NETWORKING SELF-EVALUATION

TOWARDS SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT
(February 2002)

1. The project rationale and aims

Reviewing the quality of education  has become one of the foremost priorities of many schools, as it has been  highlighted by many recent developments in educational policy.

-          Everybody knows that there are “good schools” and “poor schools”: the regulations informing  the national school system are not able to guarantee  common quality standards even for  schools of the same level. Moreover, the quality of education has never been monitored through inspections by the Department for Education, with only a few exceptions. In the light of the developments implemented by the education systems of many western nations, both users and school staff at all levels consider it impossible to accept the present situation. One of the first steps geared toward a radical change was taken in 1997, when the National Evaluation System was set up, which is now being changed again.

-          “Users” have grown more and more demanding: changing from passive receivers kept unaware of the decision making process, they have become active subjects, well aware of their rights – first of all the right to be informed, often able to provide useful feedback and evaluation. Also parents want to be informed, understand and play an active role, so that schools can’t avoid providing them with all the information they require. 

-          The recent act on school autonomy will encourage schools to look for new forms of curriculum provision, which may result in new, interesting outcomes; as a consequence, there’s an urgent need for clear and comparable levels of performance and quality standards. 

The focus is on quality in education  and there is growing concern about its uneven outcomes; at the same time each school is more and more seen as the core unit of the education system. All this results in what may be termed as the challenge of quality in education, which can be met in many different ways.

2. The self-evaluation model and its features

The process which led to the choice of the present model goes back to the Seventies, when some secondary schools in Italy started experimenting innovative forms of teaching methods and new curricula.

Often considered as “experimental labs”, these schools have always had a fundamental role in the development of new teaching practice: over the years many of these schools have felt the need to compare the outcomes of their research and innovation with the experiences carried out by other schools, in other words to evaluate the results of their experimental activities.

Many years ago I.T.C.S. “Primo Levi” – Bollate started a research work which led to the development of a model  to assess the quality of education. Such a model should be:

School specific – It should not be a mere reproduction of the models often used by businesses, but an approach built on the specific features of a school, whose “products” are not goods or services and whose “customers” are subjects who do not only “receive” the product, but help develop it.

Formative – The model should not provide a fixed picture of the whole school but an instrument of analysis focussed on some “quality factors” and aimed at improvement.

Shared – In order to bring forth actual and long-lasting improvement, self-evaluation must be understood and supported by all school stakeholders: teachers, students, parents, heads, non-teaching staff.

Simple and economical – A model of self-evaluation must be implemented with the limited resources (time + money) of a school.

Operative – It was necessary to provide a clearly stated set of indicators, as well as precise indications about who must collect data,  when and how.

Reproducible – The model should provide a system of monitoring to evaluate the school over many years, which  enables to work out standards and understand development trends. 

Applied by other schools – It should be possible to apply the model to any secondary school, so as to get factual data to compare different schools. In such a way indicators take on new meaning and lead to improvement.

3. Features of the model

The result of many years of research is a model based on experience, the actual needs of schools within the Italian education system and two theoretical references: the School Based Review model developed by the International School Improvement Project (ISIP) and research into the so-called effective schools. 

The model aims to provide an instrument of analysis based on a concept of “good school” which, questionable as it may be, is nevertheless clearly stated and centred on quality factors.

The school functioning is represented by means of a "model" that is widely known and applied in different fields: the activity of the school is considered as a “process”, consisting in direct interactions with students and organisation/management aspects, which takes place within an environment (context); the process effects changes on the “initial material” (input) and produces results (output).

The process is not only described but, to some extent, also evaluated: if the requirements of effectiveness (quality factors) are satisfied to a certain degree, it is possible to say that the process is satisfactory from the point of view of its quality. The concept of “quality” is articulated in some requisites and stated in relation to the specific characteristics of a school so that it becomes a useful tool towards improvement.

The 4 fields are:

·           context: interaction between the school and its external environment;

·           input: instruments and resources of the school, as well as the quality of its “raw materials”;

·           internal interaction processes: both related to organization/management and to the teaching practice;

·           output: short and long-term educational outcomes.

Quality factors can be considered as functional requirements which enable to distinguish a “good school” from a “poor school”: obviously, their selection is related to value judgements.

For instance, one of the factors related to teaching practice, “Individualisation of learning”, refers to the condition in which “teaching identifies and fosters the students’ individual skills and interests”. 

Indicators  are necessary to assess the quality factors that, being such, cannot be observed directly. According to OECD, “they are warning signals about the most relevant aspects of the school system, which enable to monitor it and highlight possible malfunctions”.

For example, four indicators help assess the factor described above: average number of remedial work periods per student; percentage of teachers who provide remedial work periods outside the school timetable; percentage of optional lessons in the curriculum; percentage of first-year classes in which questionnaires are used to get more detailed information about each student’s background, personality and school history.

