THE CZECH SCHOOL INSPECTORATE (CZECH REPUBLIC)
CONTENT 1.
A Summary Profile of the Inspectorate .............................................................................................................. 4
2.
The Education System ............................................................................................................................................... 5
3.
4.
2.1
Structure, Tables, Numbers ........................................................................................................................... 5
2.2
Description ........................................................................................................................................................... 6
The Tasks, Responsibilities and Role of the Inspectorate – General Statement ............................. 13 3.1
Legal Basis, Characterization in Official Documents ........................................................................ 13
3.2
Mission Statement .......................................................................................................................................... 13
3.3
Which Organization and Practices are Inspected Except Schools? ............................................ 14
Full Inspection of Schools as a Task of the Inspectorate .......................................................................... 14 4.1
General Description ....................................................................................................................................... 14
4.2
The Main Aspects of Quality to be Inspected ...................................................................................... 16
4.2.1
5.
6.
7.
8.
Actors ......................................................................................................................................................... 21
4.3
The Inspection Process ................................................................................................................................. 21
4.4
Practical Organization................................................................................................................................... 23
4.5
Reporting with a Judgement about the School’s Quality and the Possible Consequences27
4.6
Full Inspection of Non‐Public Schools .................................................................................................... 30
Inspection of the School’s Self‐Evaluation ..................................................................................................... 30 5.1
Obligation of Schools Concerning Quality Assurance and Improvement ................................ 30
5.2
Standpoint of the Inspectorate about the Inspection of School Self‐Evaluation .................. 31
5.3
Practice ................................................................................................................................................................ 31
5.4
Reporting on the School’s Self‐Evaluation and Possible Consequences .................................. 31
Inspection of Particular Themes of Quality ................................................................................................... 32 6.1
General Position .............................................................................................................................................. 32
6.2
Examples of Particular Themes or Topics ............................................................................................ 32
6.3
Processes and Methods in Thematic Inspections .............................................................................. 33
6.4
Inspection of Staff ........................................................................................................................................... 34
6.5
The Judgment about Themes, Topics and Staff and its Possible Consequences ................... 34
Advisory Tasks of the Inspectorate ................................................................................................................... 34 7.1
Areas and Tasks ............................................................................................................................................... 34
7.2
Practices.............................................................................................................................................................. 34
Other Tasks of the Inspectorate ......................................................................................................................... 35 8.1
Curriculum Development ............................................................................................................................ 35
8.2
Databases ........................................................................................................................................................... 35
8.3
Examinations .................................................................................................................................................... 37
8.4
Handling Complaints ..................................................................................................................................... 37
8.5
Financial or Staff Management of Schools or Districts .................................................................... 37 2
9.
Risk – Based Evaluation ......................................................................................................................................... 38
10.
Reports of Inspectors ......................................................................................................................................... 38
10.1 Kinds of Reports .............................................................................................................................................. 38 10.2 Target Audiences ............................................................................................................................................ 39 10.3 Confidential or Public .................................................................................................................................... 39 11.
Structure, Position, Staff and Budget ........................................................................................................... 39
11.1 Structure ............................................................................................................................................................. 39 11.2 Position ............................................................................................................................................................... 40 11.3 Staff and Budget .............................................................................................................................................. 40 12.
Recruitment and Training of Inspectors .................................................................................................... 41
12.1 General Remarks ............................................................................................................................................. 41 12.2 Recruitment Conditions ............................................................................................................................... 41 12.3 Training ............................................................................................................................................................... 41 12.4 In‐service Training ......................................................................................................................................... 41 13.
Evaluation of the Inspectorate ....................................................................................................................... 42
13.1 Internal ................................................................................................................................................................ 42 13.2 External ............................................................................................................................................................... 42 13.3 Consequences ................................................................................................................................................... 43 14.
Developments, Prospects ................................................................................................................................. 44
14.1 Developments ................................................................................................................................................... 44 14.2 Prospects ............................................................................................................................................................ 44 15.
Information: Website, Liaison – Contact, Links....................................................................................... 45
16.
References .............................................................................................................................................................. 46
3
1.
A SUMMARY PROFILE OF THE INSPECTORATE
The School Inspectorate of the Czech Republic has a long history – of course connected with the turbulent political history of the country. After the revolution in 1989/1990 the Czech Republic was the first Eastern – European country that developed and installed an inspectorate that did “full inspections” of schools – already in 1994/1995. That Inspectorate also was one of the eight founders – inspectorates of SICI in 1995. As in more Eastern – European countries, the development in this area of school inspection was not linear – due to political changes and the complicated change – processes in schools and education. In the Education Act of 2005 and accompanying documents the tasks and responsibilities of the CSI are crystallized now in a clear and stable way. The core task is the evaluation of all schools, once in three years, against a broad set of quality indicators in a group of eight quality domains. This system of “full inspection” as such is very well comparable with the systems of full inspection in many other countries. The inspections are planned and done from the fourteen regional offices of the CSI. Inspectors analyze school – documents, take interviews, and observe lessons. Self – evaluation by schools is obliged since 2005 and inspectors take the resulting documents as a starting point for their gathering of information. There is no proportionality with the intensity or coverage of the external inspections. There is no type of risk – based inspection. The Czech Republic has schools, founded (and governed) by private founders – most associations of people or firms – some 2 %, but more in the upper tertiary sector. These schools are inspected with the general system too and the level of their subsidy is influenced by the outcomes of the inspection. Interesting is the difference between an inspection of a school as such, focusing on an evaluation of its quality in general and a so – called “state‐check” that focuses on the check whether the school does not violate laws or decrees. There is still a third type: the financial check, focusing on the good use of the financial means in the school. These two types of checks result both in a so – called “protocol”. The CSI sharply keeps the difference between an “inspection report” (also available for the general public) and the two types of protocols (not public, only for the head of the school and its founder). CSI also keeps the difference between “inspectors” and “auditors” although both types of staff belong to CSI. An unsatisfying result of one of the two checks can lead to a fine, collected by the CSI, but transferred to the state budget. A bad “inspection report” can lead – after a period for improvement and repeated inspection – to the proposal of the Senior Chief Inspector to the authorities to remove the school from the register of funded schools. CSI also does thematic inspections – sometimes connected with the usual school inspections, sometimes done as specifically planned surveys. Reports are published widely. The same counts for the Annual Report that summarizes the outcomes of al inspections in a report about “the state of Czech Education” (in Czech and English). CSI works under the authority of the Minister but is rather independent in its daily functioning. (Johan van Bruggen, July 2009)
4
2.
THE EDUCATION SYSTEM
2.1
STRUCTURE, TABLES, NUMBERS
The table below provides an overview of the Education System in the school year 2007/2008. (Source: Institute for Information on Education – statistical information on education from the school year 2007/08) ISCED Sector level 0 1 2A
2A
Pre‐primary education Primary education Lower secondary education
3A
3C
Secondary education
3B, 5B
5B
5A
Tertiary professional education (non‐ university) Higher education
Name of subdivision in your country
Age range of pupils
Number of Number of schools/ pupils/ institutions students
Number of teachers
nursery schools
3‐6
4,808
291,194
22,744.3
6‐11
4,132
458,046
27,520
11‐15
2,775 *)
386,817 *)
33,453.2
11‐15
4,119
15‐19
373
146,370
10,980 **)
15‐19
18,273
15‐18
556
158,515
18,099
conservatoires
15‐ 19/21
19 (3B)
3,606 (3B)
1,046.3
tertiary professional schools
19‐22
177
28,774
1,799
universities
19‐22, 23, 24
68
344,180
32,336
basic schools – 1st stage basic schools – 2nd stage 8‐year secondary general schools (gymnázium) – lower stage secondary general schools (gymnázium) secondary technical schools secondary vocational schools
included above in (5A) *) includes figures of schools and pupils in lower stage of 8‐year general secondary schools **) includes figures of teachers in lower stages of general secondary schools where compulsory education is provided Data were collected for the last time in the school year 2005/06. 6
23
21,777
Apart from schools mentioned in the table above there exist basic artistic schools, language schools and leisure time centres. Basic artistic schools prepare for education at secondary artistic schools and at conservatories or for studies at universities focusing on artistic pedagogical activities. Basic artistic schools organise preparatory school lessons, basic studies of the 1st and 2nd levels, studies with an extended number of school lessons, and adult education.
5
Leisure time centres shall develop personal interests of children, pupils, and students. They should participate in care for gifted and in co‐operation with schools and other institutions in organising competitions and performances of children and pupils.
2.2
DESCRIPTION
Higher Education Institution
15-19
Bachelor's programmes
Tertiary Professional School
Secondary education with School-leaving exam general fields other fields
Secondary education with apprenticeship certificate
Secondary education
4-years course
6-14
6-years course 8-years course
Basic School – lower-secondary level
Conservatoires
Master´s programmes
Dance Conservatoires
20+
Doctoral programmes
3-5
Basic School – primary level Nursery schools – pre-primary level
age
PRE‐PRIMARY EDUCATION Nursery schools are generally independent legal subjects administered by municipalities, which also fund them (except for salaries and teaching aids). Some nursery schools are integrated into basic schools (one legal entity). Attendance is not compulsory, but 79.2% of 3 year olds, 92.6% 4 year olds and 95.8% 5 year olds attend nursery school (data from 2007/08). Classes are coeducational. They should have a minimum of 18 children on average and a maximum of 24. Classes may be organised according to age or according to the degree of adaptability or progress. Alternatively, children may be put into groups with mixed ages and progress levels. The integration of children with physical disabilities into mainstream schools also exists. In these cases, the fixed maximum number of children per class is reduced accordingly (between 12 and 19). Schools can ask parents to pay a contribution of up to 50% of the cost per child (except for educational costs). The last school year of pre‐primary education is free of charge. Parents contribute to meals, which are subsidised.
6
Nursery schools can be full‐day (the majority) or half‐day centres; they can also be established as boarding facilities. In addition to teaching, nursery schools provide playing games, walk, rest (sleep), and meals. PRIMARY AND LOWER SECONDARY EDUCATION The length of the basic school equals the length of compulsory school attendance. Children of compulsory school age (6 to 15 years) mostly attend basic schools. Pupils can complete their compulsory education beginning from the sixth or eighth grade at a multi‐year gymnázium or 8‐ year conservatoire. The basic school has two levels: the first stage covers the first to fifth grades (ISCED 1) and the second stage the sixth to ninth grades (ISCED 2). In the first stage, all subjects are usually taught by a generalist teacher, while at the second stage, subjects are taught by teachers specialising in two subjects or, exceptionally in one. Classes are coeducational. Pupils are divided into classes by age. The maximum number of pupils per class is 30. If the class integrates pupils with special educational needs, the number is reduced; the minimum average number is 17. In 2007/08 the national average of pupils per class was 21.7 and 219.4 per school. All people have the right to basic education free of charge. Since 2005 an individual tuition has been codified by the new Education Act. The head of the school providing compulsory education in which the pupil is enrolled gives permission to organise this type of education. Pupils of the first stage (primary level) can opt for home schooling. Since the 2007/08 school year there has been a pilot verification of individual education of pupils of the second stage of basic school (ISCED 2). In 2007/08 school year 376 pupils were educated at home. In order to ensure access to schools, there are schools with only the first stage (or exceptionally with only the second stage) in small municipalities (according to last data from the 2004/05 school year such schools made up 37.6% of all basic schools with about 12% of all first‐stage pupils). These are usually schools with several grades in one class (only within the first stage). UPPER SECONDARY EDUCATION Upper secondary education is a highly differentiated system guaranteeing education and vocational training for almost the entire population of young people between completion of compulsory school attendance and taking up employment or continuing in higher education. Pupils attending upper secondary schools are generally aged 15 to 19 years. The starting age of study is set by the completion of compulsory education. Some secondary schools (multi‐year gymnázia) also provide a programme of compulsory education and therefore even younger pupils attend them. Secondary schools are usually public (generally established by the regions), but can also be private, or denominational (see Private schools). Education is free of charge. Fees are paid only at private or possibly denominational schools. Parents contribute to different courses organised outside the campus (e.g. swimming, skiing courses). They also contribute to meals taken in the school catering facilities (which are subsidised) and extracurricular courses.
7
Classes are coeducational (except for physical education lessons). Nonetheless, some courses are attended almost solely by girls (e.g. pre‐primary teacher training) and other by boys (e.g. metallurgy), even though they are open to both girls and boys. The prerequisites for admission to upper secondary school are the successful completion of compulsory school attendance and meeting the entrance requirements (which may include an entrance examination or an aptitude test). GYMNÁZIA (GENERAL EDUCATION) The courses of gymnázia provide secondary education completed with the maturitní zkouška examination (ISCED 3A). The aim of study at gymnasium is to provide pupils with key competencies and a broad outlook, preparing them above all for higher education and other types of tertiary education. In 1996 to 2007 between 19,000 and 25,000 pupils completed gymnázia, representing about 20% of all school leavers of full‐time courses. Over two fifths of all pupils complete their education at a multi‐year gymnázium. The majority of pupils continue their studies at higher education institutions or other institutions. The Ministry of Education stipulates a minimum of 80 pupils per school and a maximum of 30 pupils per class. Foreign languages are always taught in smaller groups with a maximum of 23 pupils. Studies in gymnázia end with the maturitní zkouška examination. The examination may be taken only if the pupil has successfully completed the final year of school. The maturitní zkouška examination consists of two compulsory subjects (Czech language and literature and a foreign language) and two optional subjects. The examination includes a written part (for the Czech language) and an oral part. The school determines the content of the maturitní zkouška examination; no specific requirements are set externally. The passing of the maturitní zkouška is a prerequisite for admission to a higher education institution or tertiary professional school. TECHNICAL SECONDARY EDUCATION COMPLETE BY THE MATURITNÍ ZKOUŠKA EXAMINATION Leavers of secondary education completed by the maturitní zkouška examination (ISCED 3A) are qualified to perform their profession, but they can also enter tertiary educational level (higher education institutions or tertiary professional schools). In addition to the professional part of the education general education is also included, making up about one half of the curriculum. The education is provided mostly in four‐year courses. Moreover some schools organize two year follow‐up courses (nástavbové studium), leading to the maturitní zkouška examination for pupils who have an apprenticeship certificate. The maturitní zkouška examination consists of examinations in the Czech language and literature, in one optional subject and in various vocational subjects. The Czech language examination has a written and an oral part, the optional examination is oral and the vocational part includes a theoretical and a practical examination. Having passed this examination the pupils receive a maturitní zkouška certificate. The maturitní zkouška examination is taken in face of a board. VOCATIONAL SECONDARY EDUCATION LEADING TO AN APPRENTICESHIP CERTIFICATE AND OTHER SECONDARY EDUCATION Courses where pupils attain an apprenticeship certificate last three or two years and are professionally and practically oriented, but also include a general education component. The 8
qualification does not entitle pupils to enter tertiary education. Pupils are admitted to the first year of study once they have finished compulsory school attendance (at age 15). Secondary vocational schools now also organise shortened study programmes for those having completed secondary education with a maturitní zkouška examination and these can last 1 to 1.5 year of full‐ time study. During the school year, a week of theoretical education (including vocational as well as general education) and a week of practical training normally alternate. Practical training takes place in a laboratory, in a school facility or at a workplace of private individuals or companies. For courses of secondary education leading to an apprenticeship certificate as well as courses of secondary education pupils must pass a final examination (závěrečná zkouška). The final examination is of a vocational nature and pupils must demonstrate how well prepared they are to perform the relevant skills and occupations. The organisation and assessment of the final examination is the responsibility of a school. School leavers generally enter the labour market. CONSERVATOIRES The conservatory (konzervatoř) is a special type of school, which provides general education and prepares pupils for the performance of demanding artistic or combined artistic and pedagogical activities in such fields of study as music, dance, singing and drama. Courses last either 6 years (admitting pupils who have completed their compulsory school education) or, in the case of dance, 8 years (pupils who have successfully completed 5 years of basic school). In lower grades the conservatoires must ensure compulsory school attendance. In 2007/08 there were 19 conservatoires with 3,606 pupils. Admission proceedings require candidates to demonstrate talent in form of an aptitude test. Pupils at conservatoires are taught individually or in groups. Education is generally completed by passing an absolutorium examination (ISCED 5B). Leavers are awarded a degree “qualified specialist” (diplomovaný specialista), DiS. This enables pupils to apply for art higher education courses. To study in other higher education courses or a tertiary professional school they must pass maturitní zkouška examination. Pupils may pass this exam not earlier that after the fourth year, and in dance after the eighth year. The absolutorium is a comprehensive professional examination consisting of a theoretical examination in vocational subjects specified by a curricular document, an examination in a foreign language, a thesis and its defence, and a performance in one or two principal artistic branches, or an examination in artistic and pedagogical training. If a pupil completes the conservatoires without passing a maturitní zkouška examination, he/she must sit for a final examination in front of an Examination Board (komisionální zkouška) prior to the absolutorium exam. This final examination is composed of an examination in the Czech language and literature, for a six‐year course also in the history of the field studied. Having passed the absolutorium examination, the pupil is awarded a certificate on absolutorium. TERTIARY EDUCATION TERTIARY PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION Tertiary professional schools were introduced in the 1992/93 school year on an experimental basis and since 1995 they have been part of the educational system. Their aim was to fill the gap in qualification needs between secondary and tertiary education.
9
Only applicants who have completed their secondary education with the maturitní zkouška examination are admitted. They are usually 19 years old. The school head decides on whether there will be an entrance examination and on its content. Educational programmes at these schools last 3 years of full‐time study, medical courses 3.5 years including practical training. Tertiary professional schools can charge fees. The maximum level of fees in public schools is set by the Decree on Tertiary Professional Education and depends on how financially demanding each particular field of study is. For most fields of study the charge is CZK 3,000, for the least demanding ones CZK 2,500, but for certain other fields it ranges from CZK 4,000 to 5,000. The fees are payable in two instalments. Students are placed into groups independently of their level, sex or age. As for theoretical education students are organised in study groups formed according to study fields (the lowest number of students in a group is 10, in artistic fields 6, the highest number is 40); as far as the size of groups for practical training is concerned workplace conditions have to be taken into account. Tertiary professional education ends with an absolutorium, an examination consisting of a theoretical exam in vocational subjects (three subjects at most), an exam in a foreign language and defence of a thesis. A thesis may be written and defended by several students; however, each student is evaluated individually. A thesis and its defence may also contain a part examining practical skills. Having passed the absolutorium examination the graduate has completed tertiary professional education, which is certified by the Absolutorium certificate and the diploma of a graduate of a tertiary professional school. The graduates are awarded a degree “qualified specialist” (diplomovaný specialista) abbreviated as “DiS” and written after the name. HIGHER EDUCATION Higher education institutions come under the Higher Education Act (No. 111/1998) and its amendments. There are two types of higher education institutions – university, providing all levels of study programmes, and non‐university usually offering only Bachelor’s degree programmes. All accredited Bachelor’s degree study programmes last 3‐4 years and provide education of ISCED level 5A, i.e. education which enables students to continue to study for a Master’s degree. Bachelor’s degree studies end with a final state examination and the defence of a thesis. The academic title obtained is bakalář (Bc.) or bakalář umění (BcA.). Master’s study programmes follow on from Bachelor’s degrees. Their standard length is 1‐3 years. Graduates of all types of Master’s degree programmes acquire qualification of ISCED level 5A. Master’s degree studies end with a state examination and the defence of a thesis. The academic title awarded in magistr (Mgr.), magistr umění (MgA.), inženýr (Ing.), inženýr architekt (Ing. arch.). Students of medicine, veterinary medicine and hygiene are the exception. They finish their studies with a state examination – rigorózní zkouška – and they are awarded the title doctor of medicine (MUDr.), dentist (MDDr.), or doctor of veterinary medicine (MVDr.). All titles are used in front of the name. A Doctoral study programme can follow the completion of a Master’s programme. It is offered solely in universities and lasts 3‐4 years and graduates acquire qualification of ICSED level 6. The law does not lay down the length of study for any particular study field. Doctoral studies finish with a state doctoral examination and defence of a thesis. The title for all fields of study is doktor (Ph.D.) with the exception of theology, where the title doktor teologie (Th.D.) is awarded. Both titles are used after the name.
