evolution]. Tijdschrift voor Onderwijsrecht en Onderwijsbeleid, 2007–08(4), 283–290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Education and Training of the Flemish Community. (2010). Evaluation and assessment frameworks for improving school outcomes: Country background report for the flemish community of Belgium. Available from www.oecd.org/edu/evaluationpolicy: OECD.

  • Ng, P. T. (2011). The evolution and nature of school accountability in the Singapore education system. Educational Assessment Evaluation and Accountability, 22, 275–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Hara, J., McNamara, G., Boyle, R., & Sullivan, C. (2007). Contexts and constraints: An analysis of the evolution of evaluation in Ireland with particular reference to the education system. Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, 4(7), 75–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2013). Synergies for better learning. An international perspective on evaluation and assessment OECD reviews of evaluation and assessment in education. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Okoli, C., & Pawlowski, S. D. (2004). The Delphi method as a research tool: An example, design considerations and applications. Information & Management, 42(1), 15–29. doi:10.1016/j.im.2003.11.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Onderwijsinspectie. (2015). Onderwijsspiegel 2015 [Education Mirror] (p. 194). Brussel: Onderwijsinspectie/ Vlaams Ministerie van Onderwijs en Vorming.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ouston, J., & Davies, J. (1998). OFSTED and afterwards? Schools’ responses to inspection. In P. Earley (Ed.), School improvement after inspection? School and LEA responses (pp. 13–24). London: Paul Chapman Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ozga, J. (2009). Governing education through data in England: From regulation to self-evaluation. Journal of Education Policy, 24(2), 149–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penninckx, M., & Vanhoof, J. (2015). Insights gained by schools and emotional consequences of school inspections: A review of evidence. School Leadership and Management, 35(5), 477–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penninckx, M., Vanhoof, J., De Maeyer, S., & Van Petegem, P. (2014). Exploring and explaining the effects of being inspected. Educational Studies, 1–17. doi:10.1080/03055698.2014.930343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penzer, G. (2011). School inspections: What happens next?. CfBT Education Trust: Reading, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perryman, J. (2009). Inspection and the fabrication of professional and performative processes. Journal of Education Policy, 24, 611–631.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perryman, J. (2010). Improvement after inspection. Improving Schools, 13, 182–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rossi, P. H., Lipsey, M. W., & Freeman, H. E. (1999). Evaluation: A systematic approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheerens, J. (2011). Perspectives on educational quality. In J. Scheerens, H. Luyten, & J. van Ravens (Eds.), Perspectives on educational quality. Illustrative outcomes on primary and secondary schooling in the Netherlands (pp. 3–34). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Scheerens, J., Glas, C., & Thomas, S. (2003). Educational evaluation, assessment, and monitoring. A systemic approach. Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, R. C. (1997). Managing Delphi surveys using nonparametric statistical techniques. Decision Sciences, 28(3), 763–774.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shewbridge, C., Hulshof, M., Nusche, D., & Stoll, L. (2011). School evaluation in the Flemish community of Belgium. In OECD (Ed.), OECD Reviews of Evaluation and Assessment in Education. Paris: OECD Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Standaert, R. (2001). Inspectorates of education in Europe. A critical analysis. Leuven, Belgium: Acco.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suspitsyna, T. (2010). Accountability in American education as a rhetoric and a technology of governmentality. Journal of Education Policy, 25(5), 567–586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swaffield, S., & Macbeath, J. (2005). School self-evaluation and the role of a critical friend. Cambridge Journal of Education, 35(2), 239–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Amelsvoort, G. H. W. C. H., Bos, K. T., Janssens, F. J. G., Klaver, L., Lelyveld, J., & Pol, M. (2006). Proportional supervision and school improvement from an international perspective. Utrecht: Inspectie van het Onderwijs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Bruggen, J. C. (2010). Inspectorates of Education in Europe; some Comparative Remarks about their Tasks and Work. Brussels: SICI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van de Ven, A. L., & Delbecq, A. H. (1974). The effectiveness of nominal, Delphi, and interacting group decision making processes. Academy of Management Journal, 17(4), 605–621.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanhoof, J., & Van Petegem, P. (2007). Matching internal and external evaluation in an era of accountability and school development: Lessons from a Flemish perspective. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 33, 101–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanotterdijk, R. (2008). (Gedifferentieerd) doorlichten: Leren dansen op een slappe koord [Inspection (differentiated approach): Learning to show one’s paces]. Tijdschrift voor Onderwijsrecht en Onderwijsbeleid, 2007–08, 291–314.

    Google Scholar 

  • Visscher, A. J. (2002). A framework for studying school performance feedback systems. In A. J. Visscher & R. Coe (Eds.), School improvement through performance feedback (Vol. 41–72). Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vlaamse Regering (2009). Decreet betreffende de kwaliteit van onderwijs [Decree on the quality of Education].

    Google Scholar 

  • Vlaamse Regering. (2010). Uitvoeringsbesluit bij het decreet over de kwaliteit van onderwijs met betrekking tot het CIPO-referentiekader van de inspectie [Resolution to implement the CIPO-framework of the Inspectorate in the light of the Decree regarding the Quality of Education].

    Google Scholar 

  • Waterman, C. (2013). Does the Icarus legend have a lesson for HMCI? Education Journal (156), 4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woods, P., & Jeffrey, B. (1998). Choosing positions: Living the contradictions of OFSTED. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 19, 547–570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Edubron Research Unit, University of Antwerp, Sint-Jacobstraat 2, 2000, Antwerp, Belgium

    Maarten Penninckx & Jan Vanhoof

Authors
  1. Maarten Penninckx
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jan Vanhoof
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maarten Penninckx .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. The Department of Public Leadership and Social Enterprise, The Open University Business School, The Open University, Milton Keynes, United Kingdom

    Jacqueline Baxter

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Penninckx, M., Vanhoof, J. (2017). What Stated Aims Should School Inspection Pursue?—Views of Inspectors, Policy-Makers and Practitioners. In: Baxter, J. (eds) School Inspectors. Accountability and Educational Improvement. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52536-5_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52536-5_11

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-52535-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-52536-5

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation