Content uploaded by Martin Brown
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Martin Brown on Oct 31, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
The Enactment of Parent and Student Voice
in School Evaluation - Cases Across European Frontiers
Distributed Evaluation and Planning in Schools (DEAPS)
International Symposium: 22 October 2020 10.00 AM – 4.00 P
M
Location: School of Education, Polytechnic Institute of
Viseu,
Portugal and online
2
Distributed Evaluation and Planning in Schools (DEAPS) is a European Commission funded project that
commenced in September 2017 and concludes in October 2020. Funding for the project was obtained via the
Erasmus+ Key Action funding Scheme - Cooperation for innovation and the exchange of good practices -
Strategic Partnerships for school education.
Project Reference number: 2017-1-IE01-KA201-025693
Acknowledgements
•
Dr. Maria Figueiredo and colleagues from Polytechnic Institute of Viseu for organising and hosting
the Multiplier event
•
The European Commission for funding the DEAPS project under the Erasmus+ Key Action funding
Scheme - Cooperation for innovation and the exchange of good practices (Strategic Partnerships for
school education)
•
Deirdre O'Brien and colleagues at Léargas Ireland for providing advice and support throughout the
duration of the project
•
Dr Patrick Shevlin and colleagues from the EQI Shaped Professional Learning Network cluster -
Northern Ireland for advice and support on the development of professional development
methodologies used on outputs derived from the research
•
Staff at DCU Research Support
•
Colleagues at the School of Policy and Practice at DCU Institute of Education for support and advice
on the research during the last three years
•
The many school Principals, Teachers and Students in Belgium (Flanders), Ireland, Portugal, and
Turkey, who participated in the research
CONFERENCE PROGRAMME
School of Education, Viseu, Portugal
Online webinar
10.00 – 10.45
Master of Ceremonies
Dr. Maria Figueiredo - Polytechnic of Viseu, Portugal
Welcome Address
Professor João Pedro Monney Paiva, President of the Polytechnic of Viseu, Portugal.
Dr. João Paulo Balula - President of the School of Education, Polytechnic Institute of Viseu, Portugal
Exploring Distributed Evaluation in Schools - A European Perspective
Dr. Martin Brown, DEAPS Project Co-Ordinator, EQI, School of Policy and Practice DCU Institute of Education,
Ireland
10.45 - 11.30
The enactment of policy instruments for the inclusion of parent and student voice in School Evaluation
Presenting: Dr. Sakir Cınkır & Dr. Gul Kurum - Ankara University, Turkey
Understanding Parent and Student Voice in four European Countries: Cases from Belgium (Flanders), Ireland,
Portugal and Turkey
Presenting: Craig Skerritt - EQI, School of Policy and Practice DCU Institute of Education, Ireland
11.30
–
11.45
Break
11.45 – 12.30
What factors promote the inclusion of parent and student voice in School Evaluation? Insights from Belgium,
Ireland and Portugal
Presenting: Dr. Jerich Faddar & Dr. Jan Vanhoof - University of Antwerp, Belgium (Flanders)
Towards clarity on Distributed Evaluation and Planning in Schools - A conceptual framework
Presenting: Susana Amante & Dr. Maria Figueiredo, Polytechnic Institute of Viseu, Portugal
12.30
–
12.45
Questions and Answers from the audience to the DEAPS team
Valter Alves, Susana Amante, Martin Brown, Şakir Çinkir, Jerich Fadar, Maria Figueiredo, Helena Gomes, Gul
Kurum, Ana Patrícia Martins, Gerry McNamara, Shivaun O’Brien, Joe O’Hara, Henrique Ramalho, João Rocha,
Craig Skerritt, Jan Vanhoof
12.45
–
13.00
Closing and moving forward
Dr. Martin Brown - EQI, School of Policy and Practice, DCU Institute of Education, Ireland
13.00
–
14.30
Break
14.30 – 15.30 – Practitioner Workshops
A toolkit to enhance Distributed Evaluation and Planning in Schools
Sarah Gardezi and Dr. Martin Brown - EQI, DCU Institute of Education, Ireland
A training module for Distributed Evaluation and Planning in Schools
Dr. Jerich Faddar & Dr. Jan Vanhoof - University of Antwerp, Belgium (Flanders)
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary
Exploring Distributed Evaluation in Schools - A European Perspective
2
Speakers and DEAPS Team Members Biographies
4
Abstracts
The enactment of policy instruments for the inclusion of parent and student voice in
School Evaluation 12
Understanding Parent and Student Voice in four European Countries
Cases from Belgium (Flanders), Ireland, Portugal and Turkey 13
What factors promote the inclusion of parent and student voice in School Evaluation?
Insights from Belgium, Ireland and Portugal 14
Towards clarity on Distributed Evaluation and Planning in Schools
A conceptual framework Introduction 14
A training module for Distributed Evaluation and Planning in Schools 15
A toolkit to enhance Distributed Evaluation and Planning in Schools 17
Bibliography 20
2
Executive Summary
2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
3
The core outputs for DEAPS (available on the multilingual project sites: deaps.net; deapsbe.net; deapspt.net ;
deapstr.net include the following:
•
A synthesis of literature relating to DEAPS across Evaluation regimes
•
The outcomes of the school surveys
•
The outcomes of the school case studies
•
The theoretical framework for practice
•
A toolkit and Online course to provide strategies for educators to implement DEAPS
•
A practitioner training module that can be used by educators to implement DEAPS
This symposium provides a summary of the outputs of the project.
The first paper presented by Dr. Sakir Cınkır & Dr. Gul Kurum (Ankara University - Turkey) and titled The
enactment of policy instruments for the inclusion of parent and student voice in School Evaluation is based on
a systematic literature review of international literature on DEAP Strategies in Schools.
The second paper presented by Craig Skerritt (EQI- Dublin City University - Ireland) titled Understanding Parent
and Student Voice in four European Countries: Cases From Belgium (Flanders), Ireland, Portugal and Turkey
reports on the research derived from case studies of DEAPS practices in the four countries.
Leading on from this, the penultimate paper presented by Drs Jerich Faddar and Jan Vanhoof (University
of Antwerp – Belgium Flanders) titled What factors promote the inclusion of parent and student voice in School
Evaluation? Insights from Belgium, Ireland, Portugal and Turkey shares the findings of the surveys of school
personnel in the four partner countries. The findings refer to DEAP policies, professional development
opportunities, practices, and challenges for schools in implementing DEAPS.
The final paper presented by Susana Amante & Dr Maria Figueiredo entitled Towards clarity on Distributed
Evaluation and Planning in Schools - A conceptual framework summarises the theoretical basis and findings
derived from the project.
The research element of the project is then followed by two short practitioners’ workshops. Drs Jerich Faddar
and Jan Vanhoof - University of Antwerp, Belgium (Flanders) will conduct an introductory workshop relating
to a practitioner training module derived from DEAPS. This will be followed by Sarah Gardezi (Dublin City and
Dr. Martin Brown (EQI- Dublin City University – Ireland) who will introduce the core component parts of the
DEAPS toolkit and how it can be used to support Schools.
Martin Brown, DEAPS Project Coordinator
EQI, School of Policy and Practice, DCU Institute of Education, Ireland
4
Speakers and DEAPS
Team Members
Biographies
4
Maria P. Figueiredo in an Associate Professor of Educational Sciences, Childhood
Education, at the School of Education of the Polytechnic of Viseu, and Researcher at the
CI&DEI/IPV. She holds a PhD in Education, and a Masters Degree in Educational Projects.
Maria has been Secretary-General of the European Educational Research Association since
2016. She is Vice-President of the Portuguese Society of Educational Sciences and Pro-
President for Pedagogical Innovation at the Polytechnic of Viseu.
Her work is developed primarily in Early Childhood and Primary School Teacher Education
and Social Pedagogy. She has researched participatory pedagogies in Early Childhood
Education with a strong focus on Children's Rights and family involvement.
Selected recent publications
Figueiredo, M.P., Menezes, L., Gomes, H., Martins, A., Ribeiro, A. Marchese, M., & Soares, I. (2021). It’s a lot of work: A
tailor’s measuring tape in the dollhouse IN: Mathematics In: Thiel, O., Severina, E., Perry, B. (eds.) Early Childhood: Research,
Reflexive Practice and Innovative Pedagogy. London: Routledge.
Brown, M.; McNamara, G.; Cinqir, S.; Faddar, J.; Figueiredo, M.P.; vanhoof, J.; O'Hara, J.; Skerritt, C.; O'Brien, S.; Kurum, G.;
Ramalho, H.; Rocha, J. (2020) 'Exploring parent and student engagement in School Self Evaluation in four European
Countries'. European Educational Research Journal. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904120961203
Brown, M., McNamara, G., O’Brien, S., Skerritt, C., O’Hara, J., Faddar, J., Cinqir, S., Vanhoof, J., Figueiredo, M., Kurum,
G. (2020) 'Parent and student voice in evaluation and planning in schools'. Improving Schools. Doi: https://doi-
org.dcu.idm.oclc.org/10.1177/1365480219895167
Figueiredo, M. P., Gomes, H., & Rodrigues, C. (2018). Mathematical pedagogical content knowledge in Early Childhood
Education: tales from the ‘great unknown ‘in teacher education in Portugal. European Early Childhood Education Research
Journal, 26(4), 535-546. Doi: https://doi-org.dcu.idm.oclc.org/10.1080/1350293X.2018.1487164
Martin Brown project coordinator for the DEAPS project and principal investigator for the
DEAPS Ireland team, is research director at EQI – The Centre for Evaluation, Quality and
Inspection based at DCU, Institute of Education, Ireland. He is an adjunct faculty member
of the Centre for Culturally Responsive Evaluation and Assessment at the University of
Illinois, Urbana Champaign. He gained his PhD in Educational Evaluation and comparative
Education Studies and his Master’s degree from DCU and is the recipient of the: John
Coolahan SCOTENS award for research into Teacher Education, North and
South; President of DCU Research Impact and Distinctive Approa ches to
Teaching awards (2020) .
He is an advisor to the Teaching Council of Ireland, and the European Commission and is presently the project
coordinator and principal investigator for the following funded research projects: Erasmus+ Intercultural Community
Evaluation and Planning in Schools (ICCEP); Erasmus+ Culturally Responsive Leadership in Schools (CRELIS); Sharing the
impact of shaped professional learning networks in challenging times.
Selected recent publications
Brown M.;McNamara G.;O’Hara J.;Shevlin P. (2020) 'Polycentric inspection: A catalyst for sparking positive interactions in
educational networks'. Evaluation, 26 (1):76-97. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389019895031
Brown, M.; McNamara, G.; O’Brien, S.; Skerritt, C.;O’Hara, J. (2020) 'Policy and Practice: Including Parents and Students
in School Self-Evaluation'. Irish Educational Studies . doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/03323315.2020.1814839
Herzog-Punzenberger B.;Altrichter H.;Brown M.;Burns D.;Nortvedt G.A.;Skedsmo G.;Wiese E.;Nayir F.;Fellner
M.;McNamara G.;O’Hara J. (2020) 'Teachers responding to cultural diversity: case studies on assessment practices,
challenges and experiences in secondary schools in Austria, Ireland, Norway and Turkey'. Educational Assessment,
Evaluation and Accountability. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-020-09332-w
Nortvedt, GA;Wiese, E;Brown, M;Burns, D;McNamara, G;O'Hara, J;Altrichter, H;Fellner, M;Herzog-Punzenberger, B;Nayir,
F;Taneri, PO (2020) Aiding culturally responsive assessment in schools in a globalising world'. Educational Assessment,
Evaluation and Accountability, 32 :5-27. doi: https://doi-org.dcu.idm.oclc.org/10.1007/s11092-020-09316-w
5
Sakir Cinkir project manager and contact person for the DEAPS project Turkey team. He
earned his PhD in 2001 from the School of Education, at Leeds University, through his
engagement with the MoNE-WB Project for the Development of National Education. He was
director of the Educational Research and Application Centre, at Ankara University, from
2006-2012, and since then, he has been instructing at its Faculty of Educational Sciences,
Department of Educational Administration and Policy. He has been teaching school
management, cross-cultural leadership, academic writing skills, management of human
resources in undergraduate and graduate levels.
Dr. Cinkir has also been a consultant for the MoNE, in a number of projects, including: (1)
Teacher qualifications in general as well as in special domains; (2) Inspectorate performance management; (3)
Development of teacher employment systems and strategies for MoNE. He is the co-author of the Turkish Education
System and School Management and the author of Restructuring Educational Organizations and Capacity Building: Cases
from EU countries. Dr. Cinkir has also published numerous articles in national and international journals in educational
sciences. He has also participated in numerous seminars hosted by public and private institutions. His major areas of study
are; Educational Management, Educational supervision, school management and school leadership, continuing,
professional development, restructuring and capacity building, cross-cultural leadership, teacher training and
development, performance management and performance evaluation.
Selected recent publications
Çınkır, Ş. (2020) Changing Educational Paradigms: New Methods, Directions, and Policies. London: Palgrave McMillan. doi:
10.14689/issn.2148-624.1.7c.4s.1m.
Çınkır, Ş. ve Yıldız, S. (2019). Student satisfaction at higher education institutions in Turkey: A case of faculty of education.
Egitimde Nitel Araştırmalar Dergisi – Journal of Qualitative Research in Education, 7(4), 1328-1344. doi:
10.14689/issn.2148-624.1.7c.4s.1m
Çınkır, Ş. (2019). İngiltere’de mevcut okul müdürleri ve müdür adaylarına verilen eğitim programlarının değerlendirilmesi
[Evaluation of Training Provision/Programs for Existing and Prospective School Headteachers in England]. Egitimde Nitel
Araştırmalar Dergisi – Journal of Qualitative Research in Education, 7(3), 1145-1173. Doi: 10.14689/issn.2148-
624.1.7c.3s.11m
Kurum, G. ve Çınkır, Ş. (2019). An Authentic Look at Evaluation in Education: A School SelfEvaluation1 Model Supporting
School Development. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 83 253-286. Doi: 10.14689/ejer.2019.83.12
Çınkır, Ş , Yıldız, S . (2018). Bir Bologna Değerlendirme Çalışması: Eğitim Yönetimi Lisansüstü Program Yeterliliklerine İlişkin
Kazanımların İncelenmesi. Yükseköğretim Dergisi , 8 (1) , 55-67 .
Gül Kurum is co-principal investigator for the DEAPS Turkey project team. Dr Kurum
earned her PhD from the School of Educational Sciences at Ankara University. In 2013, she
earned her MA degree from Trakya University’s Educational Sciences Department,
Educational Administration, Supervision, Planning and Economics program. Dr Kurum is
presently a post-doctoral researcher at the Faculty of Education, Department of
Educational Administration at Trakya University, Edirne-Turkey. She lectures across a
variety of modules such as school management, classroom management and comparative
education. Her research interests relate to school management, inspection, educational
leadership, school inspection and school self-evaluation.
Selected recent publications
Kurum, G. ve Çınkır, Ş. (2019). An Authentic Look at Evaluation in Education: A School SelfEvaluation Model Supporting
School Development. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 83 253-286. doi: 10.14689/ejer.2019.83.12
Brown, M., McNamara, G., O’Hara, J., Hood,S., Burns,D., and Kurum, G. (2019) 'Evaluating the impact of distributed
culturally responsive leadership in a disadvantaged rural primary school in Ireland'. Educational management and
administration (now emal), 47 (3):457-474. Doi: https://doi-org.dcu.idm.oclc.org/10.1177/1741143217739360
Erdemli, Ö., & Kurum, G. (2019). Ostracism at school from school administrators’ and teachers’ point of view: Causes and
results. Hacettepe University Journal of Education. doi: 10.16986/HUJE.2019051589
Kurum, G. (2018).
Kültürel çeşitlilik bağlamında ortaokullardaki vatandaşlık eğitimi uygulamalarına ilişkin okul
yöneticilerinin ve öğretmenlerin görüşleri. Prof. Dr. Emine AKYÜZ’e Armağan Akademisyenlikte 50 Yıl. (Edt. Y. Karaman
Kepenekçi ve P. Taşkın). Ankara: Pegem Akademi. ss. 677-689.
6
Craig Skerritt is policy and international programmes manager at the Royal Irish Academy
and a researcher at the Centre for Evaluation, Quality and Inspection, Dublin City University.
He has been involved in the Distributed Evaluation and Planning in Schools project since its
inception. His main research interest lies in education policy- particularly relating to the
relationship between autonomy and accountability in education, school evaluation and
inspection systems, and how teachers (re)construct their professional identities in response
to policy, inspections, and change. Craig is also the 2018 School of Policy and Practice PhD
Scholarship recipient at the School of Policy and Practice, Dublin City University Institute of
Education, receiving five years of funding for part-time PhD study. Craig’s doctoral work is
being supervised by Dr Martin Brown and Professor Joe O’Hara.
Selected recent publications
Skerritt, C. (2020) School autonomy and the surveillance of teachers, International Journal of Leadership in Education. Doi:
https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2020.1823486
Skerritt, C. and Salokangas, M., (2020) Patterns and paths towards privatisation in Ireland. Journal of Educational Administration
and History, 52(1), pp.84-99. Doi: https://doi-org.dcu.idm.oclc.org/10.1080/00220620.2019.1689104
O’Keeffe, S. and Skerritt, C. (2020) Exploring teacher identity using poststructural tools. International Journal of Research &
Method in Education, pp.1-14. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2020.1753691
Skerritt, C. (2020) Classes for lessons and classes for life: segregating students within schools, between schools, and after
school. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2020.1776512
Jerich Faddar is a postdoctoral researcher at the department of Training and Education
Sciences of the Faculty of Social Sciences at the University of Antwerp. He holds a Bachelor's
degree in Secondary Education (2008 - KHKempen), a Master's degree in Instructional and
Educational Sciences (2012 - University of Antwerp) and a PhD in Educational Sciences
(2018 – University of Antwerp).
His research interests are situated at the level of educational evaluation, school
effectiveness, school improvement, and quality assurance in general and school self-
evaluation in particular. His doctoral dissertation dealt with methodological issues and data
quality within the framework of data-use and school self-evaluation. Since 2012 he is a
research fellow of the Edubron research unit, and started as a project manager for the OECD TALIS (Teaching and Learning
International Survey) programme in Flanders (Belgium). Currently, he is National Research Coordinator for TIMSS 2019
(Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study) in Flanders. He is part of the co-ordinating team of the Special
Interest Group ‘Educational evaluation, improvement and accountability’ of the European Association for Research on
Learning and Instruction (EARLI), and board member of the Flemish Forum for Educational Research (VFO).
Selected recent publications
Faddar, J., Vanhoof, J., & De Maeyer, S. (2018) School self-evaluation: self-perception or self-deception? The impact of
motivation and socially desirable responding on self-evaluation results. School Effectiveness and School Improvement,
29(4), 660–678. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2018.1504802
Brown, M., McNamara, G., Ohara, J., O'Brien, S., Young, C., & Faddar, J. (2018) Integrated co-professional evaluation?
Converging approaches to school evaluation across frontiers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 43(12), 76–90. Doi:
https://doi.org/10.14221/AJTE.2018V43N12.6
Faddar, J., Vanhoof, J., & De Maeyer, S. (2017) Instruments for school self-evaluation: lost in translation: a study on
respondents' cognitive processing. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 29(4), 397–420. Doi:
https://doi.org/10.1007/S11092-017-9270-4
Faddar, J., Vanhoof, J., & De Maeyer, S. (2017) School self-evaluation instruments and cognitive validity: do items capture
what they intend to?. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 28(4), 608 –628. Doi:
https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2017.1360363
7
Jan Vanhoof is an associate professor on the staff of the Department of Training and
Education Sciences of the University of Antwerp (Faculty of Social Sciences). He is a
research fellow of the EduBROn research group. His current research activities focus on
school policy and quality care in general and on school self-evaluation and feedback use in
particular.
Selected recent publications
Verhelst, D., Vanhoof, J., Boeve-de Pauw, J. and Van Petegem, P., 2020. Building a conceptual framework for an ESD-
effective school organization. The Journal of Environmental Education, pp.1-16.
Doi: https://doi-org.dcu.idm.oclc.org/10.1080/00958964.2020.1797615
Van Gasse, R., Goffin, E., Vanhoof, J. and Van Petegem, P., 2020. For squad-members only! Why some teachers are more
popular to interact with than others in data use. Studies in Educational Evaluation
Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2020.100881
Quintelier, A., De Maeyer, S., & Vanhoof, J. (2020). The role of feedback acceptance and gaining awareness on teachers’
willingness to use inspection feedback. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 32(3), 311-333.
Doi: https://doi-org.dcu.idm.oclc.org/10.1007/s11092-020-09325-9
Van Gasse, R., Vanlommel, K., Vanhoof, J., & Van Petegem, P. (2020). Teacher interactions in taking action upon pupil
learning outcome data: A matter of attitude and self-efficacy?. Teaching and Teacher Education.
Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.102989
Susana Amante is an Invited Associate Professor of Portuguese and Foreign Languages
- English, at the School of Technology and Management of the Polytechnic of Viseu. She
holds a Master’s Degree (2006) and a PhD (2011) in English Philology.
Susana has evaluated textbooks (Portuguese and English) and related materials and she has
participated in research projects on Portuguese and on Foreign Language Teaching and
Learning.Her fields of interest range from Children’s Literature to Canadian Literature, EFL,
Gender Studies and Translation Studies.
Selected recent publications
Delpancq, V.; Amante, S.; Amaro Costa, C.; Costa Lopes, A.; Coutinho, E.; Fidalgo; S. Gillain, R.; Lopez, P.; Oliveira, I.; Pereira, J.;
Relvas, S.; Roush, P. (2020). Case Study of a Project-Based Learning Experience at the Polytechnic of Viseu, Portugal. Proceedings
of Edulearn20 Conference, pp. 800-806. ISBN: 978-84-09-17979-4.
Amante, S.; Delplancq, V.; Lopes, A.C. & Relvas, S. (2019). “Tradução e Re-IMAG[EM]Inação como Locus e Foco Central em The
Adventures of Tom Sawyer”. Revista de Estudos Anglo-Portugueses/Journal of Anglo-Portuguese Studies, 28, pp. 191- 227. ISSN:
0871-682X
Menezes, L. et al. (2019). Humour in Mathematics Teaching: Tasks for the Classroom (language revision: A. Costa & S. Amante).
Viseu: Litoprint and Higher School of Education of Viseu. ISBN: 978-989-54036-6-0.
Costa, A.M.; Oliveira, A.M.; Rego, B.; Fidalgo, S. Delplancq, V.; Amante, F. S. & Relvas, S. (2019). “Ensinar as línguas estrangeiras
no ensino superior na era digital: uma experiência de inovação pedagógica/Teaching Foreign Languages in Higher Education in
the Digital Age: An Account of Pedagogical Innovation”. In Millenium - Journal of Education, Technologies, and Health, 2 (ed.
espec. no. 4), pp. 75-80.
8
Sarah Gardezi is a senior researcher and Project Manager at EQI - The Centre for
Evaluation Quality and Inspection at Dublin City University. She received her Master’s in
Evaluation Theory and Practice from the University of Melbourne and completed her
M.Phil. in Beaconhouse National University with a thesis focused on the Influence of
gender representation in textbooks on learners’ perceptions of gender roles and choice of
profession. She was Head of the department of School Inspection and Quality Assurance,
in the City School Network in Pakistan. Prior to that role, she was Evaluation Associate
(Educational Services Private Limited, Pakistan), Associate Inspector (Dubai School
Inspection Bureau), researcher at Education Review Office, Wellington and Manager of
Academic Support in Educational Service Private Limited, Pakistan.
She has also worked as Head of Beaconhouse School System, Pakistan and has carried out research with the University
College London and the University of Cambridge to develop context specific school leaders and teachers’ CPD
programmes. She has vast experience of inspecting schools, developing inspection frameworks and school support
materials, managing school development endeavours, developing assessment materials, and developing, managing and
organising teachers and school leaders’ CDP. Her research interests include, social inclusion, culturally responsive
assessment, school evaluation, school improvement, school leadership, ESL and qualitative and quantitative research
methods.
Selected recent publications
Simeonova, R., Parvanova, Y., Brown, M., McNamara, G., Gardezi, S., O’Hara, J. del Castillo Blanco, L., Kechri, Z., and Beniata, E.
(2020). A Continuum of Approaches to School Inspections: Cases from Europe. Pedagogy, (4), 92.
Brown, M., Gardezi, S. Figueiredo, M., Cinqir, S., Faddar, J., Kurum, G., Vanhoof, J., McNamara, G., O'Hara, O'Brien, S. Skerritt,
C., Ramalho, H. and Rocha, J, (2020) A Toolkit to Enhance Distributed Evaluation and Planning in European Schools – EQI, Dublin.
EQI, Dublin
Brown, M., Castillo Blanco, L., Gardezi, S., Simeonova, R., Parvanova, Y., Ovadias, S., Martín Martín, A., Kechri, Z., Beniata,
E.,Sanz Miguel, A., Reyes Pastor, P.A., Guerrero Castro, I., Mostazo, T., Shevlin, P., McNamara, G. and O’Hara. J. (2020) Online
Course - Making Meaning of School Evaluation: Junta De Extremedura - Consejería de Educación, Spain: Multimedia
Castillo Blanco, L., Brown, M., Simeonova, R., Ovadias, S., Guerrero Castro, I., Parvanova, Y., Gardezi, S., Sanz Miguel, A., Martín
Martín, A., Reyes Pastor, P.A., Terán Mostazo, (2020) A User-Friendly Toolkit for School Self Evaluation and Improvement.
Helena Gomes Associate Professor of Mathematics at the School of Education of the
Polytechnic Institute of Viseu, in the Department of Exact and Natural Sciences. She holds a PhD
in Mathematics, a Masters’ Degree in Mathematics, having been initially trained as a
Mathematics teacher. She is a researcher at the Center for Research and Development of
Mathematics and Applications, University of Aveiro.
She has worked in initial and continuous teacher education for over 20 years. She has evaluated
textbooks and handbooks for Primary to Secondary Education. She has been involved in
research projects on Maths Education and on Robotics and Programming for Children.
Selected recent publications
Figueiredo, M. P., Gomes, H., & Rodrigues, C. (2018). Mathematical pedagogical content knowledge in Early Childhood
Education: tales from the ‘great unknown ‘in teacher education in Portugal. European Early Childhood Education Research
Journal, 26(4), 535-546. Doi: https://doi-org.dcu.idm.oclc.org/10.1080/1350293X.2018.1487164
Menezes, L., Gomes, H., Ribeiro, A., Martins, A. P., Flores, P., Viseu, F., Oliveira, A., Matos, I. A., Balula, J. P., & Delplancq, V.
(2018). Humor in mathematics teaching: tasks for the classroom. Viseu: ESE -IPV.
Andrade, E., Gomes, H., & Robbiano, M. (2017). Spectra and Randic spectra of caterpillar graphs and applications to the energy.
MATCH Communications in Mathematical and in Computer Chemistry, 77, 61-75.
Gomes, H. (2016). Upper bounds on the Laplacian Spread of Graphs. Linear Algebra Appl, 492, 26-37.
9
Gerry McNamara is Professor of Educational Evaluation at the School of Policy and
Practice, DCU Institute of Education and a Director of the Centre for Evaluation, Quality
and Inspection (EQI). From 1997-2007 he was Head of the School of Education Studies, DCU.
He founded and was course director of the Doctorate in Education, a taught doctoral
programme in the field of educational leadership and evaluation.
Gerry is a specialist in educational evaluation and has planned and led many major
evaluations at home and abroad, working for, among others, the Department of
Education and Science, the National Centre for Guidance in Education, Léargas, the
Equality Authority of Ireland, the European Commission, and the United Nations
Development Programme. Gerry is a recipient of the President of DCU Research award, was a member of the Teaching
Council of Ireland (2001/2002, 2004-2006), a co-founder of the Irish Evaluation Network, (2000) and was a member of the
Council of the British Educational Leadership, Management and Administration Society, (BELMAS) from 2008-2012.
Selected recent publications
Boyle, R., O'Hara, J., McNamara, G. and Brown, M. (2020) 'Ireland' In: Stockmann, R., Meyer, W. and Taube, L (eds). The
Institutionalisation of Evaluation in Europe. London: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32284-7_9
Nortvedt, GA;Wiese, E;Brown, M;Burns, D;McNamara, G;O'Hara, J;Altrichter, H;Fellner, M;Herzog-Punzenberger, B;Nayir,
F;Taneri, PO (2020) Aiding culturally responsive assessment in schools in a globalising world'. Educational Assessment,
Evaluation and Accountability, 32 :5-27. doi: https://doi-org.dcu.idm.oclc.org/10.1007/s11092-020-09316-w
Nayir, F., Brown, M., McNamara, G., Nortvedt, G., Burns, D., O'Hara, J. and Skedsmo, G. (2019) 'Assessment with and for
Migration Background Students-Cases from Europe'. Egitim Arastirmalari - Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, (79):39-68
doi: https://doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2019.79.3
Burns, D., Brown, M., O'Hara, J. and McNamara, G. (2019) 'Progressing culturally responsive assessment for higher education
institutions' In: Raphael Heaggans, Henry T. Frierson (eds). Diversity and Triumphs of Navigating the Terrain of Academe:
International Perspectives. US Open access: Emerald Publishing Limited. doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-
364420190000023006
Ana Patrícia Martins is Associate Professor of Mathematics at the School of Education
of the Polytechnic Institute of Viseu in the Department of Exact and Natural Sciences. She
holds a PhD in History and Philosophy of Sciences and a Masters Degree in Mathematics
Teaching. She has been a Member of the General Council of the National Seminar of
History of Mathematics, since 2013 and a researcher at the CI&DEI, at the Interuniversity
Center for the History of Science and Technology and at the Naval Research Center.
Selected recent publications
Menezes, L., Gomes, H., Ribeiro, A., Martins, A. P., Flores, P., Viseu, F., Oliveira, A., Matos, I. A., Balula, J. P., & Delplancq, V.
(2018). Humor in mathematics teaching: tasks for the classroom. Viseu: ESE -IPV.
Menezes, L., Ribeiro, A., Gomes, H., Martins, A. P., Oliveira, A. M., Delplancq, V., Matos, I. A., Balula, J. P., Viseu,
Martins, A. P. (2018). Seguros e Finanças – revista pioneira na divulgação e promoção do seguro Vida”. Boletim da Sociedade
Portuguesa de Matemática, 76, 137-139.
Martins, A. P. (2018). “ubsídios para uma tábua portuguesa de mortalidade – o contributo de Daniel Augusto da Silva.
Boletim da Sociedade Portuguesa de Matemática, 76, 187-189.
Martins, A. P. (2018). Curta passagem de Luciano Pereira da Silva pelo actuariado português. In. A. Canas, J. Domingues, &
L. Saraiva (eds.), Actas/Anais do 7.º Encontro Luso-Brasileiro de História da Matemática (pp. 45-48). Lisboa: Sociedade
Portuguesa de Matemática.
10
Shivaun O’Brien is Director of School Placement for the B.Sc in Science Education, B.Sc.
in PE with Biology, B.Sc. in PE with Maths and the Professional Master of Education (post-
primary). Dr. O'Brien lectures on a range of programmes including: the Doctor of Education,
Professional Master of Education, B.Sc. in Science Education, B.Sc in PE and Biology.
She is a senior researcher in the Centre for Evaluation, Quality and Inspection (EQI) and has
expertise in the areas of quality assurance, SSE, school improvement, student participation,
data use in schools and continuing professional development. She manages a number of
research projects relating to her areas of expertise, as part of her work with the EQI. In
2015, she established the DCU Partnership for Learning Programme, which involves the
coordination and provision of a wide range of certified and evidence based, CPD opportunities for teachers in DCU
Cooperating Schools.
Selected recent publications
O’Brien, S., McNamara, G., O’Hara, J. and Brown, M. (2020) Learning by doing: evaluating the key features of a professional
development intervention for teachers in data-use, as part of a whole school self-evaluation process. Professional
Development in Education. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2020.1720778
O'Brien, S., McNamara, G., O'Hara, J. and Brown, M. (2019) Irish teachers, starting on a journey of data use for school self-
evaluation, Studies in Educational Evaluation, 60, pp.1-13. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2018.11.001
Brown, M., McNamara, G., O’Brien, S., Skerritt, C., O’Hara, J., Faddar, J., Cinqir, S., Vanhoof, J., Figueiredo, M., Kurum,
G. (2019) 'Parent and student voice in evaluation and planning in schools'. Improving Schools. doi: https://doi-
org.dcu.idm.oclc.org/10.1177/1365480219895167
O'Brien, S., McNamara, G., O’ Hara, J., and Brown, M. (2017) External specialist support for school self-evaluation: testing
a model of support in Irish post-primary schools, Evaluation: International Journal of Theory, Research and Practices, 23
(1), pp. 61-79. doi: https://doi-org.dcu.idm.oclc.org/10.1177/1356389016684248
Joe O’Hara is the Inaugural Full Professor of Education and a member of the School of
Policy and Practice in the DCU Institute of Education. He is a Director of EQI - The Centre
for Evaluation, Quality and Inspection and a member of the Centre for Culturally
Responsive Evaluation and Assessment at the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign.
Joe O'Hara is a Past President of the Educational Studies Association of Ireland was a
member of the Teaching Council of Ireland from 2012-2016. He was a member of the
Board of Directors of the Association for Personal Services Overseas (APSO) from 2002-
2004 and represented Ireland on the Council of the European Educational Research
Association from 2008 to 2013. Joe O'Hara was Head of the School of Education Studies,
DCU from 2010 to 2016. He is a Director and Founding Member of the Irish Evaluation
Network and a member of the Board of the Centre for Talented Youth, Ireland. He has worked as an evaluator and
consultant for a variety of national and international bodies including Irish Aid, the UNDP, the International Aid Network
and the EC TAIEX Programme. Joe is President of the European Educational Research Association.
Selected recent publications
O'Hara, J., Brown, M., McNamara, G. and Shevlin, P. (2020) The Potential, Limitations and Evaluation of Education Networks in
a Monocentric System. Educational Research, 38 (1):33-52. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.6018/rie.397201
Boyle, R., O'Hara, J., McNamara, G. and Brown, M. (2020) 'Ireland' In Stockmann, R., Meyer, W. and Taube, L (eds). The
Institutionalisation of Evaluation in Europe. London: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32284-7_9
Burns, D., Devitt, A., McNamara, G., O’Hara, J
.
& Brown, M
.
(2018)
.
Is it all memory recall? An empirical investigation of
intellectual skill requirements in Leaving Certificate examination papers in Ireland
.
Irish Educational Studies, 37 (3), pp.
351-372. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/03323315.2018.1484300
Young, C., McNamara, G., Brown, M. & O'Hara, J.
(2018)
Adopting and adapting school leaders in the age of data-
informed decision making
.
Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-
018-9278-4
11
Henrique Ramalho Associate Professor at the School of Education of the Polytechnic of
Viseu and Researcher of the CI&DEI. He has a PhD in Education with a specialisation in
Administration and School Organization and a Masters Degree in Educational Sciences,
specialising in Sociology and Educational Policies.
He has developed studies and research in the field of sociology and educational policies,
educational assessment, and school organization and administration. He is an expert on the
General Inspection of Education, of the Portuguese Ministry of Education, in the scope of
external evaluation of primary and secondary schools. He has also participated in a number
of European projects such as WBEE - Web-Based e-inspection and e-performance (2012).
João Rocha Associate Professor at the School of Education and an integrated member of
the Center for Studies in Education and Innovation (CI&DEI). He holds a PhD in Education,
specialising in Supervision and Evaluation, and a Master's Degree in Administration and
Planning of Education. His works and research relate to that of teacher training, namely in
what concerns didactics, supervision and evaluation. He is an Institutional Evaluator -
Evaluation Expert (External Evaluator of Education Institutions of Pre-School and Basic and
Secondary Education). He carries out work in cooperation with the General Inspection of
Education and Science (IGEC) and Is involved in the Distributed Evaluation and Planning in
Schools (DEAPS) project since 2017. He is the coordinator of the disciplinary area of
Educational Sciences in the School of Education.
He is also a researcher in the project "New Approaches in Inspection: A Polycentric Model", under the Erasmus + KA2 -
Cooperation for Innovation and the Exchange of Good Practices / KA201 - Strategic Partnerships for School Education. He
is Project Coordinator for “Supervision, support and regulation of the teaching-learning process: an analysis of
pedagogical and didactic practices in the classroom context”, under CI&DETS.
Selected recent publications
Abreu, A., Cardoso, A. P., & Rocha, J. (2019). Teachers’ perception of the head of department’s performance and of pedagogical
supervision. Millenium, 2(ed. espec. n.º 3), 47-59.
Rocha, J. (2019). Formação Inicial de Professores: um modelo emergente de supervisão. In J. Pinhal, C. Cavaco, M.ª J. Cardona,
F. Costa, J. Marques, & A. R. Faria (Orgs.) (2019). A investigação, a formação, as políticas e as práticas em educação – 30 anos
de AFIRSE em Portugal. Atas do XXV Colóquio da AFIRSE Portugal (pp. 1262-1273). Lisboa: AFIRSE Portugal e Instituto de
Educação da Universidade de Lisboa.
Ramalho, H., Lacerda, C., & Rocha, J. (2018). O projeto educativo dos agrupamentos: entre a feição de instrumento de gestão
curricular e a de um mecanismo de regulação centroperiférica - proposta de um modelo de análise. Livro de Atas do VIII Simpósio
de Organização e Gestão Escolar: Rede escolar (re)configurações, tensões e desafios (pp. 153-176). Aveiro, Portugal:
Universidade de Aveiro.