10
The minimum requirement for admission to higher education institution is secondary education completed with a maturitní zkouška examination. Each higher institution decides on the number of enrolled students and on specific admission proceedings (upper secondary school results, approval of credits from previous studies of other fields of study or of tertiary professional school, etc.) the admission proceedings usually include an entrance examination, in particular a written test, oral examination or both. By law, higher education for Czech citizens is free of charge, with the following exceptions: fees for administration of admission proceedings, fees for prolonging the duration of study beyond a set limit and fees for the study of an additional programme. Private institutions of higher education can fix their own fees. The law does not set any limit on fees. CONTINUING EDUCATION AND TRAINING FOR ADULTS The Education Act (valid from 1st January 2005) was drawn up taking life‐long learning into account and it: • newly defined other forms of education than full‐time • strengthened the role of follow‐up courses (nástavbové studium) • introduced shortened forms of study to attain secondary education completed by a maturitní zkouška examination (both forms provide a second chance for applicants who have difficulties in finding work) • introduce the possibility to recognize previously completed education (including informal education) which is in compliance with EU recommendations • made it possible to acquire a level of education without having studied at a secondary or tertiary professional school • enabled continuing education in courses which do not provide a recognised level of education Adult education through which a relevant education level is attained may be organised at upper secondary and tertiary professional schools in other then the full‐time (daily) study. It is financed by the Ministry of Education through regional authorities. Retraining is financed from various sources. Unemployed people registered as job seekers are entitled to attend such courses fully funded by Labour Offices; other participants have to bear the cost themselves. Financing of company level educational activities is the responsibility of the employer. Special interest education activities are fully funded by the participants. Prices are based on free market principles. Adult education takes place in: • schools (basic, upper secondary, tertiary professional and higher education institutions) and other educational institutions • organisations (enterprises, institutions, state administration bodies) providing education primarily for their own employees by means of their own education institutions or trainers, or by hiring services of other institutions • non‐profit organisations: organisations from the education sector, professional organisations, foundations, churches, trade unions, political parties, cultural institutions (museums, galleries, libraries, houses of culture) • commercial educational institutions. Schools can also organise educational courses on a commercial basis Courses organised by schools and other educational institutions are primarily aimed at providing students with qualifications. Retraining courses organised within active employment policy and accredited by the Ministry of Education aim to increase the employability of job seekers and groups threatened with unemployment. 11
Adult education is also organised by basic art schools – základní umělecké školy (however, special interest education activities are mostly intended for basic and upper secondary school pupils) and language examinations – jazykové školy s právem jazykové zkoušky (both special interest education activities and qualification courses). Higher educational institutions provide adults with the opportunity to study in all types of study programmes, either in the form of distance learning or combined distance and full‐time study. They can also provide lifelong learning courses in addition to their regular study programmes. Courses can be offered free or for fees. Education provided by enterprises and non‐profit or commercial organisations includes courses of various types, subjects, levels and duration. Courses are offered depending on current supply and demand. Therefore, it is impossible to give a general description of admission requirements, educational objectives, the content and methods of education, assessment or certification. Adult education at secondary or tertiary professional levels is usually organised in part‐time forms of education, namely in: • evening courses (večerní) – ranging from 10 to 18 lessons a week in the afternoon or evening • distance study (dálkové) – self‐learning supported by consultation in the range of 200‐220 consultation hours in a school year • e‐learning courses (distanční) – self‐learning mainly via information technologies, which could be supported by individual consultation (e‐learning) • combination of study forms (kombinované) – education using full‐time and one of the forms of education mentioned above SPECIAL EDUCATION Depending on their individual situation, pupils with special educational needs are either integrated, or in the case of seriously disabled pupils, special schools are established. PRIVATE AND DENOMINATIONAL SCHOOLS An amendment to the previous School Act in 1990 allowed the establishment of private and denominational schools. The role of private schools is to offer a range of education options, corresponding to the interests of the pupils and the needs of the labour market, and to create a competitive environment throughout the education system. The Higher Education Act of 1998 enabled the establishment of private higher education institutions. There are few denominational schools, none of which is a higher education institution. Private schools and school facilities can be established by individuals or corporate bodies. No legal format is prescribed. The decision‐making powers of private schools are set by the legal framework. In 2007/08 private and denominational schools made up 2.1% of all nursery schools and they accounted for 1.4% of the total number of children, 2.4% of all basic schools with 1.2% of pupils, 25.2% of schools at upper secondary level with 15.3% pupils, and 33.4% of tertiary professional schools with 35.4% of students. Private and denominational schools are free to charge fees, although denominational schools do not usually do so. Evaluation of private and denominational schools is carried out by the Czech School Inspectorate under the same rules as for public schools. 12
3. THE TASKS, RESPONSIBILITIES AND ROLE OF THE INSPECTORATE – GENERAL STATEMENT 3.1
LEGAL BASIS, CHARACTERIZATION IN OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS
In recent years, the Czech School Inspectorate (hereinafter CSI) has undergone a substantial change. Up to the mid 1990̕s the inspection model worked from the biggest part on the pattern inherited form the era of communism, in which all schools were state‐run and were directed centrally. Schools were not legal entities and no autonomy was granted to them. The main task of inspection then was monitoring instead of evaluation, and inspection findings could not endanger a school’s existence. The pedagogical supervision addressed individual persons. A new inspection model has been built in order to reflect changes in the education system, fit the demands for an instrument of school evaluation and comply with European trends. The decentralisation, the subsidiarity principle, the fact that schools have different types of founders and are legal entities with high degree of autonomy were the factors which made necessary a shift towards an institution‐oriented evaluation. The school is now assessed as a whole using a multicriteria evaluation approach. The new Education Act stipulates basic principles and objectives of education where the fundamental criterion is, in particular, effective support for the development of the personality of the child, pupil and student as well as achievement of educational aims in specific schools and school facilities. In cases where schools are running serious risks the Chief School Inspector is entitled to submit a proposal for removal of the school from the Register of Educational Facilities. The main binding legal documents for the CSI and its work are: • The Education Act (No. 561/2004 Coll.) on Pre‐primary, Basic, Secondary, Tertiary Professional and Other Education • The Administrative Procedure Code (Act No. 500/2004 Coll.) • Act No. 552/1991 Coll., on State Control • The Financial Control Act (No. 320/2001 Coll.), on Financial Control in Public Administration • The Decree No. 17/2005 on Detailed Conditions of Organization of the CSI and of the Inspection Activity Performance
3.2
MISSION STATEMENT
On the level of individual schools the main mission of inspection is to assure external evaluation in a three‐year cycle. The inspection activity is aimed at assurance of provisions for education in schools recorded in the Register of Educational Facilities as stated by law. When evaluating the conditions, course and results of education, the CSI builds on the principles and objectives of education stipulated by the Education Act with the fundamental criterion being, in particular, effective support for the development of the personality of the child, pupil and student as well as achievement of educational aims in specific schools and school facilities. On the regional and nation‐wide level the Inspectorate provides objective information on the state of the education system in the Czech Republic and thus it aims to influence the education system as an objective and independent body. Activity of the CSI is coordinated with aims and processes of the educational reform in the Czech Republic and respects the European context. 13
The Inspectorate follows a Plan of Principal Assignments issued for each school year. This plan is subject to consent of the Minister of Education and the proposal comes from the Chief School Inspector. The Plan takes into account the gradual implementation of changes in schools and school facilities, e.g. currently the implementation of the School Education Programmes (hereinafter SEPs). The plan comprises tasks in the fields of studying and evaluating the results of education, the quality of professional and pedagogical management, working conditions, teaching materials and equipment for public legal auditing, the use of funds from the state budget and monitoring the observance of generally binding regulations. Recently, monitoring of injuries at schools has become one of the inspection tasks.
3.3 WHICH ORGANIZATION AND PRACTICES ARE INSPECTED EXCEPT SCHOOLS? The education system in the Czech Republic consists of schools and school facilities. Both are subject to inspection. The school provides education according to specific education programmes. The school facility provides services, which supplement and assist activities of schools. According to the Education Act types of school facilities shall be as follows: school facilities for further education of pedagogical staff, school advisory facilities, school facilities for developing personal interests and providing further education, school facilities for special purposes, educational and lodging and boarding facilities, school canteens, and school facilities for providing institutional education, protective education and preventative educational care.
4. FULL INSPECTION OF SCHOOLS AS A TASK OF THE INSPECTORATE 4.1
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The CSI uses more criteria (multicriteria evaluation approach) for evaluating institutions included in the Register of Educational Facilities with a fundamental tool being a set of criteria for the evaluation of conditions, the course and results of education and school services. Its structure is based on the requirements of school legislation and this makes it possible to monitor innovation and modernisation in schools according to the priorities incorporated in the long‐term objectives of education and the development of the education system at national and regional levels. The set of criteria is linked to the European Qualifications Framework for Lifelong Learning and, when some selected parameters are used, makes it possible to compare quality in individual parts of the Czech education system. The development of the set of criteria as a model of the institutional evaluation of schools and school facilities (within the current legislative conditions) is directed towards bringing together external evaluation and school self‐evaluation in the basic scheme ‘inputs – processes – outputs’. Criteria included in this scheme are for the purposes of school evaluation broken down into main indicators, with respect to the level of education or types of schools. Changes of the inspection system will be completed by development of the basic set of tools for detecting and evaluating the extent to which specified criteria are met. The CSI evaluation tools are also currently being
14
d as a system of feedbaack on the ggradually inttroduced cu urricular refo orm. Data collection developed and proceessing are su upported by y the CSI info ormation sy ystem. Inspection findings aare predomin nantly based on outcom mes of self‐eevaluation off schools, in nspection ocuments, on‐the‐spot o inspectionss, observatio ons of studeents and teaachers in analyses of school do nd standardised intervieews with peedagogical sttaff. classes an The Inspeectorate is responsiblee for monito oring activities in pre‐‐primary, baasic, second dary and tertiary education (w with the exceeption of insstitutions of f higher educcation). Before exxplaining thee inspection n process furrther, it is im mportant to clarify diffeerences betw ween the CSI’s mosst importan nt tasks: institutional in nspection acctivities and d state checcks and pub blic‐legal audits and d their outcomes: Inspeection Reporrts and Prottocols.
f function n
acctivity
e evaluative
insttitutional insspection
inspectio on activityy
staate check checking
pub blic‐legal audit
During an n institutiona al inspection n inspectorss: • accquire and aanalyse inforrmation on tthe educatio on of childreen, pupils an nd students • accquire and aanalyse info ormation on the activities of schoolls/school facilities regisstered in th he Register o of Education nal Facilitiess • monitor and e m evaluate thee effectiveneess of the ed ducational sy ystem • deetermine an nd assess th he condition ns, course an nd results o of education in accordan nce with reelevant SEPss • deetermine an nd assess to what extentt the School Education P Programme (hereinafteer SEP) is m met and whe ther it is in compliancee with legal regulationss and the Fraamework Education Prrogramme ((hereinafter FEP) Integral part p of an institutiona i al inspection n among otthers is also o a thematiic inspectio on which examiness and analysses a particu ular theme. Summarised findings aand analysiss resulting ffrom this inspection n are published in Theematic Insp pection Repo orts (for thee list of theemes/topicss see 6.2 below). hether legaal regulation ns relating to the prov vision of During a state checkk auditors examine wh n and schooll services arre met. education A publiclegal auditt is focused on the use of fun nds allocateed from th he state bu udget to schools/sschool facilitties. An Inspecction Report shall • co ontain the ev valuation off the conditions, course and results of education.
15
A Protocol is a result of: • state checks that determine whether legal regulations relating to provision of education and school services are met. It contains a description of findings; including the inadequacies that have been found and the elements of legal regulations that have been violated • a public‐legal audit focused on the use of funds allocated from the state budget Both Protocols and Inspection Reports are important results of inspection. Auditors who complete the Protocol are employees of the Inspectorate. They form a separate unit within the inspectorate and they perform the check or audit both together with the inspection or separately – depending on the extent of inspection.
4.2
THE MAIN ASPECTS OF QUALITY TO BE INSPECTED
Every year (since the school year 2005/06) the “Criteria for Evaluation of Conditions, Progress and Results of Education and School Services” (hereinafter Criteria for Evaluation) are presented to the Ministry of Education according to the Education Act and the Decree No. 17/2005. The evaluation criteria are related to the task no. 1 of the CSI Plan of Principal Assignments for each school year. When evaluating, the CSI takes the school self‐evaluation into account. The Education Act states the efficiency of supporting the child’s, pupil’s and student’s personality development and attainment of the educational objectives by the school/school facility as the basic criteria. For the selection of the evaluation criteria for a school or school facility, further national documents are usually used: the Strategy of Lifelong Learning, the White Book and Long Term Aims of the Ministry of Education for the next school year. The selection also corresponds to the recommendation of the European Parliament and of the European Council on key competences for lifelong learning (COM 2005/548) and to the Coherent framework of indicators and benchmarks for monitoring progress towards the Lisbon objectives in education and training (COM 2007/61). Furthermore, research and survey findings are used, for example from data in the implemented project ESF, Operational Program Human Resources Development (OPHRD), QUALITY I, as well as the observations from international OECD and EU projects (for example PISA, TIMSS) and from international experience of the SICI members. For the needs of the CSI, the criteria are classified into main evaluation areas. An evaluation area is understood as a structure element of the CSI evaluation. Their selection covers all areas stated for the self‐evaluation as stated in Sec. 8 of the Decree No. 15/2005, which determines terms of long‐term aims, Annual Reports and school self‐evaluation. That assures the relation of the criteria with the school self‐evaluation and the current national policy and strategic aims. Such classification shall help the schools/school facilities to simplify their self‐evaluation and provide reliable grounds for it. Inspection evaluation outcomes shall generally contribute to the improvement in the quality of education, and to eliminate problems, which schools/school facilities deal with in their routine. In the school year 2008/09 there were 8 main areas of evaluation. The suggested criteria correspond to international and local evaluation systems. They are briefly outlined and have a multi‐dimensional character. Their selection reflects real possibilities of the inspection procedures and methods. In order to improve the professional and general public awareness, the criteria are completed with subcriteria. Subcriteria are relevant and measurable in different phases of the curricular reform implementation. They determine causal relations between the Education Act aims and the attained outcomes of a school/school facility. They aim to intercept 16
direct, indirect or unexpected outcomes of schools/school facilities in the recent turbulent environment. The list of subcriteria is not meant to be comprehensive. Main evaluation areas of school and school facilities activities
Evaluation criteria •
Subcriteria for evaluation
1. Equal opportunities in admission to education • • •
The school/school facility informs about its education offer and about its admission process, the information shall be accessible to all applicants The school/school facility aims to eliminate risks of discrimination of applicants for education The school/school facility is acting in compliance with legal regulations in force during the admission to education
2. Emphasis on individual needs A: Equal opportunities in education
• • •
The school/school facility identifies, registers and further provides relevant education for children, pupils and students according to their needs and Education Act in force The school/school facility identifies children, pupils and students with risks of unsuccessfulness in education and further assures their support in education The school/school facility has elaborated rules for education of children, pupils and students according to their educational needs
3. School counselling • •
The school/school counselling facility provides information and counselling in matters of education The school/school counselling facility provides help when changing the SEP
4. SEP/Content of education • •
B: Management of school/school facility
• •
The offer of school/school facility meets the conditions under which it was included in the Register of Educational Facilities The SEP is elaborated and meets the requirements of the Education Act and innovations of the educational content correspond to the current Education Act The SEP is elaborated in accordance with the principles of the FEP and meets its requirements The SEP takes the external environment, real conditions and possibilities of the school/school facility which may affect the education of children, pupils and students into account
5. Strategy and Planning • •
The school/school facility management evaluates and innovates the strategies and plans continuously The accepted proceedings are based on the school self‐evaluation, on principles and aims of the Education Act and on priorities 17
•
emphasized in the Long‐Term Aim 2007 and Long‐Term Aim of the Region Working groups and specialists (coordinators, methodists) plan, monitor and evaluate the proceedings that support development of specific education areas and implementation of innovative projects
6. The Head teacher of the school/school facility • • • • • • • •
Fulfils the legal duties resulting from holding the office according to the Education Act Efficiently, economically and effectively exploits funds from the state budget Fulfils the conditions for the office holding Assures that the internal documents of the school/school facility include support for the implementation of SEP Discusses with the pedagogic board all the essential pedagogical documents and proceedings related to the educational activity Creates conditions for further education of pedagogical workers and for further activities of school council Deals with the opinions of self‐governing pupils’ and students’ bodies Accepts consequential actions on the basis of the CSI findings
7. Personnel conditions • •
• C: Assumptions for the proper functioning of schools/school facilities
• •
A proper organization of Further education of pedagogical workers (FEPW) enables further professional development of pedagogical workers The school/school facility monitors in its self‐evaluation personnel risks, controls them and accepts proceedings towards their minimization (presumption of qualifications, other skills and knowledge necessary for work achievement) The school/school facility has defined means of support of pedagogical workers ‐ beginners (up to 3 years' experience) The FEPW corresponds to the school/school facility needs related to SEP implementation The school/School facility efficiently, economically and effectively exploits funds allocated for FEPW from the state budget
8. Safe environment for education • • • •
The school/school facility supports the health development (mental and physical) of children, pupils and students Preventive strategies of the school/school facility include precautions to avoid accidents and social‐pathological phenomena, in particular bullying The school in its self‐evaluation identifies the social, health and safety risks, including bullying, and adopts measures towards their minimization The rate of injuries (recalculates the number of injuries per 100 pupils) of children, pupils and students in the last three years is minimal or is decreasing
18
9. Material and financial conditions • •
The school/school facility has sufficient material and financial resources for the implementation of the SEP (outcomes of school self‐evaluation) The school/school facility exploits the funds allocated from the state budget in accordance with the purposes for which they were assigned
10. Organization of education •
• •
The school/school facility profile is distinguished, for example, by focus on its SEP, educational services, extended education, preparatory classes, special classes, individual education, practical training The school/school facility fulfils the syllabus (mandatory subjects, curriculum, etc.) in accordance with the approved teaching documents or according to the SEP linked with the FEP The school/educational facility creates an appropriate environment for education (physical, spatial, psychosocial, specific)
11. Pedagogical worker’s support of children’s, pupils’, and students’ personality: • • • D: Course of education
Using proper styles of education, methods and forms of work Offering various educational and spare‐time activities Creating opportunities for an individual educational approach, pedagogical diagnostic and differentiated activities
12. Manifestation of participation, co‐operation and activities of children, pupils and students in the course of education • • • •
Children, pupils and students express themselves independently, use the possibility to choose from the educational offer Children, pupils and students are actively engaged in activities Children, pupils and students communicate at the level of their age and at the level of their education and express themselves in a cultivated way Children, pupils and students are capable of self‐reflection and self‐evaluation
13. Evaluation of children, pupils and students in the course of education • • •
E: Partnership
Rules for evaluation of the children’s, pupils’ and students’ education are respected in school/school facility The assessment is justified and it motivates children, pupils and students to improve their personal results The evaluation is used as a basis for measures taken towards education improvement
14. Development of partnerships of the school/school facility with following partners (awareness, co‐operation, activities, benefits) 19
• • •
• • •
F: Demonstration of achieved level of key competencies through the educational content
G: Educational outcomes of children, pupils and students on the school level
The school/school facility cooperates with its founder The head teacher cooperates with the School Board (concerns basic, secondary and tertiary professional schools) The school/school facility cooperates with legitimate representatives of minor children and pupils, with parents of major pupils and students, eventually with people who have a maintenance duty towards them The head teacher enables the formation of a students´ body and cooperates with it The school/school facility organizes events for children, pupils, students and parents (school concerts etc.) The school/school facility cooperates also with other partners
15. Increasing functional literacy of children, pupils and students (knowledge, skills, attitudes) in the following areas: • • • • • •
Reading literacy Mathematical literacy Foreign language communication skills Information literacy Social literacy Science studies literacy
16. Successfulness of children, pupils and students • • •
Successfulness of children, pupils and students during the transition to the higher level of education Successfulness of children, pupils and students in realized SEPs Overall outcomes in external evaluation
17. The school/school facility activities are in accordance with the inclusion in the Register of Educational Facilities 18. The school/school facility enables equal access to education systematically H: Overall evaluation 19. The school/school facility effectively uses resources and funds of school/school 20. The school/school facility assures the safety of children, pupils and facility students 21. Implemented school/school facility’s SEPs are in accordance with the principles and objectives of the current Education Act and the FEP 22. The school/school facility develops the personality of child, pupil and student The Approved Criteria for Evaluation are specified with respect to the educational level or type of school/school facility in inspection procedures and a framework of indicators. Some of the indicators on the level of the school/school facility are shared with other information systems of the Ministry, the OECD, and the EU. The non‐negligible indicators (limits) included in the school legislation are defined. As for evaluation on the school level, an evaluation scale for each criterion is elaborated in detail every year. Data collection and their processing is supported by the CSI information system InspIS. Inspection findings thus enable to gain and analyze information on the 20
education of children, pupils and students, and on activities of registered schools and school facilities in selected parameters. Furthermore, they create the possibility of monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of the education system or its sections. In evaluating the conditions, course and results of education and school services the fundamental criterion is how efficient the support of personality development of children, pupils, and students is and whether the objectives of education have been achieved by a school.
4.2.1 ACTORS According to the Criteria for Evaluation the CSI gets the information mainly from the school management, teachers, pupils and parents. In Czech schools the School Board and the founder play a very important role, but the CSI does not inspect them. The CSI can only check co‐operation between the school and the School Board or its founder.
4.3
THE INSPECTION PROCESS
An inspection can be initiated by: a) the inspectorate itself – the inspection activity is performed in accordance with the Plan of Principal Assignments for the relevant school year; the Plan is approved by the Minister of Education on the basis of a proposal submitted by the Chief School Inspector. The decision about the visit of an individual school is up to the head of the regional inspectorate, obliged to follow a three‐year inspection cycle b) the public – on the basis of suggestions, complaints and petitions which fall within the scope of powers of the CSI c) the founder – the Ministry, the region, the municipality or the legal entity carrying out activities of a school/school facility for the purpose of subsidies to be allocated The average inspection activity at one school usually takes about 6 to 8 days (depending on the size of school). It can be briefly divided into 4 following phases: PREPARATION PHASE Schools and teachers need to be notified about the planned inspection in advance. However, the law does not set the time limit. The norm is usually from 7 to 14 days in advance. The team leader informs the head teacher about the subject of the inspection activities, the date of departure and the expected date of completion, the scheduled inspection activities, a list of documents which will serve as a basis for evaluation or inspection, or inquiry into the complaint, and all the requirements needed for that inspection activities (e.g. provision of a separate room with access to the intranet, etc.). In the preparation phase the inspection team leader assigns tasks to the team members. Each team member requests necessary pre‐inspection data. This phase concentrates mainly on the SEP and whether it is in compliance with legal regulations and the FEP. The length of this phase depends on the size of the school. It can take at least 1 day.
21
SCHOOL PHASE At the start of the inspection activities in the school the team leader submits to the head teacher a written authorisation issued by the Chief School Inspector for the performance of inspection activities. All members of the inspection team prove their identity by School Inspector Cards or Auditor Cards. The head teacher than shortly presents his/her school and hands over all the requested materials. During the school visit the inspection team carries out inspection activities in accordance with the designated subject. It uses different methods (for the list see `Basic Methods of Detecting and Evaluating Conditions, the Course and Results of Education` in 4.4. Practical organizations). In the course of this phase more analysis of the school documentation is done. There is not given a minimum amount of lessons to be observed by each inspector (it may vary from case to case), but it is at least 3 whole lessons in different grades. At the end of the school visit the head of the inspection team discusses with the school management preliminary results of the inspection activities and the date of transmission of the inspection report is agreed. This phase can take approximately from 2 to 5 days. COMPLETING AND REPORTING PHASE There is no set time limit according to the law for completing and reporting. This may vary from case to case. Usually, the evaluation of the information, team meetings, and the processing of the Inspection Report take 14 days, but the Protocol from a detailed state check may take up to one month to be completed. The results of an evaluation are featured in the Inspection Report or Protocol. The content of both is discussed between school inspectors (Inspection Report) or auditors (Protocol) and the head teacher of the school. The head confirms by his/her signature that the Report/Protocol has been discussed and taken over. The head teacher may submit his/her comments on the Inspection Report to the CSI (within 14 days after it was submitted) or objections to the Protocol (within 5 days after it was submitted). Comments on the Inspection Report are incorporated into the final Inspection Report. Than the Inspection Report, along with the comments and opinions of the CSI (provided by the inspection team) on such comments, is sent without undue delay to the founder and the School Board. The Inspection Report, including the comments, is available for the public and is kept for a period of ten years in the school concerned and in the relevant office of the CSI. In case of objections to the Protocol auditors can only comment on the objections. The decision itself is done only by the Chief School Inspector. The Protocol together with the decision is sent without undue delay to the founder. The Protocol is a non‐public document, but it is also kept for a period of ten years in the school concerned and in the relevant office of the CSI. FOLLOW‐UP PHASE Schools which have been inspected are obliged to adopt measures in order to correct, without undue delay, shortcomings identified during the inspection, however not later than within the period specified by the CSI. On the basis of the inspection results the founders takes, without undue delay, needed measures at their schools. In the event that it is ascertained that the school in question failed to take necessary steps or if significant shortcomings are identified in the school, the Chief School Inspector may submit to the Body of the Register of Educational Facilities a proposal for removal of the school or the field of education concerned from the Register of Educational Facilities. 22
The follow‐up inspections usually focus on how the school has remedied the inadequacies found during the last inspection.
4.4
PRACTICAL ORGANIZATION
FREQUENCY Since the school year 2005/06 the inspection cycle has been set by the Chief School Inspector as a three‐year cycle, i.e. in each school (registered in the Register of Educational Facilities) in the Czech Republic an institutional inspection takes place at least once in three years (in numbers it is about 4,000 visited schools per year). However, apart from the institutional inspection activities other types of inspections can be carried out in one specific school, namely: one or more thematic inspections, a state checks or a public‐legal audit+ these can be done more frequently. The total number of inspection activities per school year is about 14,200 on average. INSPECTION TEAM The size of an inspection team depends on the size of a school and the complexity of the inspection work. There is always one team leader and from 1 to 9 additional members. The composition of the inspection team depends on the type of school/school facility. The Education Act stipulates the requirements for all possible members of the inspection team. These are: A school inspector (responsible for institutional inspections or thematic inspections) may only be a person who has completed higher education and has five years of pedagogical or pedagogical‐ psychological experience at least and who meets other prerequisites laid down in a special legal regulation. Every inspector can become head of team after passing specialised courses. An auditor (responsible for state checks or public‐legal audits) may only be a person who has completed higher education, who has at least five years of professional experience and who meets other prerequisites laid down in special legal regulations, or a person who has completed secondary education accomplished by a school‐leaving examination, who has at least twenty years of professional experience and who meets other prerequisites laid down in special legal regulations. An invited person (an expert) is a person who will participate in inspections with regard to the professional assessment of the matter. An invited person works under the supervision of a school inspector or an auditor. BASIC METHODS OF DETECTING AND EVALUATING CONDITIONS, THE COURSE AND RESULTS OF EDUCATION Inspection findings and concrete sets of data describing monitored phenomena (indicators) are gathered by means of the following information sources and detection methods: • • • • •
analyses of school documentation a comparative analysis, used in particular for experimental evaluation of compliance of a SEP with the FEP observation of rooms and other school resources (equipment) direct observation of both theoretical and practical teaching or the course of professional practice (subject and inspection observations) direct observation of competitions and other events supporting learning 23
• • •
analysis of pupils’ work interviews with head teachers, teachers and other pedagogical staff respective contact with school founders
In addition, inspections focusing on a special topic use the following: • • • •
interviews with advisory bodies to head teachers interviews with pupils of foreign nationality questionnaire surveys among pupils, teachers and head teachers questionnaire surveys among parents or other partners
COMPARATIVE TEXT ANALYSIS The comparative text analysis of the SEP is used in the case of harmonization of the SEP with the FEP for a given type of education and for the harmonization of the SEP with law regulations. The comparative text analysis is conducted by all members of an inspection team and an external specialist. The head teacher is also asked during the introductory interview (at the beginning of the inspection activity) to present his/her findings on a comparative text analysis of the FEP and his/her school’s SEP. At schools, for which there is no obligation to have a SEP, the comparative analysis of current teaching texts is being conducted. COMPARISON OF ECONOMIC INDICATORS The comparison of economic indicators of a school/school facility helps to assess whether the real situation corresponds with records and documents of a school/school facility. This method enables to provide information on the financial management of a school/school facility, on deviations from the required situation and possible risks of such deviations. INSPECTION QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS The inspection qualitative analysis is used to identify and assess indicators of the quality of education provided by a school/school facility. This method enables to identify and evaluate deviations of particular processes or of a set of processes from the common quality framework (e.g. by means of their frequency, seriousness or the increased risk of emergence of such deviations). The records and documentation of a school/school facility (Annual Reports, a self‐ evaluation report of a school, records of students’ acceptance, records regarding the process of education and its completion, class registers, the School Rules of Order, timetables, minutes of pedagogic board meetings etc.) help to assess whether the required programmes and goals are met, and what arrangements are taken to meet such requirements. The findings obtained by this analysis are compared with the given national programmes and goals, and evaluated on the basis of conditions and proceedings of the given law regulations and arrangements that comply with such regulations. For example: the analysis of Annual Reports conducted over the last three years is focused mostly on finding significant features that serve as a sample for a specific inspection activity. That same analysis is also focused on the reflection of the self‐evaluation of a school in the Annual Report and on the support of ‐ for example ‐ the development of the functional literacy (in the school year 2008/09 the emphasis was on the foreign languages, ICT and health in particular). The same analysis is also focused on the information about the development of conditions in human resources (the composition of pedagogical staff, further education of pedagogical staff), material and finance areas of schools/school facilities.
24
INSPECTION QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS The inspection quantitative analysis identifies the indicators which are unambiguously measurable, such as specific data on schools/school facilities or qualitative data which may be transferred into numbers. These may include the formal proprieties of schools/school facilities required for the registration into the Register of Educational Facilities, statistical data on schools, absenteeism and students’ assessment, the analysis of outputs of students’ school work as well as data on accident occurrence at schools. The inspection quantitative analysis of absenteeism and students’ assessment examines and clarifies the causes of the deterioration of education quality, achieved results and assurance of equal opportunities in education. The data monitor both individual students and classes. An analysis on the development of the two above‐mentioned indicators is carried out. The analysis of school work outputs assesses not only the students’ results, but also the arrangements adopted by a school/school facility, individual teachers, or by methodical bodies of a school that are responsible for the students’ personality development. INSPECTION INTERVIEWS The inspection interviews assess facts, verify and update the data gained from inspection analyses that are important for the evaluation of a school/school facility in all surveyed areas. Interviews also show the part of the interviewee in a school activity, especially in the case when it is impossible to gather such data from other sources; interviews also show causality between the findings and the data gained by other methods. When using this method, it is necessary to proceed cautiously and to be thoroughly prepared for the interview. The interviewee, usually the head of school, his/her deputy, a teacher or an education counsellor, has to be assured that no part of the interview, in which weaknesses and drawbacks are mentioned, will be misused. The inspection interview helps to obtain information from school partners (School Board, founder, statutory representative of under‐age pupils etc.) who show interest in providing such information to the inspection team. INSPECTION OF SCHOOL The Inspection of school/school facilities is one of the methods used to assess their spatial and material conditions and whether they provide safety and healthy environment for their students. CLASS OBSERVATION The class observation is standardized. During the class observations the inspector assesses how the pupils’ competences are demonstrated during activities and how the educational strategies formulated in the SEP and teaching models implemented by the school are respected. The support of the pupils’ personal development by a member of pedagogical staff is surveyed, as well as manifestations of contribution, co‐operation and activities of pupils, and their evaluation by the pedagogical staff during the educational process. The development of their knowledge, skills and attitudes are monitored too. THEMATIC INSPECTION The thematic inspection is a specific form of inspection that assesses conditions, processes and results in particular themes/subjects or in other compact parts of the curriculum such as modules. This inspection also monitors the improvement of some particular functional literacy of pupils – their reading, mathematical, ICT, social and natural‐science literacy and their ability to communicate in foreign languages. The information on the process and results of observation are registered in a relevant data record. The record from the class inspection is based on criteria; the
25
process of the teaching unit is not recorded, but the surveyed features are evaluated on the spot according to a pre‐prepared evaluation structure. INSPECTION CALCULATIONS The inspection calculations verify the information present in records, accounts and financial sheets and statistical outputs. The inspection calculations involve reports; the data stored in ICT systems and approved objects as well. The gathered findings are compared with numeric data present in the mentioned documents and in law regulations and arrangements adopted within the bounds of such regulations and included in contracts. SYNTHESIS The synthesis is merging all data gathered by the above‐mentioned methods, such as analyses, interviews, inspection of school, class observation, inspection calculations and questionnaires. It is a summary of particular findings. INSPECTION QUESTIONNAIRE The inspection questionnaire helps to gather the data on long‐term characteristics of the schools/school facilities, such as the school environment, pupils’ interests, attitudes of pupils/parents and their personal values. The most appropriate form is an open‐question questionnaire; however, it is the most difficult one to be processed. Pupils often have problems with distinguishing between the levels of a scale when dealing with the scale‐based questions. The questions requiring binary yes/no answers may be misleading and tempt the pupils into simplifying. It is advisable to use 5 brief open questions at most instead of e.g. 10 – 15 scale‐based questions. POLL A poll is not as broad as a questionnaire in terms of its size and content. It focuses on a more specific problem. If a questionnaire/poll is given to pupils, such an assignment is carried out during the class. It is carried out by an inspector who explains to the pupils the purpose and the way how to answer the questions. He is present during the whole process of answering and he collects the questionnaires/polls after their completion personally. The data, which are collected at the schools/school facilities, may be sent in an electronic form. The data obtained from parents may be sent by a paper from of a questionnaire/poll. DOCUMENTS TO BE ANALYZED School documents and materials: • the SEP and especially its compliance with the relevant FEP • Annual Reports on activities carried out at the school for the past 3 years • Reports of school self‐evaluation • school webpage (optional) • the decision of registration in the Register of Educational Facilities (containing factual information on the school, its founder, list of fields of education, including the forms of education, etc.) • School Register – a register containing personal information of all children and students • documents concerning the access of children, pupils, students and applicants to education, the course of their education and its completion • class registers containing provable data on provided education and the course of education 26
• • • • • • •
the School Rules of Order or the Internal Order of the School the timetable minutes of pedagogic board meetings a Book of Injuries – register of all injuries of children, pupils and students which occurred during the education process and their medical reports personnel and pay‐roll documentation of all employers of the school financial documentation and accounting records other documentation laid down by special legal regulations
Other documents: • statistical data from national databases collected by the Institute for Information on Education • Protocols and other records on controls and Inspection Reports performed in the past • information from mass media
4.5 REPORTING WITH A JUDGEMENT ABOUT THE SCHOOL’S QUALITY AND THE POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCES The summarizing and concluding evaluation of a school/school facility is based on the evaluation of indicators and criteria (or sub‐criteria), that are inter‐connected in a logical way. The top of an evaluation “pyramid” is formed by main “evaluation areas” (qualitative evaluation), while lower levels consist of criteria and sub‐criteria; these are evaluated in qualitative terms, using a three‐ level scale with a respective variant N (= not applicable or not observable). The lowest level is a wide base of individual indicators (quantitative parameters in numbers; proportions; qualitative evaluation using dichotomous or other scales ‐ as a rule, three‐level scales). This principle is clarified in the following scheme: Levels and elements of the evaluation system
Measurement, evaluation
Level 1: Basic scale and parameters • Main or principal evaluation areas express how the provisions of Sec. 174 (2) of the Education Act are met
Qualitative evaluation
Description
Summary conclusions and evaluation of the given areas
Level 2: Criteria • • •
include extensive parts of main or principal areas of evaluation stem from the provisions of legal regulations are clarified on the basis of conclusions of strategic documents for educational development
1(low)
2
3
• •
– +*
Sub‐criteria 27
N the three‐level scale is always used to evaluate criteria and sub‐criteria N variant: cannot be detected, was not monitored
•
express the content of individual parts (areas) of a given criterion; they do not always need to be defined
Level 3: Indicators •
• • •
•
express the content of monitored phenomena, facts, real value within the given sub‐criterion (criterion) are of qualitative and quantitative nature definitions have both theoretical and practical basis indicators are mutually inter‐connected and make it possible to identify causalities of monitored phenomena selection in terms of scope and nature of an indicator is made more precise on the basis of an analysis of their real value, usually after the end of the monitored period, only exceptionally during the monitored period
Number
actually detected number
or
a part of a previously defined unit (as percentage, direct or additional calculation)
Proportion or
indication of whether monitored phenomena, activities, and facts exist or do not occur
yes – no or
1
2
3
N
a scale is used for evaluation of an indicator
– +*
* Signs – and + mark orientation of a scale GENERAL QUALITATIVE DESCRIPTION OF A THREE‐LEVEL EVALUATION SCALE The objective for using this scale is to specify, on the basis of a summarizing evaluation of individual parts (indicators) of a given criterion, whether a school entity achieves within the given criterion at a level corresponding to a typical regional or national standard (2) for that same type of school/school facility. Or whether its activities are above‐standard (3); or whether an entity does not achieve conform to the required standard (1) and so the ascertained situation is risky. Or whether such a situation cannot be detected or was not monitored at all (N). In general the CSI defines these individual levels as follows: 1: A negative situation prevails within the evaluated criterion unambiguously; the activities being performed violate legal regulations and the SEP (approved teaching documents); planning, quality management and sustainable development of the given area are not efficient or cannot be proved; serious deficiencies occurred. 2: A normal (average, standard) functional situation prevails within the evaluated criterion; activities are carried out in compliance with legal regulations and the SEP (approved teaching documents), these are violated only occasionally. Planning, quality management and sustainable
28
development of the given area display quite frequent deficiencies, some of which may be removed only with difficulty. 3: An excellent situation prevails within the evaluated criterion, activities are carried out in compliance with legal regulations and the SEP (approved teaching documents); quality and sustainable development of the given area are planned and are well managed within the meaning of the strategic objectives of the given school entity; partial deficiencies occur only very rarely and they are successfully removed. N: A variant for the case when, for different reasons, it was impossible to assess the situation of the given phenomenon in a certain school; or in cases where the situation was not monitored in compliance with the task of the given inspection. The terminology for individual levels of evaluation of main or principal areas and for the overall evaluation of a school is: Corresponds to level Corresponds to level Corresponds to level Corresponds to 1 2 3 variant N Below‐standard, an Standard (average) Above‐standard The given area could adverse situation situation prevails, the (above‐average) not be evaluated, in prevails; risks are evaluated area is situation compliance with the inadmissible, critical functional, risks are unambiguously assignment (this admissible or prevails; risks are variant shall not be marginal unimportant, used for an overall negligible evaluation of a school) Below‐standard Average, functional Above‐standard situation (standard) situation (above‐average) situation POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCES In case of finding inadequacies in the school performance during an institutional inspection or a state check, the CSI sets a deadline until which the inadequacies have to be solved. It also requires a report on what actions have been taken to solve those inadequacies. After that, the CSI performs a follow‐up inspection, which has to show what measures have been taken and to show eventually their effectiveness. If the measures towards improvement were not taken or fulfilled, the school would commit an offence against the law and might be fined up to 50,000 CZK. In case of failing to act or in case of gross deficiencies in using the financial resources from the state budget (discovered during a public‐legal audit) a school may be fined up to 1,000,000 CZK. These fines are collected by the CSI, but go to the state budget in the end. In the school year 2008/09 the CSI fined altogether 6 schools with in total fines up to an amount of 45,000 CZK. In the event that it is ascertained that the school concerned failed to act or gross deficiencies are ascertained in the school performance, the Chief School Inspector may submit to the body maintaining the Register of Educational Facilities a proposal for removal of the school or the field of education concerned from the Register of Educational Facilities. The Chief School Inspector has submitted 8 proposals to begin a process on removal since 2007, out of which 5 removals were completed. If schools were evaluated positively, but the evaluation contains comments on the quality of a certain number of aspects, they have to draw up a plan for improvements. The schools are obliged to take measures to remove the inadequacies found during the inspection activity without any unreasonable delay, no later than the deadline set by the CSI. Based on the results of the inspection activity, the founder places a duty on the school to take measures. The CSI may perform 29
a follow‐up inspection in a school/school facility. The aim of the follow‐up inspection is to check whether measures are taken, eventually their effectiveness. Regarding the decision about a fine, the head teacher has the possibility to appeal. It is the Chief School Inspector who decides on the appeal within 15 days.
4.6
FULL INSPECTION OF NON‐PUBLIC SCHOOLS
For private schools a positive evaluation is very important since it allows the school to submit an application for an increase in the financial allocation. To do so private schools have to reach final judgments on ‘standard’ or ‘average standard’ level in the Inspection Report, or not to have any significant infringement of legal regulations stated in the Protocol.
5.
INSPECTION OF THE SCHOOL’S SELF‐EVALUATION
5.1 OBLIGATION OF SCHOOLS CONCERNING QUALITY ASSURANCE AND IMPROVEMENT Self‐evaluation is performed on the basis of the Education Act valid since January 1st 2005. It is obligatory for every school. Self‐evaluation is performed by the school itself; the inspectorate does not take part in this process. Rules and schedules for the school’s self‐evaluation: 1) Self‐evaluation of the school is elaborated for a period of one or two school years. 2) Proposals for a structure and a plan used for self‐evaluation shall be discussed by the head teacher and the Educational Board by the end of September of the appropriate school year, in which the self‐evaluation is to be performed. The Educational Board is an advisory body that discusses all fundamental educational documents and measures concerning educational activities of the school. In his/her decision‐making the head teacher shall take into account the opinions of the Educational Board. All pedagogical staff of the school shall become members of the Educational Board. 3) The Educational Board shall discuss the self‐evaluation of the school before October 31st of the following school year. There are no fundamental differences in obligations concerning quality assurance or school improvement in different school types. Main areas of self‐evaluation are: conditions, course, pupils’ support, co‐operation with parents, results, management, personnel issues, further education, attained results in regard of conditions and resources. Self‐evaluation is always focused on the goals set by the school – on investigating how far and well the school attains its goals, it is focused also on good results, on defining areas for improvement and on investigating the efficiency of taken measures. Methods used for self‐evaluation are not set down or regulated. Schools choose methods themselves, according to their needs. These can be various tests, inspections of classes, observations, reviews, analyses, questionnaires, interviews, workshops, sociometric observations, non ‐ traditional procedures etc. 30
A school’s self‐evaluation does not have to be made public. However, it serves further as a basis for the school’s Annual Report.
5.2 STANDPOINT OF THE INSPECTORATE ABOUT THE INSPECTION OF SCHOOL SELF‐EVALUATION The Inspectorate strongly supports the usage of self‐evaluation in praxis. The inspection methodology has been recently modified in order to enhance the exploitation of self‐evaluations. The broad concept “evaluation of school” now consists of the school’s self‐evaluation and of evaluation conducted by the CSI (external evaluation). Self‐evaluation has become one part of the general school evaluation of the Inspectorate. It helps the Inspectorate as one of the background documents in its activity. At the same time, the CSI is obliged to evaluate its objectivity. The task of the inspection is to analyze, find out and evaluate whether the image that the school creates about itself is true or not. The CSI has started to assess self‐evaluation regularly from the school year 2007/2008 onwards.
5.3
PRACTICE
The inspectors study the school’s self‐evaluation in the preparatory phase of the inspection process (see 4.3). Furthermore the inspectors of the CSI interview: • • •
the head teacher about the areas covered by the self‐evaluation ‐ whether measures resulting from the self‐evaluation have been taken teachers about their participation in the elaboration of the self‐evaluation, the effectiveness of such evaluation and other recommended measures pupils about their participation in the elaboration of the self‐evaluation
The inspectors also do their own observations: they monitor the quality of teaching during observations; furthermore, the inspectors check the participation of team members in teachers’ meetings, in discussions between pupils and teacher, and in meetings between parents and teachers.
5.4 REPORTING ON THE SCHOOL’S SELF‐EVALUATION AND POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCES The Inspectorate does not give recommendations about how to perform self‐evaluation; it only publishes findings on the evaluation. The CSI evaluates whether the self‐evaluation is elaborated in accordance with the decree no. 15/2005 which sets the obligation to develop long‐term objectives, Annual Reports and self‐evaluation of schools.
31
6.
INSPECTION OF PARTICULAR THEMES OF QUALITY
6.1
GENERAL POSITION
The investigation of individual topics of quality and their analysis is one of the principal tasks of the Inspectorate. It is the main instrument for providing information on the quality of the Czech education system as a whole. The targeted issues are specified in the Plan of Principal Assignments every year (see 3.2). The Inspectorate focuses on innovations in educational contents (progress of the curricular reform). The inspection activity establishes components of a systematic evaluation regarding the impact of the developmental programmes created by the Ministry of Education. The quality indicators and reference indicators of the Czech strategic documents (for example the Long Term Aims 2007 on national and regional levels) are used for observing the progress. The most important conclusions of the PISA international surveys, which were published from 2000 to 2007, became the basis for preparation of some types of observation. Collected data are stored for periodic comparisons and for analyses of trends in certain areas of education. These include evaluation of several aspects of functional literacy in a three‐year cycle, as specified in the conceptual plan: foreign languages learning, development of information literacy, development of reading literacy, development of mathematical literacy, development of social literacy, and development of natural science literacy. For all of the aforementioned literacy aspects and in all grades of education, the following 2 points of view are taken into consideration: • •
6.2
Equal opportunities in education (supporting pupils with SEN, adjusting regional differences) Sustainable development activities (prevention of pathological social phenomena, healthy life‐style, environmental education)
EXAMPLES OF PARTICULAR THEMES OR TOPICS
List of reports concerning individual topics in the school year 2007/2008 Equal Opportunities for Education of Foreign Nationals in the Czech Republic Reading Literacy as the Basis of Good Education Further Education of Teachers Use of ICT in Schools during the Last Two Years Mathematical Literacy not only for Mathematics Teaching of Foreign Languages from 2005 to 2008 Transition to School Education Programmes in Pre‐school and Basic Education Can Schools Work with Gifted Pupils?
32
Injuries in Schools and School Facilities within the Past Two Years Analysis of Information and Complaints Resolved by the CSI during the Past Three Years
6.3
PROCESSES AND METHODS IN THEMATIC INSPECTIONS
6.3.1 SAMPLE OF EVALUATED SCHOOLS The main criterion for defining the size of the sample of schools/school facilities for a thematic evaluation is the aim of the evaluation whose definition is based on a concrete assignment of the thematic inspection. According to the aim and the assignment the following rules usually apply for the sampling: 1. If the thematic inspection still is a pilot survey, designed for verification (testing) of the inspectional procedures, methods and techniques that have been prepared for the given themes or thematic ranges; smaller samples of 1 or 2 schools of the chosen type of school in every region. 2. If the thematic inspection is in the first place meant as an in – depth exploration and analysis of the given issue (problem, phenomenon, set of phenomena) smaller samples (30 to 50 schools) are drawn. Their composition determines both parallel and different types of school characteristics relating to the subject of evaluation. 3. If the thematic inspection has to be a representative survey larger samples are drawn. Their size and composition in statistically significant numbers and in terms of the subject of evaluation represent basic samples of chosen schools (the size of basic samples is defined on the basis of the numbers in the current Register of Educational Facilities). 6.3.2. SUBJECT OF EVALUATION, HYPOTHESES The starting point for defining the specific object of evaluation is – as is the case with defining the size of school samples – the assignment and the goal that has been set for the thematic inspection. In principle hypotheses are formed – especially in representative surveys – as questions whose answers are sought by the thematic inspection. The contents and scope of the evaluation – topics and the phenomena related to it are identified in the set of indicators that is developed; these are of quantitative and qualitative character. The following data gathering process regarding the given theme is done by inspectoral teams. That work can be done in the course of some other running evaluation process (the usual school inspections or state checks) or as separate thematic evaluations. In both cases the data gathering is conducted by using inspection and control procedures which determine among others the methods and techniques of finding and evaluating the monitored phenomena. External experts can be used by inspection teams for solving expertly challenging issues. 6.3.3 REPORTS OF THEMATIC INSPECTION The basic output of the thematic inspection is a Thematic Report (for the report structure see below). The CSI issues this report based on a summarizing and analytical evaluation of data gathered during the inspection in a specific thematic field (see the subject of evaluation). The report is usually processed in a form of brief analytical and synthetic material in which arguments, basic findings and conclusions result from both the gathered data and their comparison with the data from other sources. Fundamental statistical summaries and general data are usually processed in the form of charts and graphs. If the data gathered in the course of 3 and more years are available, the report analyses even possible trends in monitored themes (phenomena). The Thematic Report is issued without unnecessary delay.
33
A partial report or a report about the information on intermediate (or preliminary) results of such an inspection can be compiled during the thematic inspection of which the evaluation and analysis of gathered data will take longer time. The partial report is generally issued as internal material. In case of necessity or wish of submitter it can also be published.
6.4
INSPECTION OF STAFF
The human resources area in relation to pedagogical staff is evaluated continuously at the national level. School staffing, further education of pedagogical staff and payroll conditions are the themes that regularly form a chapter in the CSI Annual Report. A selected topic may also become a subject for a thematic inspection. The Inspectorate currently focuses on aspects of the professional qualification of teachers and the share of teachers‐beginners.
6.5 THE JUDGMENT ABOUT THEMES, TOPICS AND STAFF AND ITS POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCES The Ministry of Education examines the content of the reports and takes measures to deal with the evolving problems. The inspection conclusions are the basis for decision‐making by the Ministry. All reports are subsequently published and thus provide information for education experts and the wider public.
7.
ADVISORY TASKS OF THE INSPECTORATE
7.1
AREAS AND TASKS
The law does not stipulate any advisory role for the CSI. However, scholarly institutions, universities, bodies of the public administration and other bodies may deliver their requests of assessment, remarks and standpoints to the CSI in individual cases. If such co‐operation is of a long‐term character, it is carried out on a contract basis. Providing information to natural and legal persons may be considered as an advisory activity. According to the Act No. 106/1999 Coll. – on free access to information – the CSI is an obliged body, which has to provide information on its activities. If the request for information complies with all requirements, and is comprehensible and lies within the authority of the CSI, the CSI shall provide a reply within 15 days of receiving the request or the date of the request’s specification. The final oral discussion of the Inspection Report in a school/school facility may be considered as a certain form of “hidden advisory”.
7.2
PRACTICES
Findings of the CSI, particularly in the form of Annual and Thematic Reports, serve as important groundwork for decision making at the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (MEYS). For this reason, the MEYS already participates in the phase of document preparations – it approves their thematic focus, drafts and working methods. Following the submission of the reports, the 34
executives of the MEYS decide in which ways and by which bodies the document shall be discussed. Afterwards, it is the responsibility of such bodies to adopt specific arrangements. The CSI provides information on the Annual Reports and Thematic Reports to relevant committees of both parliamentary chambers: the Senate’s Committee on Education, Science, Culture, Human Rights and Petitions and the Committee on Science, Education, Culture, Youth and Sports of the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic. Co‐operation of the CSI with all regions of the Czech Republic is stipulated by contracts. In compliance with the contracts, summary information based on inspection activities at schools/school facilities is submitted to education departments of the relevant regional offices. Individual school founders (a municipality, region, the MEYS, churches etc.) deal with specific Inspection Reports. The findings are at disposal of other interested parties without any restrictions: they are published regularly on the CSI web site.
8.
OTHER TASKS OF THE INSPECTORATE
8.1
CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT
The CSI is not responsible for development of curricula or educational materials. The Chief School Inspector is a member of the Minister´s management board and as such he has a share in approval of conceptual materials. S/he is regularly asked for comments on particular issues. So, the role of the Inspectorate in the curriculum development is only indirect.
8.2
DATABASES
INSPIS Since 2006 the CSI has radically changed the system of the electronic data gathering. The new information system serves not only the data gathering itself and the data evaluation of the inspection activities, but it is also the management – system for planning, for the control of the activity planning, for the registration of reports, and for measuring the performance of inspection teams or entire regions. The information system reaped success at the international conference of SICI in Prague in 2008. The system is universally suitable for any inspecting and controlling institution and has been met with great interest of other organizations both in the Czech Republic and abroad (thanks to the quick and easy‐to‐use option of any language version). INSPIS AND THE METHODOLOGY OF INSPECTION ACTIVITIES The system of data gathering is based on the principle of forms – questionnaires. The methodologist creates standardized forms (questionnaires) on given topics in the application. They consist of a set of appropriate questions and their associated standardized answers by which it is possible to answer the questions. These questionnaires can be arranged in a hierarchy of the inspection model. Aside from questions on topics, individual questionnaires can contain even questions on metadata helpful for e.g. identification and establishing relation to historical activities. It can also include data that establish capacity numbers and financial costs of a certain 35
action and others. After creating a form and its publication by the user‐methodologist all users in the whole of the Czech Republic can begin data gathering immediately. INSPIS AND THE PLANNING OF THE INSPECTION ACTIVITY The system offers a complete list of all employees and their capacities to the users responsible for planning. At random the users can include them into inspection teams for which inspection activities at the school are planned. Here the system offers auxiliary data, especially a complete history of the school in relation to the CSI (including all reports). Another helpful tool is the monitoring of the inspection cycle (the CSI is required to visit every school once in 3 years at least). INSPIS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE INSPECTOR When an action is planned, all members of a certain inspection team gain access to relevant forms which they are supposed to fill in. According to requirements they enclose other forms to the action in a random number (poll with teachers/pupils/parents, record of lesson observation or of an interview with a teacher or the head teacher, record of detection of significant deficiencies and others). After completion of the action at the school and filling in the data into the form, members of the team will enclose a text report, eventually e.g. pictures of the place. ANALYSES IN INSPIS At any time during the process of data gathering it is possible to evaluate all of the so far gathered data (not necessarily from the completed actions only) and create statistical reports according to parameters, such as regions, topics, periods, types of school, founder of the school and others (even a combination of several parameters). To a regular user the system also offers basic statistical characteristics (relative frequency, summation, average, median, minimum, and maximum) including graphs. Concerning the more challenging statistical analyses in more sophisticated statistical applications the export of the data matrix into MS Excel is available. OFFLINE MODE This function enables fieldworkers an equivalent data gathering into forms of InspIS directly in schools, at home etc. – even without connection to the internal CSI ‐ net and the central database of InspIS. After reconnection the offline data synchronize with this database without any difficulties. INSPIS WEB INTERFACE It allows the general public to browse Inspection Reports of any school. INSPIS CAPACITY The database contains: 250,000 actions 3,000,000 indicators 100,000 document attachments The evaluation speed is 30,000 forms per minute
36
8.3
EXAMINATIONS
The CSI does not participate in the organisation of examinations nor does it have any influence on the examination content. What it does is a check on the examination process in secondary schools i.e. at final and school‐ leaving exams. A check on the examination process may also be a part of an overall school inspection. In individual cases, a request for reconsideration of an examination result is addressed to the regional authority (students or their parents may appeal against the examination results within 3 days). The inspectorate may be asked to carry on an ex post inquiry then. In case of retake or correction of the examination when a student has failed in a certain grade, the Inspectorate may be asked for supervision. With every inspection the school’s admittance procedure with respect to equal opportunities and adherence to binding regulations is a subject to review.
8.4
HANDLING COMPLAINTS
From the first January 2005 on the Education Act authorised the CSI to carry out inspections on the basis of delivered negative information, complaints and petitions if their content is within the scope of the CSI competence. The CSI is also empowered to review individual statements and the results of such reviews are submitted to the founder of the relevant school for further investigation. The complaints about school employees, the subject of which is usually the professional and pedagogical level of education and provision of school services, are submitted for further examination to head teachers. Simultaneously, the relevant head teacher is required to send a copy of a document to the CSI on the matter of settlement of the respective complaint. After receiving such a copy the CSI further considers whether there are reasons to launch a further inspection. The complaints which are by their nature within the competence of founders will be delivered to them. Also in this case the CSI requires a copy, but for its information only. The complaints which are not within the competence of the CSI shall be sent to a relevant authority and at the same time the CSI will inform the complainant thereof. Most of the complaints are submitted by parents, rarely by students. Most complaints have to do with inadequacies in communication between the school and the legitimate representatives of children and pupils; dissatisfaction with the level and content of education and with the evaluation and classification of the pupil’s study or behavioural results; and children’s and pupils’ safety. Complaints submitted by teachers usually concern labour‐law matters. Such complaints are, pursuant to the Labour Act, further submitted by the CSI to the Labour inspectorate. The CSI receives more than 300 complaints every year.
8.5
FINANCIAL OR STAFF MANAGEMENT OF SCHOOLS OR DISTRICTS
The system of school financing from the state budget is determined by the Education Act, the staffing falls within the competence of head teachers. In general, the Inspectorate has no influence on these issues.
37
The Inspectorate does perform a public‐legal audit in schools which focuses on the use of funds allocated from the state budget (see 4.1 – 4.5). In case of private schools, the Inspection Report’s outcome may affect provision of subsidies from the state budget (see 4.6).
9.
RISK – BASED EVALUATION
The Czech inspection system is based on overall periodical evaluation of schools. At present there is no intention to develop a system of risk – based inspections.
10. REPORTS OF INSPECTORS 10.1 KINDS OF REPORTS INSPECTION REPORT As stated by law, an Inspection Report shall contain the evaluation of the conditions, course and results of education along with the names, surnames and signatures of school inspectors, auditors and invited persons. The content of any Inspection Report shall be discussed by school inspectors and auditors with the relevant head teacher of the school or director of the school facility. The head teacher of the school or director of the school facility shall confirm by his/her signature that the Report has been discussed and received (for further procedures relating the Inspection Report, see 4.3 above). The Inspection Report, including the comments, shall be public and shall be kept for a period of ten years in the school/school facility concerned and in the relevant office of the CSI. PROTOCOL The Protocol is a result of both state checks that determine whether legal regulations relating to provision of education and school services are met and of a public‐legal audit focused on the use of funds allocated from the state budget. The Protocol shall contain a description of the audited person, the extent of the audit, a statement on the reasons for the audit, a list of documents and materials crucial for the findings, the findings, recommendations, a list of members of the audit team (for better understanding of the difference between Inspection Reports and Protocols, see 4.1 above, for further procedures and follow‐up see 4.3 above). The Protocol is sent to the audited person, and to the founder of the school. The Protocol is not public. THEMATIC REPORT The Inspectorate issues Thematic Reports on the basis of summarised findings resulting from the inspection relating to a particular subject and their analysis. The reports are divided into 4 main sections: 1. Basic information on the thematic survey (introduction, inspection aim and tasks, sample description, time schedule, planned outputs) 2. Theoretic and methodological starting points of the survey (problem specification, description of surveying methods and principles of evaluation, remarks on methodology)
38
3. Inspection findings (structured according to the aims and extent of the survey, including charts, tables, etc.) 4. Conclusions (overall evaluative conclusions, recommendations to decision‐makers) After being drawn up the Subject Report shall be published without undue delay (for more details about the Thematic Reports, see 6.1 – 6.5 above). ANNUAL REPORT The Annual Report of the CSI contains summarised findings on the current situation of education and the educational system resulting from the inspections carried out in the previous school year and shall be published annually every December. It is available in Czech and English. The Annual Report is submitted to the Minister of Education and to the Parliament.
10.2 TARGET AUDIENCES Inspection Reports: school management, school founder, parents, wide public Protocols: school management, school founder Thematic Reports, Annual Report: decision makers, wide public
10.3 CONFIDENTIAL OR PUBLIC All reports are public, with exception of the Protocols.
11. STRUCTURE, POSITION, STAFF AND BUDGET 11.1 STRUCTURE The CSI is divided into the headquarters in Prague and 14 Regional Inspectorates. The structure of the Inspectorate copies the regional structure of the Czech Republic.
39
The CSI’s Organisation Scheme Chief Schoo ol Inspector Internal Audit Unit Informatics, Intternal a and External Af ffairs Section Chief School In nspector Office e Department L Legal Unit Internal Relations Unit
ICT and d Analyticcs Departme ent
Inspection Se ection
Exterrnal Affaairs Departtment
Inspection Managementt Department
ICT U Unit
Inte ernationa l Afffairs Unit
Orrganizationa l Unit
Analyytical Un nit
Con nceptual Unit
Methodology and Education Unit
14 Regional Inspectoraates
Economics an nd Property Administratio on Section Hum man Resou urces Un nit Econo omic Administtration Departm ment Re egister and Adm ministration of Prroperty Unit Maiintenance and d Service Unit
E Economics Department Investment Unit Budget Administratio on Unit Accounting aand Economicc Information U Unit
11.2 PO OSITION The CSI is one of thee key institu utions of thee state adm ministration in education n. It falls within the bility of the M Ministry of E Education. responsib The Inspeectorate sub bmits its Ann nual Report,, the Yearly Report on m managementt of the orgaanisation and a pro oposal for th he budget fo or the follow wing calend dar year, thee Plan of Priincipal Assignments and the Evaluation E C Criteria to th he Minister of Educatio on. Furtherm more the Minister of Education appoints and dismisses the Chief School In nspector. Exxcept for th hese duties, the Inspectorate is fully independent in carrying outt its tasks. pector is a m member of th he Governin ng Board of the Ministryy and particcipates in The Chieff School Insp its weekly y meetings.
11.3 ST TAFF AND D BUDGET T In July 20 009 the CSI h has 518 emp ployees, outt of whom 26 68 are schoo ol inspectorrs and 95 aree control workers ((auditors). In 2009 th he annual budget amou unts to 302 3 347 000 CZK K, which is 0 0.22% of the total budgget of the Ministry.
40
12. RECRUITMENT AND TRAINING OF INSPECTORS 12.1 GENERAL REMARKS In the area of recruitment the CSI focuses on erudite applicants with a broad scope of knowledge, good familiarity with the Czech school system and positive willingness to participate in its qualitative transformation. The applicant should demonstrate good communication skills, ICT knowledge, and willingness for further education and continuous improvement in qualification. The post of the school inspector does not represent the peak of career advancement of pedagogical staff: the inspectors and inspectional staff are, in contrast to teaching staff, state employees. The pedagogical or pedagogic‐psychological work experience of at least five years and a university degree are the basic preconditions stipulated by the law. Other conditions required for the position of school inspector are stipulated by special legal regulations. Such conditions include: the Czech Republic citizenship, full legal capacity, a screening certificate (this certificate is given according to the Act No. 451/1991, Coll. to proof that the person in the period from 25th February 1948 to 17th November 1989 did not collaborate with the State Security Service), integrity, health capability and possession of a driving license due to the mobility need.
12.2 RECRUITMENT CONDITIONS The school inspectors and inspectional staff are recruited on the basis of successful completion of selection procedures. Qualifications for holding such positions are tested during the procedures. The applicants are to send an essay in a written form on the topic My work at the Czech School Inspectorate together with the work application. The knowledge of ICT may be checked during the recruitment process and the applicants may undergo psychological interviews/tests.
12.3 TRAINING New school inspectors have to undergo an induction training, which is centrally organized in a form of a three‐day course. The lecturers are CSI experts. Guided work experience, which lasts three months and is completed with an evaluation of the new employees, follows the induction training.
12.4 IN‐SERVICE TRAINING The education of the new school inspectors and inspectional staff is part of the complex concept of educating the employees of the CSI that is approved by the Chief School Inspector. In addition to the induction training, other forms of training are organised. The focus of such training has been determined in accordance with the analysis of training needs and it covers for example language and management courses. The documents, that show that the applicant has completed any of such training courses, are kept in the CSI employees’ personal files.
41
13. EVALUATION OF THE INSPECTORATE 13.1 INTERNAL The CSI uses systematically an internal audit (the audit of compliance and processes) in all areas of its activity and also performs a risk analysis. The outcomes of the audit findings are discussed on scheduled days at meetings of the CSI management; decisions based on such outcomes are made to enhance the quality of other activities of the organisation. One of the basic elements used for internal evaluation is the work assessment of individual employees. It consists of a combination of internal and external evaluation, which is carried out collectively both by the employee and his/her immediate superior on an annual basis. The outcome of the evaluation is an assessment form which evaluates the up‐to‐date work activity of the employee on a scale (levels 1‐5). The communication between the CSI headquarters and individual inspectorates in regions is direct and constructive. In view of the fact that the responsibility for the in‐house inspection activity rests with the managers of individual inspectorates, the authority over the evaluation of inspectors and supervisory employees is delegated to these managers as well. They are immediate superiors to the inspectors and supervisory employees. The CSI headquarters assesses individual outcomes of the inspection and control activities. However, the direct responsibility for the quality of Inspection Reports and documents rests with the managers of inspectorates. As concerns the internal evaluation the information system InspIS is used intensively: it enables to monitor the planning of the in‐house inspection activities in all inspectorates, the real state of personnel in the inspection teams, the current workload of individual inspectorates and inspectional employees, as well as the data gathering of Inspection Reports and documents carried out in the real time. One of the important forms of assessing the elaborated methodical procedures, criteria and individual forms is the method of a pilot study. It is carried out within a set sample of schools/school facilities in the area of preparation for the theme‐based inspection assessment.
13.2 EXTERNAL The activities of the CSI are assessed by the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (MEYS) in accordance with the regulations stipulated in the School Act, the Plan of Main Goals (PMG) of the MEYS and the CSI, and on the basis of other specific requirements of the MEYS under the set terms and conditions. The subjects of evaluation are specific outputs of the CSI in the form of Annual Reports, Thematic Reports and other documents. The Annual Report of the CSI for the relevant school year is regularly submitted to the Minister of Education, Youth and Sports in November. Being a detailed summary of the collected data it is a solid basis for judgment about the Inspectorate’s work. Moreover, Thematic Reports are submitted to the MEYS (for more information on these 2 types of reports, see chapters 6, 7.2 and 10.1 above). Finally, the MEYS observes and evaluates the fulfilment of additional and operative tasks assigned to the CSI beyond the framework of the PMG. Fulfilling of such tasks results from the 42
responsibilities of the CSI as an organisational body of the state established by the law and administered directly by the MEYS. The operative assessment of the CSI activity is guaranteed by the direct participation of the Chief School Inspector at meetings of the MEYS executives or by direct participation of the CSI management members in other bodies of the MEYS. The CSI, as an organisational body of the state in the educational area administered by the MEYS, is subjected to the control of the Supreme Audit Office, Ministry of Finance and other bodies of the public administration. The CSI belongs to the bodies that have to publish their Annual Reports on their activities in the area of providing information for the previous calendar year until March, 1st of the following year at the latest. The CSI also submits its Annual Report to relevant subcommittees of the Parliament and the Senate of the Czech Republic. The CSI informs these institutions by other means, such as by sending written information, personal participation at meetings of the parliamentary bodies and by inviting the members of parliament to the CSI events. The CSI co‐operates with all regional offices and it evaluates this co‐operation on a regular basis. It aims to provide efficient performance of the public administration and mutual exchange of findings and experience. The content of contracts is specific for each region and results primarily from the nature of individual co‐operation activities. Furthermore, regular and extra meetings take place in order to foster exchange of experience and evaluation; series of current issues are discussed during mutual participation at trainings, seminars and discussions organised by one of the sides of the relevant contract. Under the terms of the contracts, the CSI co‐operates with administrative bodies and other organisations active in the field of education as well as with the Czech ‐ Moravian Trade Union of Workers in Education. In individual cases, the manager of a school/school facility may comment on the CSI inspection activity in a form of raising objections to an Inspection Report or a document. In that case, the inspection subsequently reviews such objections and replies to the managers whether the objections were ill‐ or well‐founded. Also other subjects such as parents and relevant institutions may raise individual questions and objections regarding the CSI activity. The CSI was one of eight founding members of the Standing International Conference of Inspectorates in 1995.
13.3 CONSEQUENCES The headquarters of the CSI and individual inspectorates derive their decisions, which aim at improving the quality of the CSI activity, on grounds of specific outcomes of particular elements of internal and external evaluation.
43
14. DEVELOPMENTS, PROSPECTS 14.1 DEVELOPMENTS Reform of the Czech education system is in progress, along with a change in the content of education (curricular reform). In reaction to this, the Inspectorate has acquired significantly different competencies then those it had before (see 3.1 above). For the inspection process, the introduction of the SEP and of school self‐evaluation as a part of the internal control system, were the crucial points which caused a change in methods of evaluation. A new evaluation framework has been developed as an instrument for checking the compliance of the SEP elaborated by the school with the FEP, provided by the law. External factors significant for the inspectorates’ development have been the following: the recent reform of territorial and state administration, and the entry of the Czech Republic into the EU.
14.2 PROSPECTS The main current conceptual goals are: • • • • • • • • •
• •
further development of feed‐back methods designed for the Czech education system further development of the methodology and of evaluative tools for the external evaluation of schools modifications in the inspection process in order to support the self‐evaluation of schools support of the school reform further education of the CSI employees further development of the CSI information system orientation towards a more “open institution” development of the communication strategy of the Inspectorate to ensure dissemination of information to the general public based on the previous experience, tailoring the form of inspection outputs more effectively to the needs of state administration and regional authorities, providing more information to all stakeholders in education intense international co‐operation within the EU, peer learning active work in the Standing International Conference of Inspectorates
44
15. INFORMATION: WEBSITE, LIAISON – CONTACT, LINKS. www.csicr.cz – the Czech School Inspectorate (CSI) www.msmt.cz – the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic (MEYS) Contact: a.
Mrs. Olga Hofmannová, Chief School Inspector
Address: Česká školní inspekce; Fráni Šrámka 37; 150 21 Prague 5, Czech Republic Phone: +420 251 023 100; Fax: +420 251 023 650 E‐mail:
[email protected] b.
Petr Drábek, Regional Director
Address:
Česká školní inspekce; U Staré sladovny; 280 01 Nymburk, Czech Republic
Česká školní inspekce, Arabská 683, 160 66 Praha 6, Czech Republic
Phone, fax: +420 325 514 654; Mobile: +420 606 452 964 E‐mail:
[email protected]
45
16. REFERENCES Act No. 561/2004 Coll., on Pre‐school, Basic, Secondary, Tertiary Professional and Other Education (the Education Act) Administrative Procedure Code (Act No. 500/2004 Coll.) Act No. 552/1991 Coll., on State Control Financial Control Act (No. 320/2001 Coll.), on Financial Control in Public Administration The Decree No. 17/2005 on Detailed Conditions of Organization of the CSI and of the Inspection Activity Performance Act No. 218/2002 Coll., on the Service of Civil Servants in Administrative Authorities and on Compensation of such Civil Servants in Administrative Authorities (the Act on Civil Service) Act No. 306/1999 Coll., on Providing Subsidies to Private Schools, Pre‐School and School Facilities, as amended Decree No.15/2005 Coll., on terms of long‐term objectives, Annual Reports and school self‐ evaluation CSI Organization Rules Internal Rules of Inspectorates CSI Employees Education Rules Annual Reports of the Czech School Inspectorate CSI database – InspIS Statistical yearbooks on education 2005‐2007, Institute for Information on Education The Education System of the Czech Republic; Institute for Information on Education, Pedagogical Research Institute Prague, Eurydice, CZ; 2006 The Education System of the Czech Republic; Institute for Information on Education, Eurydice, 2008
46
