Empowering Education: Research, Theory And Practice

Özge ERDEMLI

Research Assistant, Ankara University, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Cebeci Campus, 06590

e-mail: ozge.erdemli8787@gmail.com

ORCID: 0000-0002-8004-020X

Dr. Arhun ERSOY

Near East University, Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus

arhun.ersoy@neu.edu.tr

Fatma KÖPRÜLÜ

Near East University- Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus

e-mail: fatma.koprulu@neu.edu.tr

Dr. Hüseyin YOLCU

Dr. Kastamonu University, Faculty of Education, E-mail: h.yolcu72@gmail.com.

ORCID 0000-0001-9974-8446

Dr. Nihal YURTSEVEN

Şakir ÇINKIR, & Gül KURUM

Efforts to evaluate a school or any organization serve to certain express or implied values and goals. Contrary to the common belief, evaluation derived from a biased origin. A person usually evaluates something if he/she wants to defend or attack it. Therefore, evaluation is not random but a guided behavior. The way the evaluation results are treated depends on whether such results will achieve the desired outcome for the relevant organization or person. Therefore, evaluation is an integral part of the political system. Evaluation comes with an instruction, cost and a specific audience potential. Among such variables, potential audience is very important. For, the audience sets the language of the evaluation. The most important audience whose mind, heart and trust must be won in public education is the society. Stories told about the schools and league tables showed must satisfy the parents and the society (MacBeath, 1999, pp. 4–7). In line with the above arguments, evaluation may be considered a form of accounting to the society which invests in education through their taxes.

During the dynamic process that provides an environment for communication to improve teaching in the 21st century, inspection and evaluation are considered the basis for the renewal of teaching and learning in class. For, inspection enables teachers who has a key role in the education process to think on and have a say in their own teaching activities in class,contributing to the improvement and renewal of education (Sullivan & Glanz, 2015, xxiv–29). Teachers play an important role in student learning. Teachers are not the only judge but the best judge of their own professional development. In fact, teachers are natural evaluators. Because of the nature of teaching, teachers evaluate student progress day-to-day. In this regard, self-evaluation is not new to teachers. Teachers evaluate what and how students learn and measure their learning levels (MacBeath, 1999, pp. 4–7).

Inspection and evaluation are valuable to the extent they contribute to the improvement of the school. Education inspection is also an effective force to improve the excellence of education in schools as a reflective, collaborative and continuous process without judging (Sullivan & Glanz, 2015, xxiv–29). In this context, schools that know and understand themselves can solve any problem they encounter during the education process. At this point, the importance of self-evaluation is undeniable. For, the better schools know their strengths and areas of improvement, the more accurate decisions they can make to improve themselves (Plowright, 2007). As seen, it is possible to say that inspection and evaluation have evolved from the control dimension that focuses on outputs to the school improvement dimension that focuses on the process.

The changes in education policies, as well as evidence-based understanding in school leadership and management (Jones, 2018) have led to the development of different models that increase transparency, accountability and stakeholder engagement in inspection and evaluation(Ladden, 2015). Sullivan and Glanz (2015, 45) also advocate the development of alternative approaches that consider teaching complex, teachers self-oriented, responsible and adequate and acknowledge that inspection is a process of evidence-based cooperation with education stakeholders. Accordingly, self-valuation has been developed based on the understanding that the improvement comes from the inside (MacBeath, 1999) and that the school’s development needs are best known by the school itself (Demirkasımoğlu, 2014, p. 117). Thereunder, a self-evaluation system is adopted in countries such as Scotland, Canada, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Singapore, etc. (Çınkır, 2014; MacBeath, 2005; Van Bruggen, 2010). In addition, school self-evaluation is widely used also in countries considered successful in education. For example, internal or self-evaluation is implemented in different ways in Hong Kong, Singapore, Japan, Finland, Estonia, Poland, Canada, Germany, Ireland, New Zealand, Slovenia, Britain, Denmark, Norway, Portugal which are among the top forty based on the 2016 PISA (2015) results. In fact, schools are required to perform self-evaluation in countries such as Slovenia, Poland, Ireland, Norway and Portugal (OECD, 2013). For these countries, it is possible to say that the school self-evaluation is an integrated element of education inspection in general.

School Self-Evaluation: A Journey to Inside Yourself

With the introduction of the free market economy in education, the concept of accountability has also been introduced to the schools. The start of the school self-evaluation is attributed to the new public administration understanding and the accountability of schools. For, schools are accountable to the society for everything they do for students. The re-introduction of accountability in the UK in mid-1970s led the local education authorities to launch the voluntary self-evaluation bill. In the 1990s, the issue of accountability became so widespread that schools faced national testing, (Office for Standards in Education [OFSTED]) external inspection and OFSTED-initiated school self-evaluation practices (Simons, 2013, pp.6–9). In this regard, schools are expected to self-evaluate with their own approaches based on the template set by the OFSTED. In theory, self-evaluation means that schools tell their own story based on their own set criteria. However, school administrators conduct the self-evaluation process according to the OFSTED’s template and use it to prepare for the OFSTED inspection (MacBeath, 2006, pp. 2–3). In other words, it is possible to say that the self-evaluation initially entered the lives of schools as a necessity.

Self-evaluation is a discovery process, not a direct adherence to a common model. In this journey, participants seek to find their own way through surveys and research. Accordingly, a systematic self-evaluation must first have a clear purpose. To achieve this objective, the target audience to be included in the self-evaluation process is determined. For example, if it is only intended to prepare the school for inspection, this understanding is against the self-evaluation’s logic of focusing inwards. Therefore, the aim of self-evaluation should be to focus not on central impositions, but on the improvement of the school as a whole. It should then be decided on the framework according to whichthe self-evaluation is to be conducted. If there is a model or framework required by the Ministry of Education at this stage, the school may act accordingly (MacBeath, 2006, pp. 63–64). For example, in Ireland, school self-evaluation has been compulsory nationwide since 2012. The Ministry provides schools with guides and a six-stage school self-evaluation model. The focus the schools will have in self-evaluation is alsodetermined centrally (Department for Education and Skills [DES], 2016). However, schools can conduct the self-evaluation process by adapting this overall framework to their needs. If there is no framework, schools may use good practice or form their own framework.

Self-evaluation is based on evidence. Evaluation criteria are used as a source of the evidence. These criteria are set centrally according to the defined framework. If this framework is not available, the school will set its own criteria as an indicator of its success and progress. For example, exam data can be reported as scores or percentage points. At this point, when setting the criteria, practitioners must value the indicators that serve the self-evaluation purpose, not the things that are easily measured. For, in this process, school administrators, teachers, support staff, students and parents pass judgment on the school based on the criteria available. If this process is not well planned, it can cause time loss and complexity. However, it offers data and perspectives that are rich enough to improve the school if it is carried out systematically. This variety of data can be achieved through self-evaluation tools. At this point, teachers and students prefer more simple, accessible and powerful tools. However, care must be taken to avoid duplication and to provide diversity to the participants in the tool usage. If not, the use of similar tools may result in the participants making a wrong evaluation. Such wrong evaluation will also negatively impact the self-evaluation production. This production is often prepared as a report or presentation. However, this production should not be considered final as the self-evaluation is a continuous and developmental process. In contrast, this production is a series of files or reports that are attached to the portfolio as part of developing an understanding and perspective of the school. Therefore, the self-evaluation process is considered similar to metaphors such as “listening to a heartbeat, check-up” (MacBeath, 2006, pp. 64–67).

Self-evaluation is a powerful practice embedded in the school’s daily routine. Self-evaluation derives this power from being based on realistic evidence, rather than intuition or subjective judgment. To achieve this, school culture and classroom climate are very important in self-evaluation (Vanhoof, Petegem,& Maeyer, 2015). To reveal more realistic lives placed in the nature of classroom practices, it is necessary to create a classroom climate where reflection and criticism become routine. Otherwise, course observations or reflections givea slice of the current state, and more like an ad-hoc impression. On the other hand, self-evaluation uses discussions with stakeholders as evidence. Although this qualitative data may seem a little more subjective, it is useful to uncover the school’s unique situation (MacBeath, 2006, pp. 59–60). For example, instead of saying that 40% of children are being bullied in school, saying that physical bullying is increasing from higher grades towards lower grades (Kurum, 2019) gives more details about the bullying at the school. Therefore, qualitative data is a key source of evidence to further determine and refine the school’s unique situation.

As a result, school self-evaluation is not a magic way to solve. It does not provide a direct template to act on. Self-evaluation can be built on existing practices that have no start and end. It should therefore not be expected in the self-evaluation process to introduce a new practice that is not available (MacBeath, 2006, p. 177). School self-evaluation is the dialog and cooperation of schools with their stakeholders on findings based on evidence. To strengthen this process, Simons (2013, p. 15) emphasizes that it is necessary to contact an external support that is defined as a critical friend from universities, local governments, consultants or other schools. On the other hand, MacBeath (2006, p. 118) suggests that visual and auditory evidence (photo, video, observation and discussion) should be provided to facilitate the school self-evaluation process, that planning must be made based on such evidence, that a connection must be established between data sources (such as student success and teacher qualification), that the self-evaluation process must be updated at regular intervals, and that the school stakeholders must be engaged.

School Self-Evaluation: The Benefits and Limitations