Quality in schools: a case to develop school based policies and approaches

1. Quality in schools: a case to develop school based policies and approaches PISA team Department of Education – Ghent University – Belgium Beijing – July 24-25, 2009 http://allserv.ugent.be/~mvalcke/CV/CVMVA.htm Martin.Valcke@ugent.be

2. Structure • Context • Quality and school autonomy • School level quality assurance • System level quality assurance • Research • Example: pupil language background • School performance feedback system • Discussion

3. Context • Belgium: 11.000.000 inhabitants • 3 regions ~language (Dutch, French, German) • Each region its own educational administration! • Flanders 5.5 million inhabitants

4. Data for Flanders !!!

5. Context: structure of education

6. 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

7. 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

8. Context ~school autonomy

9. 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,

10. 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

11. School autonomy • Example of differences • Ghent City schools • Large % of migrant population

12. School autonomy: example

13. Ni hao welkom

14. School autonomy: example Reflecting and talking about different characteristics of all families Diversity in staff

15. 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

16. 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”.

17. School level quality assurance • X-ray of school: CIPO-Model

18. 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)

19. 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

20. 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!!

21. 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

22. 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

23. School quality • 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!

24. Feasible program Home situation PUPIL LEVEL SCHOOL LEVEL Challenging objectives and effective feedback Involvement parents and society Background knowledge Safe, orderly environment Motivation Collegial andprofessional culture Performanceand developmentof the pupil Classmanagement Directing andredesigning programs Pedagogical actions and didactic approach TEACHER LEVEL

25. 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!!

26. Example: language differences • Example of differences • Ghent City schools • Large % of migrant population

27. 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

28. 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).

29. 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”

31. 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

32. A multilingual supervisor supports the home language of the children and translates to the teacher.

33. Stimulating the development of Dutch vocabulary through the use of the mother tongue

34. Ex. Turkish translations of books to take home

35. Reading aloud in the home languages

36. Example: language differences Preparation year: 2007-2008 Start project: 2008-2009 Duration of the project: 2008-2013

37. 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

38. School performance feedback project Tests Background info pupils, teacher, school • Teacher enters pupils responses • Teacher gets results • Teacher gets info abbout added value • Teacher selects test items • Teacher administers test • Teacher enters school, class, pupil information Typical test results

40. Quality in schools: a case to develop school based policies and approaches PISA team Department of Education – Ghent University – Belgium Beijing – July 24-25, 2009 http://allserv.ugent.be/~mvalcke/CV/CVMVA.htm Martin.Valcke@ugent.be