School Self‐evaluation instruments: An assessment Framework

Abstract

Many instruments for school self‐evaluation have become available in primary education; however, they vary in focus, quality and type (e.g., questionnaires, tests, observations, classroom consultation, quality maps, quick scans, etc), creating problems for schools in selecting instruments fitting their specific situations. Research has been conducted to design a reliable and valid assessment framework for school self‐evaluation instruments. Three research questions will be addressed in this study. First, what contents and criteria should lay the foundation of an assessment framework for school self‐evaluation instruments? Second, what scientific criteria should be taken into account to construct a reliable and valid framework that produces consistent assessments? Third, how can such a framework be most useful for schools? Several research methods were employed; including a literature scan approach, including theoretical perspectives of accountability and school improvement, a focus‐group approach, and a try‐out to test the first draft framework. The try‐out shows a fairly high inter‐rater reliability. However, it is concluded that a fair within‐group comparison of the instruments on the Internet should include subgroup‐specific overviews dependent on the focus of the school self‐evaluation instrument (accountability, school improvement, or both focuses).

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Dr S. Doolaard (GION/RUG) for her help with the pilot study

Notes

Roelande Hofman is Associate Professor and senior researcher at GION, the Institute for Educational Research, University of Groningen, PO Box 1286, 9701 BG Groningen, The Netherlands (e‐mail: [email protected]) She is an established researcher in the fields of school management, school governance and school effectiveness, and has published widely on these subjects. Nynke Dijkstra is researcher at GION, the Institute for Educational Research, University of Groningen, The Netherlands. Her work focuses on educational and school accountability and the quality of school self‐evaluation instruments. Adriaan Hofman is Professor and Scientific Director of RISBO, the Rotterdam Institute for Social Policy Research, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

1. In 1999 Leithwood et al (1999) introduced a four‐fold classification of government approaches to educational accountability: (1) the market competition approach (2) the decentralization of decision‐making approach, (3) the professional approach and (4) the management approach.

2. The inter‐rater indices. Cohen’s Kappa and Gower’s similarity coefficient have been calculated using SPSS and manually (Gower 1971; Fleiss 1981). The following Kappa interpretation scale is used K < .20 = poor; K > .20 = slight; K > .40 = moderate/fair; K > .60 = good/substantial; K > .80 = excellent/almost perfect agreement (Landis and Koch, 1977). For the Gower, the following scale is used: G < .50 = poor; G > .50 = slight; G > .70 = moderate; G > .80 = good/substantial; G > .90 = excellent/almost perfect agreement between the evaluators.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Roelande H. Hofman

Roelande Hofman is Associate Professor and senior researcher at GION, the Institute for Educational Research, University of Groningen, PO Box 1286, 9701 BG Groningen, The Netherlands (e‐mail: [email protected]) She is an established researcher in the fields of school management, school governance and school effectiveness, and has published widely on these subjects. Nynke Dijkstra is researcher at GION, the Institute for Educational Research, University of Groningen, The Netherlands. Her work focuses on educational and school accountability and the quality of school self‐evaluation instruments. Adriaan Hofman is Professor and Scientific Director of RISBO, the Rotterdam Institute for Social Policy Research, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands.