Advertisement

Wirkungen und Nebenwirkungen europäischer Inspektionssysteme

  • Herbert Altrichter
  • David Kemethofer
  • Melanie Ehren
  • Jan-Eric Gustafsson
  • Guri Skedsmo
  • Stephan G. Huber
  • Gerry Conyngham
  • Gerry McNamara
  • Joe O’Hara
Chapter
Part of the Educational Governance book series (EDUGOV, volume 25)

Zusammenfassung

In vielen europäischen Bildungssystemen werden Schulinspektionen als eine wichtige Methode zur Aufrechterhaltung und Verbesserung von Schulqualität angesehen. Allerdings war bisher wenig über die Wege und Mechanismen bekannt, auf denen Schulinspektionen zu Wirkungen auf die Schulentwicklung führen können. In diesem Kapitel wird ein Wirkungsmodell von Schulinspektion, das aus einer Analyse von Inspektionskonzepten von sechs europäischen Ländern (Niederlande, England, Irland, Schweden, Tschechische Republik, Österreich/Steiermark) gewonnen wurde, mit den Daten einer Schulleiterbefragung in den sechs teilnehmenden Ländern untersucht. Um dem Unterschied zwischen den Inspektionsmodellen verschiedener Länder gerecht zu werden, werden vier zentrale Charakteristika von Inspektionsmodellen vergleichend in Hinblick auf ihre Auswirkungen auf Schulentwicklung und auf unerwünschte Reaktionen im Gefolge von Schulinspektionen analysiert.

Dieser Text fasst einige wesentliche Ergebnisse des von der Europäischen Union im Rahmen des Lifelong Learning-Programms (511490-2010-LLP-NL-KA1- KA1SCR) geförderten Projekts „Impact of school inspection on teaching and learning (ISI-TL)“ zusammen. Er nutzt dabei Argumente und Daten, die in zwei englischsprachigen Artikeln veröff entlicht wurden, u.zw. in Ehren et al. (2015) sowie in Gustafsson et al. (2015).

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  1. Altrichter, H. (2012). Veränderungen von Schulaufsicht und Schulinspektion in Österreich. Working Paper AT4. Project “Impact of School Inspection on Teaching and Learning”. Linz: JKU.Google Scholar
  2. Altrichter, H., Bacher, J., Beham, M., Nagy, G., & Wetzelhütter, D. (2011). The Effects of a Free School Choice Policy on Parents’ School Choice Behaviour. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37(4), 230-238.Google Scholar
  3. Altrichter, H., Ehren, M.C.M., McNamara, G., & O’Hara, J. (2014). Wie will Schulinspektion wirken? Analyse von Annahmen über Wirkungsmechanismen von Schulinspektion in sechs europäischen Ländern. In M. Pfeifer (Hrsg.), Schulqualität und Schulentwicklung (S. 184-207). Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  4. Altrichter, H., & Kemethofer, D. (2015). Does Accountability Pressure through School Inspections Promote School Improvement? School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 26(1), 32-56. DOI:10.1080/09243453.2014.927369Google Scholar
  5. Altrichter, H., Kemethofer, D., & Schmidinger, E. (2013). Neue Schulinspektion und Qualitätsmanagement im Schulsystem. Erziehung und Unterricht, 163(9-10), 961–978.Google Scholar
  6. Barber, M. (2004). The Virtue of Accountability: System Redesign, Inspection, and Incentives in the Era of Informed Professionalism. Journal of Education, 85(1), 7–38.Google Scholar
  7. Bell, C. (2005). All Choices Created Equal? How Good Parents Select “Failing” Schools. National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education, Columbia University, NY. http://www.ncspe.org/publications_files/OP106.pdf. Zugegriffen: 20.8.2015Google Scholar
  8. Black, P., & William, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7-75.Google Scholar
  9. Boer, H. de, Enders, J., & Schimank U. (2007). On the way towards New Public Management? The Governance of University Systems in England, the Netherlands, Austria, and Germany. In: D. Jansen (Hrsg.), New Forms of Governance in Research Organisations (S. 137-152). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  10. Böttger-Beer, M., & Koch, E. (2008). Externe Schulevaluation in Sachsen–ein Dialog zwischen Wissenschaft und Praxis. In W. Böttcher, W. Bos, H. Döbert, & H. G. Holtappels (Hrsg..), Bildungsmonitoring und Bildungscontrolling in nationaler und internationaler Perspektive (S. 253–264). Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  11. Braithwaite, J. (2008). Regularity Capitalism. How it works, ideas for making it work better. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  12. Brennan, J., & Shah, T. (2000). Quality assessment and institutional change: Experiences from 14 countries. Higher Education, 40(3), 331–349.Google Scholar
  13. Brimblecombe, N., Shaw, M., & Ormston, M. (1996). Teachers’ intention to change practice as a result of OFSTED school inspections. Educational Management & Administration, 24(4), 339-354.Google Scholar
  14. Brown, T.A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  15. Bruggen, van, J.C. (2010). Inspectorates of Education in Europe; some comparative remarks about their tasks and work. http://www.sici-inspectorates.org. Zugegriffen: 20.8.2015Google Scholar
  16. Chapman, C. (2001). Changing classrooms through inspection. School leadership and management, 21(1), 59-73.Google Scholar
  17. Clarke, J. (2011). OFSTED Keywords D1; for SIEG meeting 29-29 March, 2011, Umeå. http://www.education.ox.ac.uk/governing-by-inspection/working-papers. Zugegriffen: 20.8.2015l
  18. Clarke, J., & Ozga, J. (2011). Working paper 4: Inspection as Governing. http://www.education.ox.ac.uk/governing-by-inspection/working-papers/. Zugegriffen: 20.8.2015
  19. Coe, R. (2002). Evidence on the role and impact of performance feedback in schools. In: A.J. Visscher & R. Coe (Hrsg.), School improvement through performance feedback (S. 27-39). Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
  20. Cullen, J.B., & Jacob, B.A. (2007). Is Gaining Access to Selective Elementary Schools Gaining Ground? Evidence From Randomized Lotteries. Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research. Working paper 13443. http://www.nber.org/papers/w13443.pdf. Zugegriffen: 20.8.2015
  21. Cullen, J.B., & Reback, R. (2006). Tinkering toward accolades: school gaming under a performance accountability system. Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research. Working paper 12286. http://www.nber.org/papers/w12286.pdf. Zugegriffen: 20.8.2015
  22. Cullen, J.B., Jacob, B.A., & Levitt, S. (2006). The Effect of School Choice on Participants: Evidence from Randomized Lotteries. Econometrica, Econometric Society, 74(5), 1191–1230.Google Scholar
  23. De Wolf, I.F., & Janssens, F.J.G. (2007). Effects and side effects of inspections and accountability in education: an overview of empirical studies. Oxford Review of Education, 33(3), 379–396.Google Scholar
  24. DiMaggio, P.J., & Powell, W.W. (1983). The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review, 48(1), 147-160.Google Scholar
