Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Feedback by Dutch Inspectors to Schools

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
School Inspectors

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

Abstract

Due to national and international policy drivers The Dutch Inspectorate of Education is reforming its supervision with a mission to promote school improvement in all Dutch schools. One of the chosen mechanisms to achieve this is the provision of feedback by inspectors to school leaders, special educational needs coordinators, and teachers following the inspection process. In this chapter we take a closer look at feedback by inspectors and the factors that can influence the effect of this feedback. We begin by reviewing the literature on the effects of inspection feedback, factors mediating the impact of inspection feedback and responses to inspection feedback. Following on from this we discuss the results of two pilot studies by the Dutch Inspectorate on provision of feedback by inspectors. These provide more information about the quality of the feedback, the training of inspectors and the perception of the recipients. Whilst both pilots suggest that school leaders, teachers and special educational needs coordinators are positive about inspection feedback, the challenges of providing this on an individual basis are outside of the inspector remit. For this reason the Dutch inspectorate has chosen not to provide suggestions on how to improve during the feedback conversation, but rather focus on discussion as to how a school aims to develop from the current performance to the desired one.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The information on innovations at the Dutch Inspectorate of Education is based on publications up to 2015. During 2015, the innovations were still in development. The information in this chapter should therefore not be seen as a definite description of the Dutch inspection method.

  2. 2.

    The evaluation framework for the schools inspection regime is based the 2002 Education Regulation Act (Wet op het onderwijstoezicht, WOT) and education acts. The WOT is due to be amended substantially with effect from 1 July 2017. For the Inspectorate, one of the main changes is that a distinction will now be drawn between statutory requirements and quality factors defined by schools themselves or their governing bodies (schoolboards).

  3. 3.

    A school’s governing body (schoolboard) is responsible for the quality and continuity of the education it provides. Every such body has its own process for maintaining and improving that provision, which we take as our starting point in regulating it. Once every four years the Inspectorate conducts an inspection of the governing body to examine its quality assurance and financial management.

References

  • Altrichter, H., & Kemethofer, D. (2014). Impact of school inspection on teaching and learning in primary and secondary education in Austria: Final-technical-report-Austria. http://schoolinspections.eu/impact/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2014/07/Final-technical-report-Austria.pdf. Accessed 28 March 2016.

  • Altrichter, H., & Kemethofer, D. (2015). Does accountability pressure through school inspections promote school improvement? School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 26(1), 32–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Askew, S., & Lodge, C. (2000). Gifts, ping-pong and loops—Linking feedback and learning. In S. Askew (Ed.), Feedback for learning (pp. 1–17). London/New York: Routledge Falmer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barber, M., & Mourshed, M. (2007). How the world’s best-performing schools systems come out on top. McKinsey & Company. http://mckinseyonsociety.com/how-the-worlds-best-performing-schools-come-out-on-top/. Accessed 28 March 2016.

  • Bates, A. (2013). Transcending systems thinking in education reform: Implications for policy-makers and school leaders. Journal of Education Policy, 28(1), 38–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Black, P., & William, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 123–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brimblecombe, N., Shaw, M., & Ormston, M. (1996). Teachers’ intention to change practice as a result of ofsted school inspections. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 24(4), 339–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brinko, K. T. (1993). The practice of giving feedback to improve teaching: What is effective? The Journal of Higher Education, 64(5), 574–593.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brunel University Centre for the Evaluation of Public Policy and Practice and Helix Consulting Group. (1999). The ofsted system of school inspection: An independent evaluation. Uxbridge: Brunel University Centre for the Evaluation of Public Policy and Practice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chapman, C. (2001). Changing classrooms through inspection. School Leadership & Management, 21(1), 59–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carless, D. (2006). Differing perceptions in the feedback process. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 219–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chapman, C. (2002). Ofsted and school improvement: Teachers’ perceptions of the inspection process in schools facing challenging circumstances. School Leadership & Management, 22, 257–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coe, R. (2002). Evidence on the role and impact of performance feedback in schools. In A. J. Visscher & R. Coe (Eds.), School improvement through performance feedback (pp. 75–112). Lisse/Abingdon/Exton/Tokyo: Swets & Zeitlinger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dean, J. (1995). What teachers and headteachers think about inspection. Cambridge Journal of Education, 25(1), 45–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dobbelaer, M. J., Prins, F. J., & Dongen, D. (2012). The impact of feedback training for inspectors. European Journal of Training and Development, 37(1), 86–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dutch Inspectorate of Education. (2013). Supervision 2020 (internal document; Toezicht 2020). Utrecht: Dutch inspectorate of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dutch Inspectorate of Education. (2015). Stimulating and differentiated supervision. Pilots 2014/2015. (Stimulerend en gedifferentieerd toezicht. Pilots 2014/2015). Utrecht: Dutch Inspectorate of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dutch Inspectorate of Education. (2016a). Innovation in inspection (Toezicht in verandering). http://www.onderwijsinspectie.nl/toezicht/vernieuwing-in-het-toezicht. Accessed 25 April 2016.

