Examining School Development Assessment Practices in Terms of Some Countries

Abstract

Every school has its own dynamics, needs, and characteristics. Therefore, it is impossible to talk about a school development model and assessment approach that will adapt to every school. Since one size does not fit all, numerous procedures and processes are inevitable. The present review study was designed to compare and contrast the evaluation objectives and practices of school improvement in the countries (United Kingdom (England), Japan, Germany, Italy, and France) where the student population density was similar to our country, ranked in the top 30 in the world rankings of real Gross Domestic Product per capita, and in PISA 2015 and 2018, at least one of the fields of science, mathematics, and reading was at or above the average of Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries. Findings are reported under the categories of purpose, kind, data collection method, team, and impact of the assessment. The results obtained reveal that the external and internal evaluations of schools should be designed in a way that contributes to the development of schools in every sense.

Keywords

• School development
• evaluation of school development
• educational planning
• supervision
• assessment and evaluation

Okul Gelişimi Değerlendirme Uygulamalarının İncelenmesi

Öz

Her okulun kendine özgü dinamikleri, ihtiyaçları ve özellikleri mevcuttur. Bu nedenle, her okula uyum gösterecek bir okul gelişim modelinden ve değerlendirme yaklaşımından söz etmek mümkün değildir. Okulların gelişimine uygun değerlendirmelerin çok sayıda çeşitlendiği düşünüldüğünde farklı ülkelerde farklı uygulamaların olması kaçınılmazdır. Doküman incelemesi deseninde tasarlanan bu çalışmada, öğrenci nüfus yoğunluğu ülkemiz ile benzer olan, kişi başına düşen reel Gayri Safi Yurtiçi Hasılanın dünya sıralamasında ilk 30’da yer almış ve PISA 2015 ve 2018 sınavında fen bilimleri, matematik ve okuma alanlarının en az birinde Ekonomik Kalkınma ve İşbirliği Örgütü (OECD) ülkeleri ortalaması ya da üzerinde bir performans göstermiş ülkelerin (Birleşik Krallık (İngiltere), Japonya, Almanya, İtalya ve Fransa) okul gelişimi değerlendirme amaçları ve uygulamaları karşılaştırmalı olarak incelenmiştir. Bulgular, değerlendirmenin amacı, değerlendirme türü, veri toplama yöntemi, değerlendirme ekibi ve değerlendirme sonuçlarının etkisi kategorileri altında raporlanmıştır. Elde edilen sonuçlar, okulların dış ve iç değerlendirmelerinin, okulların her anlamda gelişimine katkıda bulunacak şekilde tasarlanması gerektiğini ortaya koymaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Okul gelişimi
• okul gelişimin değerlendirilmesi
• eğitim planlaması
• denetim
• ölçme ve değerlendirme

Kaynakça

1. Barton, P. (2009). National education standards: Getting beneath the surface. Educational Testing Service, Princeton.
2. BM. (2014). İnsani gelişme raporu/İnsani ilerlemeyi sürdürmek: Kırılganlıkları azaltmak ve dayanıklılık oluşturmak. https://www.tr.undp.org/content/turkey/tr/home/library/human_development/hdr-2014.html
3. Castelló-Climent, A., ve Hidalgo-Cabrillana, A. (2012). The role of educational quality and quantity in the process of economic development. Economics of Education Review, 31(4), 391-409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2011.11.004
4. Darling-Hammond, L. (1995). Authentic assessment in action. Teachers’ College Press.
5. Davies, D., ve Rudd, P. (2001). Evaluating school self-evaluation. National Foundation for Educational Research.
6. Davis, D.R., Ellett, C.D., ve Annunziata, J. (2002). Teacher evaluation, leadership and learning organizations. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 16(4), 287–301. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021791907098
7. Day, C., ve Leitch, R. (2001). Teachers’ and teacher educators’ lives: The role of emotion. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(4), 403-415. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00003-8
8. Ehlert, M., Koedel, C., Parsons, E., ve Podgursky, M. (2016). Selecting growth measures for use in school evaluation systems: Should proportionality matter? Educational Policy, 30(3), 465–500. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904814557593