  25. DiMaggio, P.J., & Powell, W.W. (1991). The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. In: W.W. Powell & P.J. DiMaggio (Hrsg.). The New institutionalism in organizational analysis (S. 63-82). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  26. Dronkers, J., & Veenstra, R. (2001). Schoolprestatie-indicatoren in het voortgezet onderwijs: start, reacties en vervolg. In: A.B. Dijkstra, S. Karsten, R. Veenstra & A.J. Visscher (Hrsg.), Het oog der natie: scholen op rapport; standaarden voor de publicatie van schoolprestaties (S. 21-36). Assen: Koninklijke Van Gorcum BV.Google Scholar
  27. Dutch Educational Council (2001). De markt meester? Een verkenning naar marktwerking in het onderwijs. Den Haag: Onderwijsraad.Google Scholar
  28. Ehren, M.C.M., Gustafsson, J.-E., Altrichter, H., Skedsmo, G., & Kemethofer, D. (2015). Comparing effects and side effects of different school inspection systems across Europe. Comparative Education (51)3, 375-400. DOI:10.1080/03050068.2015.1045769 Google Scholar
  29. Ehren, M.C.M., Altrichter, H., McNamara, G., & O’Hara, J. (2013). Impact of school inspections on teaching and learning – describing assumptions on causal mechanisms in six European countries. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability 25(1), 3–43.Google Scholar
  30. Ehren, M.C.M., & Visscher, A.J. (2008).The Relationship between School Inspections, School Characteristics and School Improvement. British Journal of Educational Studies, 56(2), 205–227.Google Scholar
  31. Elmore, R.F., & Fuhrman, S.H. (2001). Research Finds the False Assumption of Accountability. Phi Delta Kappan, 67(4), 9-14.Google Scholar
  32. Eurydice (2004). Evaluation of Schools providing Compulsory Education in Europe. http://www.indire.it/lucabas/lkmw_file/eurydice///Evaluation_schools_EN.pdf. Zugegriffen: 20.8.2015
  33. Gärtner, H. (2011). Die Wirkung von Schulinspektion auf Schulentwicklung. Eine quasi-experimentelle Feldstudie. In C. Quesel, C. V. Husfeldt, N. Landwehr, & P. Steiner (Hrsg.) Wirkungen und Wirksamkeit der externen Schulevaluation (S. 145-161). Bern: h.e.p.Google Scholar
  34. Gärtner, H., & Pant, H.A. (2011). Validity of processes and results of school inspection. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37(2-3), 85-93.Google Scholar
  35. Gärtner, H., Wurster, S., & Pant, H.A. (2013): The effect of school inspections on school improvement. School Effectiveness and School Improvement DOI: 10.1080/09243453.2013.811089Google Scholar
  36. Geijsel, P., Sleegers, P.J.C., Stoel, R.D., & Kruger, M.L. (2009). The Effect of Teacher Psychological and School Organizational and Leadership Factors on Teachers’ Professional Learning in Dutch Schools. The Elementary School Journal, 109(4), 1–22.Google Scholar
  37. Greger, D. (2011). School inspection of Czech schools: A critical reflection on intended effects and causal mechanisms. Unpublished working paper, LLP-project ‘Impact of school inspections on teaching and learning’. Prague: Charles University.Google Scholar
  38. Grek, S., Lawn, M., Ozga, J., & Segerholm, C. (2013) ‘Governing by inspection? European inspectorates and the creation of a European education policy space’, Comparative Education, DOI: 10.1080/03050068.2013.787697.Google Scholar
  39. Gustafsson, J.-E., & Myrberg, E. (2011). School inspections of Swedish schools: A critical reflection on intended effects, causal mechanisms and methods. Unpublished working paper, LLP-project ‘Impact of school inspections on teaching and learning’. Gothenburg: University of Gothenburg.Google Scholar
  40. Gustafsson, J.-E., Ehren, M. C. M., Conyngham, G., McNamara, G., Altrichter, H., & O’Hara, J. (2015). School Inspections and School Improvement: Testing Assumptions on Causal Mechanisms. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 47, 47–57.Google Scholar
  41. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The Power of Feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112.Google Scholar
  42. 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, DOI: 10.1080/03054985.2014.911726Google Scholar
  43. Karsten, S., & Visscher, A. (2001). Ervaringen met het openbaar maken van schoolprestaties in Engeland en Frankrijk. In: A.B. Dijkstra, S. Karsten, R. Veenstra & A.J. Visscher (Hrsg.), Het oog der natie: scholen op rapport; standaarden voor de publicatie van schoolprestaties (S. 36-54). Assen: Koninklijke Van Gorcum BV.Google Scholar
  44. Klerks, M. (2013). The effect of school inspections: a systematic review. School Effectiveness and School Improvement. http://schoolinspections.eu/impact/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2013/12/ORD-paper-2012-Review-Effect-School-Inspections-MKLERKS.pdf. Zugegriffen: 20.8.2015
  45. 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), 254-284.Google Scholar
  46. Koretz, D.M. (2003). Using Multiple Measures to Address Perverse Incentives and Score Inflation. Educational Measurement, 22(2), 18–26.Google Scholar
  47. Kuper, H. (2005). Evaluation im Bildungssystem. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.Google Scholar
  48. Ladd, H.F. (2007). Holding Schools Accountable Revisited. 2007 Spencer Foundation Lecture in Education Policy and Management.Google Scholar
  49. Ladd, H., & Walsh, R. (2002). Implementing Value-Added Measures of School Effectiveness: Getting the Incentives Right. Economics of Education Review, 21(1), 1–17.Google Scholar
  50. Leeuw, F.L. (2003). Reconstructing program theories: methods available and problems to be solved. American Journal of Evaluation, 24(1), 5–20.Google Scholar