  • Dutch Inspectorate of Education. (2016b). The state of education in The Netherlands—Annual Report 2014/2015. Utrecht: Dutch Inspectorate of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dutch Inspectorate of Education. (2016c). Evaluation pilots stimulating and differentiating inspection in primary education, technical report (internal document; Evaluatie pilots stimulerend en gedifferentieerd toezicht primair onderwijs). http://www.owinsp.nl/nieuwsbriefbijlage/2016/01/evaluatie-van-de-pilots-met-conceptwaarderingskader.html. Accessed 26 April 2016.

  • Dweck, C. (2008). Mindsets and math/science achievement. New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York, Institute for Advanced Study, Commission on Mathematics and Science Education. http://www.growthmindsetmaths.com/uploads/2/3/7/7/23776169/mindset_and_math_science_achievement_-_nov_2013.pdf. Accessed 28 March 2016.

  • 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 

  • Ehren, M. C. M., & Janssens, F. J. G. (2014). Programme theory supervision 2020 (Programmatheorie Toezich 2020).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehren, M. C. M., & Visscher, A. J. (2008). The relationships between school inspections, School Characteristics and School Improvement. British Journal of Educational Studies, 56(2), 205–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehren, M. C. M., Gustafsson, J. E., Altrichter, H., Skedsmo, G., Kemethofer, D., & Huber, S. G. (2015a). Comparing effects and side effects of different school inspection systems across Europe. Comparative Education, 51(3), 375–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehren, M. C. M., Shackleton, N., Tymms, P., Jones, K., Anane, E, Gustafson, J, et al. (2015b). Technical report EU-project. Year 1–3 data (September–November 2011, 2012, 2013) ‘Impact of School Inspections on Teaching and Learning’ (Doctoral dissertation, Charles University in Prague). http://schoolinspections.eu/impact/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2014/06/Final-technical-report-the-Netherlands.pdf. Accessed 28 March 2016.

  • Ferguson, N., Earley, P., Fidler, B., & Ouston, J. (2000). Improving schools and inspection: The self-inspecting school. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gaertner, H., Wurster, S., & Pant, H. A. (2014). The effect of school inspections on school improvement. School Effectiveness & School Improvement, 25(4), 489–508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs, G., & Simpson, C. (2004). Conditions under which assessment supports students’ learning. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 1, 3–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gil, D. H., Heins, M., & Jones, P. B. (1984). Perceptions of medical school faculty members and students on clinical clerkship feedback. Journal of Medical Education, 59(11), 856–864.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hargreaves, D. H. (2010). “Creating a self-improving school system.” Report for the National College for Leadership of Schools and Children’s Services (July). http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/2093/1/download%3Fid%3D133672%26filename%3Dcreating-a-self-improving-school-system.pdf. Accessed 28 March 2016.

  • Hargreaves, D. H. (2012). A self-improving school system: towards maturity. Report for the National College for School Leadership (October). http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/15804/1/a-self-improving-school-system-towards-maturity.pdf. Accessed 28 March 2016.

  • Hargreaves, E., McCallum, B., & Gipps, C. (2000). Teacher feedback strategies in primary classrooms: New evidence. In S. Askew (Ed.), Feedback for learning (pp. 21–31). London/New York: RoutledgeFalmer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of educational research, 77(1), 81–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hooge, E. H., & Honingh, M. E. (2011). Good governance in primary education (Goed Bestuur in het primair onderwijs; Resultaten van de nulmeting monitor Goed Bestuur PO 2010). Amsterdam/Nijmegen: Hogeschool van Amsterdam/Radboud University Nijmegen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hopkins, D., Harris, A., & Jackson, D. (1997). Understanding the school’s capacity for development: growth states and strategies. School Leadership & Management, 17(3), 401–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyatt, D. F. (2005). ‘Yes, a very good point!’ a critical genre analyses of a corpus of feedback commentaries on Master of Education assignments. Teaching in Higher Education, 10(3), 339–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ilgen, D. R., Fisher, C. D., & Taylor, M. S. (1979). Consequences of individual feedback on behavior in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64(4), 349–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Irby, D. M. (1994). Three exemplary models of case-based teaching. Academic Medicine, 69(12), 333–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, K., & Tymms, P. (2014). Ofsted’s role in promoting school improvement: the mechanisms of the school inspection system in England. Oxford Review of Education, 40(3), 315–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kamenskienė, V., & Kardelytė, K. (2016). The involvement of Teacher evaluators in the inspection process. Presentation at The Standing International Conference of Inspectorates (SICI), 12–14 April in Cardiff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeble-Allen, D. (2004). Inspection at Summerhill: Did ofsted inspection result in improvement? Ann Arbor, University of Leicester (United Kingdom). https://lra.le.ac.uk/handle/2381/30862. Accessed 28 March 2016.

  • Kelchtermans, G. (2007). Macropolitics caught up in micropolitics: The case of the policy on quality control in Flanders (Belgium). Journal of Education Policy, 22(4), 471–491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klerk, M. (2012). The effect of school inspections: A systematic review. Oxford Review of Education, 2–32

    Google Scholar 

  • Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Learmonth, J. (2000). Inspection: What’s in it for schools?. London: Routledge Falmer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J., & Davies, J. D. (2000). Bereavement and loss: The emotional consequences of special measures for a sample of special schools. Improving schools, 3(2), 44–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luginbuhl, R., Webbink, D., & De Wolf, I. (2009). Do inspections improve primary school performance? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31(3), 221–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, P., & Smith, G. (1995). OFSTED: Inspecting schools and improvement through inspection. Cambridge Journal of Education, 25(1), 23–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, P., & Sammons, P. (2004). Improvement through inspection: An evaluation of the impact of ofsted’s work. Institute of Education: London. http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/4969/. Accessed 28 March 2016.

  • McCrone, T., Coghlan, M., Wade, P., & Rudd, P. (2009). Evaluation of the impact of Section 5 inspections—strand 3. Final report for Ofsted. https://www.nfer.ac.uk/nfer/publications/SFO01/SFO01.pdf. Accessed 28 March 2016.

  • Nelson, R, & Ehren, M. C. M. (2014). Review and synthesis of evidence on the (mechanisms of) impact of school inspections. http://schoolinspections.eu/impact/wpcontent/uploads/downloads/2014/02/Review-and-synthesis-of-evidence-on-the-mechanisms-of-impact-of-school-inspections.pdf. Accessed 28 March 2016.

  • Nusche, D., et al. (2011). OECD reviews of evaluation and assessment in education: Sweden 2011. from http://dx.doi.org.elibrary.ioe.ac.uk/10.1787/9789264116610-en. Accessed 28 March 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ofsted. (2015). School leaders’ views on the impact of inspection. UK. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/school-leaders-views-on-the-impact-of-inspection. Accessed 28 March 2016.

  • Ouston, J., Fidler, B., & Earley, P. (1997). What do schools do after OFSTED school inspections—or before? School Leadership & Management, 17(1), 95–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Prins, F. J., Sluijsmans, D. M. A., & Kirschner, P. A. (2006). Feedback for general practitioners in training: Quality, styles and preferences. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 11(3), 289–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenthal, L. (2004). Do school inspections improve school quality? Ofsted inspections and school examination results in the UK. Economics of Education Review, 23(2), 143–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18(2), 119–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, D. R. (2010). Beyond feedback: Developing student capability in complex appraisal. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 535–550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, I., Newton, D. P., Aitkin, M., & Darnell, R. (2003). Do ofsted inspections of secondary schools make a difference to GCSE results? British Educational Research Journal, 29(1), 63–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van de Grift, W. J. C. M. (2001). Why do some schools underperform? (Waarom hebben sommige scholen onderprestatie?). Basisschoolmangement, 15, 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vanhoof, J., & Petegem, P. V. (2007). Matching internal and external evaluation in an era of accountability and school development: Lessons from a flemish perspective. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 33(2), 101–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanhoof, J., Verhaeghe, G., Verhaeghe, J. P., Valcke, M., & Van Petegem, P. (2011). The influence of competences and support on school performance feedback use. Educational Studies, 37(2), 141–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verhaeghe, G., Vanhoof, J., Valcke, M., & Van Petegem, P. (2010). Using school performance feedback: Perceptions of primary school principals. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 21(2), 167–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitby, K. (2010). School inspections: recent experiences in high performing education systems. Reading, England: CfBT Education Trust. http://uat.cfbt.com/en-GB/Research/Research-library/2010/r-school-inspection-recent-experiences-in-hpes-2010 Accessed 28 March 2016.

  • Wong, M. N., & Li, H. (2010). From external inspection to self-evaluation: A study of quality assurance in Hong Kong Kindergartens. Early Education and Development, 21(2), 205–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wurster, S., & Gaertner, H. (2011). Handling school inspection and their results: Differentiation of school types. Paper Presented at the European Conference on Educational Research (ECER), Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Research Methodology, Measurement and Data Analysis (OMD), University of Twente, De Zul 10, 7522 NJ, Enschede, Netherlands

    M. J. Dobbelaer

  2. UCL Institute of Education, 20 Bedford Way, London, WC1H 0AL, UK

    D. Godfrey

  3. Dutch Inspectorate of Education, Park Voorn 4, 3544 AC, Utrecht, Netherlands

    H. M. B. Franssen

Authors
  1. M. J. Dobbelaer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. D. Godfrey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. H. M. B. Franssen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to H. M. B. Franssen .

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

Dobbelaer, M.J., Godfrey, D., Franssen, H.M.B. (2017). Feedback by Dutch Inspectors to Schools. In: Baxter, J. (eds) School Inspectors. Accountability and Educational Improvement. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52536-5_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52536-5_5

  • 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