9. Eurydice. (2004). Evaluation of schools providing compulsory education in Europe. http://www.eurydice.org/portal/page/portal/Eurydice
10. Eurydice. (2015). Eğitimde kalite güvencesi: Avrupa’da okul değerlendirmesine ilişkin politikalar ve yaklaşımlar. Eurydice Raporu, Avrupa Birliği’nin Yayınlar Bürosu.
11. Eurydice. (2020). Germany: Quality assurance in early childhood and school education. https://eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-policies/eurydice/content/quality-assurance-early-childhood-and-school-education-25_en
12. Gaertner, H., Wurster, S., ve Pant, H.A. (2014). The effect of school inspections on school improvement. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 25(4), 489-508. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2013.811089
13. GEM (Global Education Monitoring Report). (2017). Accountability in education: Meeting our commitments. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000259338/PDF/259338eng.pdf.multi
14. Glatterhorn, A. (2008). Principal as curriculum leader shaping what is taught and tested. Corwin.
15. Govender, N., Grobler, B., ve Mestry, R. (2016). Internal whole-school evaluation in South Africa: The influence of holistic staff capacity. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 44(6), 996–1020. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143215595414
16. Hanushek, E.A., ve Raymond, M. (2005). Does school accountability lead to improved student performance? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 24, 297–327.
17. Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, changing times: Teachers’ work and culture in the postmodern age. Cassell.
18. Harrington, H.J., ve Harrington, J. (1994). Total improvement management: The next generation in performance improvement. McGraw-Hill.
19. Hendriks, M.A., Doolaard, S., ve Bosker, R.J. (2002). Using school effectiveness as a knowledge base for self-evaluation in Dutch schools: The ZEBO-project. In A. Visscher & R. Coe (Eds.), School improvement through performance feedback (pp. 114-142). Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.
20. Hill, J. C. (1986). Curriculum evaluation for school improvement. C. C. Thomas.
21. Hopkins, E., Hendry, H., Garrod, F., McClare, S., Pettit, D., Smith, L., Burrell, H., ve Temple, J. (2016). Teachers’ views of the impact of school evaluation and external inspection processes. Improving Schools, 19(1), 52-61. https://doi.org/10.1177/1365480215627894
22. Hoy, W.K., ve Miskel, C.G. (2001). Educational administration: Theory, research, and practice. McGraw Hill Company. Husfeldt, V. (2011). The impact of school inspection – does it really work? State of research. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 14, 259–282.
23. Lee, J.C., Ding, D., ve Song, H. (2008). School supervision and evaluation in China: the Shanghai perspective. Quality Assurance in Education, 16(2), 148-163.
24. Lens, W., ve Depreeuw, E. (1998). A closer look at motivation to study and fear of failure. Leuven University Press.
25. Macbeath, J. (2006). Finding a voice, finding self. Educational Review, 58(2), 195–207.
26. Mattei, P. (2009). Restructuring welfare organizations in Europe: from democracy to good management? Macmillan.
27. Matthews, P., ve Sammons, P. (2004). Improvement through inspection. Ofsted.
28. MDE. (2020). Michigan academic standards. https://www.michigan.gov/mde/0,4615,7-140-28753---,00.html
29. MEB. (2015). Okul Öncesi Eğitim ve İlköğretim Kurumları Standartları Kılavuz Kitabı” ve “Okul Öncesi Eğitim ve İlköğretim Kurumları Standartları Veri Girişi Rehber Kitabı” yayımlanmıştır. https://tegm.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2015_04/09112933_kurumstandartlarklavuzkitap.pdf
30. MEB. (2017). Teftiş Kurulu Başkanlığı: Görevlerimiz. https://tkb.meb.gov.tr/www/icerik_goruntule.php?KNO=107
31. MEB. (2019). Bakanlık maarif müfettişleri görev standartları. https://tkb.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2019_06/19145017_BakanlYk_Maarif_MuYfettisYleri_GoYrev_StandartlarY.pdf
32. MEXT. (2020). Improvement of school management. https://www.mext.go.jp/en/policy/education/elsec/title02/detail02/1373863.htm
33. Murphy, J., Hallinger, P., ve Heck, R.H. (2013). Leading via teacher evaluation: The case of the missing clothes? Educational Researcher, 42(6), 349–354. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X13499625
34. NCEE. (2015). Netherlands: Governance and accountability. https://ncee.org/netherlands-governance-and-accountability/
35. NCEE. (2020a). Germany: Governance and accountability. https://ncee.org/what-we-do/center-on-international-education-benchmarking/top-performing-countries/germany-overview/germany-governance/
36. NCEE. (2020b). Shanghai-China: Learning systems. https://ncee.org/what-we-do/center-on-international-education-benchmarking/top-performing-countries/shanghai-china/shanghai-china-instructional-systems/
37. NCEE. (2020c). Japan: Governance and accountability. https://ncee.org/what-we-do/center-on-international-education-benchmarking/top-performing-countries/japan-overview/japan-system-and-school-organization/
38. NCEE. (2021). Governance and accountability. https://ncee.org/9buildingblocks/governance-and-accountability/#Examples
39. Nevo, D. (2001). School evaluation: internal or external? Studies in Educational Evaluation, 27(2), 95-106. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-491X(01)00016-5
40. O’Day, J. (2002). Complexity, accountability, and school improvement. Harvard Educational Review 72(3), 293-329. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.72.3.021q742t8182h238
41. OECD. (2013). Synergies for better learning: An international perspective on evaluation and assessment. OECD.
42. OECD. (2015). Education policy outlook: Japan. https://www.oecd.org/education/Japan-country-profile.pdf
43. OECD. (2019a). PISA 2018: Insights and Interpretations. Paris. https://www.oecd.org/pisa/PISA%202018%20Insights%20and%20Interpretations%20FINAL%20PDF.pdf
44. OECD. (2019b). Trends Shaping Education. Paris. https://www.oecd.org/education/ceri/trends-shaping-education.htm
45. Ofsted. (2019). The education inspection framework. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/801429/Education_inspection_framework.pdf
46. Ofsted. (2020). Find an inspection report: Activity, reports and ratings. Royal School, Manchester. https://reports.ofsted.gov.uk/
47. Ofsted. (2021). What Ofsted does. https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ofsted
48. Ontario Education Improvement Commission. (2000). School improvement planning: A handbook for principals, teachers and school councils. The Commission.
49. Opfer, V. D., Pedder, D. J., ve Lavicza, Z. (2011). The influence of school orientation to learning on teachers’ professional learning change. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 22(2), 193-214. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2011.572078
50. Ouston, J., ve Davies, J. (1998). Ofsted and afterwards? In P. Earley, (Ed.), School improvement after inspection? (pp. 13-24). Sage.
51. Ovando, M. ve Ramirez, A. (2007). Principals’ instructional leadership within a teacher performance appraisal system: Enhancing students’ academic success. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 20, 85–110.
52. Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
53. Peng, W. J., Thomas, S. M., Yang, X., ve Li, J. (2006). Developing school evaluation methods to improve the quality of schooling in China: a pilot ‘value added’ study. Assessment in Education, 13(2), 135-154.
54. Piezunka, A. (2019). Struggle for acceptance: Maintaining external school evaluation as an institution in Germany. Historical Social Research, 44(2), 270-287. https://doi.org/10.12759/hsr.44.2019.2.270-287
55. Plowright, D. (2007). Self-evaluation and Ofsted inspection: Developing an integrative model of school improvement. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 35(3), 373-393. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143207078180
56. Power, M. (1994). The audit explosion. Demos. http://www.demos.co.uk
57. Psacharopoulos, G. (2006). The value of investment in education: Theory, evidence, and policy. Journal of Education Finance, 32(2), 113-136. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/40704288.pdf