  51. Lindgren, J., Hult, A., Segerholm, C., & Rönnberg, L. (2012). Mediating School Inspection – Key dimensions and keywords in agency text production 2003–2010. Education Inquiry, 3(4), 569-590.Google Scholar
  52. Luginbuhl, R., Webbink, D., & De Wolf, I. (2007). Do School Inspections Improve Primary School Performance? CPB-paper, nr. 83. http://www.cpb.nl/en/publication/do-school-inspections-improve-primary-school-performance. Zugegriffen: 20.8.2015
  53. Malen, B. (1999). On Rewards, Punishments, and Possibilities: Teacher Compensation as an Instrument for Education Reform. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education,12(4), 387–394.Google Scholar
  54. Matthews, P., & Sammons, P. (2004). Improvement through Inspection. London: Ofsted.Google Scholar
  55. Meyer, J.W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363.Google Scholar
  56. Meyer, J.W., & Rowan, B. (1992). The Structure of Educational Organizations. In J.W. Meyer & W.R. Scott (Hrsg.), Organizational Environments. Ritual and Rationality (S. 71-97). Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  57. Meyer, H.-D., & Rowan, B. (2006). The New Institutionalism in Education. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  58. Muthén, L.K., & Muthén, B.O. (1998–2012). Mplus user’s guide (7th edition). Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
  59. Nelson, R., & Ehren, M. C. M. (2014). Review and Synthesis of Evidence on the (Mechanisms of) Impact of School Inspections. http://schoolinspections.eu/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2014/02/Review-and-synthesis-of-evidence-on-the-mechanisms-ofimpact-of-school-inspections.pdf. Zugegriffen: 20.8.2015.
  60. Nichols, S.L., Glass, G.V., & Berliner, D.C. (2006). High-stakes testing and student achievement: does accountability pressure increase student learning? Education Policy Analysis Archives, 14(1), http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/72. Zugegriffen: 20.8.2015Google Scholar
  61. OECD (2008). Measuring Improvements. Best practices to assess value added of schools. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  62. Ouston, J., Fidler, B., & Earley, P. (1997). What do schools do after OFSTED school inspections-or before? School Leadership & Management, 17(1), 95–104.Google Scholar
  63. Perryman, J. (2006). Panoptic performativity and school inspection regimes: disciplinary mechanisms and life under special measures. Journal of Education Policy, 21(2), 147–161.Google Scholar
  64. Powell, W.W. (2007). The new institutionalism. In S.R. Clegg & J.R, Bailey (Hrsg.), The International Encyclopedia of Organization Studies. http://www.stanford.edu/group/song/papers/NewInstitutionalism.pdf; 20.8.2015
  65. Rosenthal, L. (2004). Do school inspections improve school quality? Ofsted inspections and school examination results in the UK. Economics of Education Review, 23(2), 143–152.Google Scholar
  66. Scheerens, J. (Hrsg.) (2012). School Leadership Effects Revisited. Review and Meta-Analysis of Empirical Studies. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  67. Scheipl, J., & Seel, H. (1985). Die Entwicklung des österreichischen Schulwesens von 1750 bis 1938. Graz: Leykam.Google Scholar
  68. Schimank, U. (2002). Handeln und Strukturen. Einführung in die akteurtheoretische Soziologie. Weinheim: Juventa.Google Scholar
  69. Scott, W.R. (2001). Institutions and organizations. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  70. Segerholm, C. (2011). Values in Evaluation: the what and how values in Swedish school inspection. Paper presented at the American Evaluation Association Conference, Anaheim, 2-5 November 2011.Google Scholar
  71. Smith, G. (2000). Research and Inspection: HMI and OFSTED, 1981-1996 – A Commentary. Oxford Review of Education, 26(3/4), 333-352.Google Scholar
  72. Standaert, R. (2001). Inspectorates of education in Europe: a critical analysis. Leuven: Acco.Google Scholar
  73. Visscher, A.J., & Coe, R. (2002). School improvement through performance feedback. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  74. Visscher, A.J., & Coe, R. (2003). School Performance Feedback Systems: Conceptualisation, Analysis, and Reflection. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 14(3), 321–349.Google Scholar
  75. Whitby, K. (2010). School Inspection: recent experiences in high performing education systems; literature review. Reading: CfBT Education Trust.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Herbert Altrichter
    • 1
  • David Kemethofer
    • 2
  • Melanie Ehren
    • 3
  • Jan-Eric Gustafsson
    • 4
  • Guri Skedsmo
    • 5
  • Stephan G. Huber
    • 5
  • Gerry Conyngham
    • 6
  • Gerry McNamara
    • 7
  • Joe O’Hara
    • 7
  1. 1.MusterinstitutUniversität LinzLinzÖsterreich
  2. 2.Bundesinstitut für Bildungsforschung, Innovation und Entwicklung des österreichischen BildungswesensSalzburgÖsterreich
  3. 3.Institute of Education, University of LondonLondonEngland, UK
  4. 4.Universität Göteborg, Department of Education and Special Education;GothenburgSchweden
  5. 5.Institut für Bildungsmanagement und Bildungsökonomie der Pädagogischen Hochschule ZugZugSchweiz
  6. 6.Dublin City University Business SchoolDublin 9Irland
  7. 7.School of Education Studies, Dublin City UniversityDublin 9Irland

Personalised recommendations