The model can be summarised as follows:  

In short:

4. Advantages of networking

The model of self-evaluation aims to promote school improvement actions, which can be more effective if there is thorough information and data to compare, both on a synchronic and a diachronic level.

The reasons that led to the development of a network of schools that apply the same model can be summarised as follows:

1.       The data collected by individual schools can be more meaningful if compared with the data of other schools over several years; in this way it is possible to identify reference values and development trends, as well as to improve the existing model.

2.       In the near future, the National Agency for Quality in Education (Servizio Nazionale per la Qualità dell'Istruzione) may provide forms of support to the schools involved in self-evaluation with the view to identifying national quality standards.

3.       The recent law on school autonomy can provide opportunities for fruitful exchanges of experience with all the schools involved in self-evaluation projects.

Expected outcomes of networking the AIR project:

-          Annual report of each participating school

-          Identification of common standards

-          Identification of each school's strengths/weaknesses as a ground for future improvement actions

-          Development of the model itself and of strategies to implement improvement actions

5. The project history

-          School years '95/’96 and '96/’97: Plan of the project and first collection of data at ITCS Primo Levi by CSD (Comitato Scientifico Didattico, four teachers selected by the school teaching staff, supported by prof. Mario Castoldi)

-          March '98: First Annual Report (ITCS "Primo Levi", school year '96/'97)

-          9 October 1998 (Bollate): Conference with 30 secondary schools, presentation of the project

-          25 November 1998 (Bologna): First conference of the school network (15 schools)

-          February 1999: Second Annual Report (ITCS "Primo Levi", school year '97/'98)

-          23 February 1999 (Bologna): Second Network Conference (16 schools)

-          20 May 1999 (Milano): Third Network Conference (12 schools)

-          July 1999: The Project is officially recognised by Provveditorato di Milano (Local authority)

-          29 September 1999 (Genova): Fourth Network Conference (15 schools)

-          November '99: First Annual Network Report

-          13-15  December 1999 (Montecatini): 1^st In-Service Training Conference  (34 schools)

-          February 2000: First edition of the Guide (for member schools)

-          22 February 2000(Rome): Fifth network conference (27 schools)

-         23 May 2000 (Rome): Sixth network conference (34 schools)

-         7 October 2000 (Naples): Seventh network conference (34 schools)

-         November 2000: Second Annual Network Report

-          11-13 December 2000 (Tirrenia): Second In-Service Training Conference

-          23 February 2001 (Rome): Eighth network conference (31 schools)

-          25 May 2001 (Venice): Ninth network meeting (25 schools). Second edition of the Guide

-          10-13 September 2001 (Bocca di Magra): Training conference and group work with 25 participants to lay the basis for the model’s revision and the network organisation after the first three years

21-23 November 2001 (Tirrenia): Service Training Conference: evaluation and revision of the model

6. The network: schools and organisation

In the network there are now 108 schools:

Piedmont  - 2 schools;

Lombardy – 16 schools;

Veneto – 37 schools;

Trentino- Alto Adige – 1 school;

Liguria – 4 schools;

Emilia Romagna – 6 schools;

Tuscany – 7 schools;

Marche – 4 schools;

Lazio – 5 schools;

Abruzzo – 1 school;

Sardinia – 6 schools;

Campania – 12 schools;

Puglia – 3 schools;

Calabria – 3 schools;

Sicily – 1 school.

The network organisation is based on two work groups: The Coordinating Team and The Technical Support Team:

The Coordinating team (one representative from each school)

a)      meets three/four times a year to monitor the development of the project;

b)      identifies the actions required to pursue the project objectives;

c)      entrusts the Action groups with the different actions;

d)      plans the project development after the three-year term;

e)      states the deadlines for data exchange;

f)       decides on financial matters. 

The Technical Support Team (four teachers of ITCS "Primo Levi" and an external consultant):

a)      collects and processes data from each member school;

b)      collects and stores the materials from each member school;

c)      edits the Annual Network Report;

d)      promotes the network activity coordinating it with other projects;

e)      looks for funding and other forms of support;

f)       organises the network conferences and meetings;

g)      manages internal communication;

h)      edits the Guide;

i)        provides support and training to the member schools;

j)        works out the budget.

Other bodies of the network are:

a)      Action groups (one or more schools that carry out one of the actions necessary to pur sue the project objectives);

b)      Local networks (local networks of schools usually coordinated by a Pivot School).

7. Future perspectives

The project outcome after the first three years can be considered positive: working in a network is successful not only for the dramatic increase in the member schools (necessari to provide a large amount of data), but also as regards mutual support and distance training.

Much is still to be done; at the moment the guidelines can be summarised as follows:

·         Identification of the conditions necessary to ensure the process effectiveness (subjects involved, timimg, tasks)

·         Monitoring and assessment of the effectiveness of quality factors and indicators

·         Identification of the students’ performance standards

·         Questionnaires for users

·         Development of a model for lower secondary schools (11-14)

Results of the 3^rd In-Service Conference, held in November 2001:

-          new network agreement;

-          new set of indicators.