58. Quality Assurance Division. (2002). Performance indicators for Hong Kong schools. For secondary, primary and special schools. Hong Kong Education and Manpower Bureau.
59. Rauhvargers, A. (2014). Where are the global rankings leading us? An analysis of recent methodological changes and new developments. European Journal of Education, 49(1), 29-44. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12066
60. Reinhartz, J., ve Beach, D.M. (2004). Educational leadership, changing schools, changing roles. Pearson.
61. Robinson, T.T., ve Cousins, J.B. (2004). Internal participatory evaluation as an organizational learning system: A longitudinal case study. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 30(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-491X(04)90001-6
62. Rosenthal, L. (2004). Do school inspections improve school quality? Ofsted inspections and school examination results in the UK. Economics of Education Review, 23(1), 143-151.
63. Sato, H. (2016). National assessment of academic ability in Japan. Bulletin of Institute of Education University of Tsukuba. http://hdl.handle.net/2241/00144543
64. Saunders, M., Lewis, P., ve Thornhill, A. (2000). Collecting primary data through observation. In M. N. K. Saunders, P. Lewis & A. Thornhill (Eds.), Research methods for business students (pp. 218-236). Financial Times/Prentice Hall.
65. Scheerens, J. (2004). The evaluation culture. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 30(2), 105-124.
66. Scott, R. (2008). Institutions and organizations: Ideas and interests. Sage.
67. Sinnema, C.E.L., Le Fevre, D., Robinson, V.M.J., ve Pope, D. (2013). When others’ performance just isn’t good enough: educational leaders’ framing of concerns in private and public. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 12(4), 301-336.
68. Sowada, M.G., ve Dedering, K. (2016). Die reform der reform. In A. Schulinspektion (Eds.), Schulinspektion als steuerungsimpuls (pp. 169–199). Springer.
69. Stoll, L., Fink, D., ve Earl, L. (2003). It’s about learning (and it’s about time). RoutledgeFalmer.
70. Stronge, J.H., ve Tucker, P.D. (2003). Teacher evaluation. Assessing and improving performance. Eye on Education.
71. Tebliğler Dergisi. (2014). Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı Eğitimde Kalite Yönetim Sistemi Yönergesi. https://kms.kaysis.gov.tr/Home/Goster/45883?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1
72. Turan, S., ve Zıngıl, G. (2013). Okulu değerlendirme teori, araştırma ve uygulama. Pegem Akademi.
73. Tuytens, M., ve Devos, G. (2017). The role of feedback from the school leader during teacher evaluation for teacher and school improvement. Teachers and Teaching, 23(1), 6-24. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2016.1203770
74. Vanhoof J., ve Van Petegem P. (2007). How to match internal and external evaluation? Conceptual reflections from a Flemish perspective. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 33(2), 101-119.
75. Watling, R., ve Arlow, M. (2002). Wishful thinking: Lessons from the internal and external evaluations of an innovatory education project in Northern Ireland. Evaluation & Research in Education, 16(3), 166-181.
76. Whitby, K. (2010). School inspection: Recent experiences in high performing education systems. CFBT Education Trust.
77. Wiyono, B.B. (2018). The effect of self-evaluation on the principals’ transformational leadership, teachers’ work motivation, teamwork effectiveness, and school improvement. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 21(6), 705-725. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2017.1318960
78. Yeung, S.Y.S. (2012). A school evaluation policy with a dual character: Evaluating the school evaluation policy in Hong Kong from the perspective of curriculum leaders. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 40(1), 37-68. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143211420616
79. Yıldırım, A., ve Şimşek, H. (2016). Nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Seçkin.