Rocha, J. (2018). O papel da supervisão pedagógica na formação de professores do 1.º CEB. In R. P. Lopes, M. V. Pires, M. L.
Castanheira, E. M. Silva, G. Santos, C. Mesquita, & P. Vaz (Eds.), Livro de atas do III Encontro Internacional de Formação na
Docência (INCTE 2018) (pp.708-715). Bragança, Portugal: Instituto Politécnico de Bragança.
12
Abstracts
12
The Enactment of Policy Instruments for The Inclusion of Parent and Student Voice
in School Evaluation
School self-evaluation (SSE) is a common practice in many European countries and beyond. Often combined with a
system of school inspection, SSE has become an influential tool for school improvement (Brown et al. 2017; Vanhoof
et al, 2007;2011). Although it is emphasized in policy documents underpinning nearly every inspection/SSE regime
that stakeholders should be granted an active role in SSE; in practice, key actors such as parents and students can
have varying degrees of participation. The level of participation depends to a certain extent on the availability of
government policies and supports to enhance the role of parents and students in both the SSE process and in follow
up collaborative planning and decision making.
The purpose of this study was to provide a document analysis of the policy implementation strategies and supports
for the integration of parent and student voice among partner countries (Belgium (Flanders), Ireland, Portugal and
Turkey). Findings suggest that Ireland and Portugal have concrete SSE policies and practice concerning DEAPS. In
the case of Belgium, it is left to individual schools to decide how they include stakeholders. Finally, in the case of
Turkey, student and parent engagement is not mentioned in legislation and opinions are usually sought concerning
school development and improvement activities, the work of the school principals (Tüzün & Sarıışık, 2015), and in
the evaluation of teacher performance (MoNE, 2018). In summary, the level of participation varies across countries
and although it can be extolled in policy, there is limited evidence of the impact of such policies on the work of
schools. It is therefore argued that government and school-level policies and strategies need to be reconsidered to
allow for a genuinely reciprocal process for engagement among and between the various members of the school
community.
Key Words: Inclusion, School Self-Evaluation, Stakeholder Voice, Partnerships
Understanding Parent and Student Voice in four European Countries
Cases from Belgium (Flanders), Ireland, Portugal and Turkey
Education leadership has traditionally been modelled on a top-down, somewhat heroic vision of the school leader
as ‘The Man in the Principal’s office’ (Hart 1995) but there is now much greater emphasis on and interest in what
is often referred to as distributed leadership (Harris 2003; Harris and Spillane 2008; Spillane et al. 2007). Principals
are still designated as the formal leaders of schools, but other organisational members and stakeholders are coming
to play significant roles in influencing school decisions (Ni, Yan, and Pounder 2018). While distributed leadership
has often been thought of as extending only as far as other school staff, we are specifically interested in how we
can extend leadership distribution to stakeholders such as parents and students (Harris and Spillane 2008).
School self-evaluation, an internal form of school review, has become a key part of the school improvement process
in many education systems. In self-evaluating, it is now commonly advised and accepted that schools should draw
on the inputs and insights of all key stakeholders, including parents and students (Chapman and Sammons 2013;
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 2013). In practice, however, there can be many practical
challenges.
Based on qualitative data gathered from post-primary schools in Belgium, Ireland, Portugal and Turkey, this
presentation discusses the role of parents and students in school self-evaluation in these four countries. In
particular, this presentation highlights how stakeholders such as parents and students are positioned in terms of
school self-evaluation, and the barriers preventing them from holding optimal positions. In doing this, some country
specific findings are highlighted but the main focus is on how attempts to involve parents and students in school
self-evaluation are experienced similarly across the four countries.
Key Words: Student Voice, Parent Voice, School Self-Evaluation, School Improvement
13
What factors promote the inclusion of parent and student voice in School
Evaluation? Insights from Belgium, Ireland, Portugal and Turkey
Due to the trend towards deregulation in European countries’ policies (Baxter, 2019), schools are increasingly
expected to monitor their quality themselves (OECD, 2013). Therefore, school self-evaluation (SSE) has become
a key strategy for school improvement, although being differently implemented in several education systems.
In general, SSE can be described as a systematic process in which well-chosen participants describe and
evaluate the school’s functioning, with the aim of making decisions or undertake actions (Vanhoof & Van
Petegem, 2010). Various participants can have a role in such an SSE process, but the views of primary
stakeholders such as students and parents can be key. The involvement of student and parent voice can yield
interesting perspectives to better understand the complex context of a school (Chapman & Sammons, 2013),
and create support among those who have an interest in development initiatives (Fullan, 2007). However, the
participation of parents and students in general appears to be a challenge in many schools. A lack of resources
or the fear for (unfair) criticism could hinder the initiative for meaningful participation (Addi-Raccah &
Ainhoren, 2009). Furthermore, stakeholders such as parents and students are not always considered to have
sufficient knowledge about what it means to be a teacher, the class climate, the organisational culture or the
school itself (Burr, 2015; Dozza & Cavrini, 2012).
Up until now little is known about the actual involvement of parents and students throughout an SSE process.
This paper examines to what extent the inclusion of parent and student voice in SSE can be explained by factors
at a system/organisational, and at an individual level. As part of a European project, this study reports on an
international survey among Belgian, Irish and Portuguese school leaders. The results show statistically
significant differences between the participating countries in terms of parent and student voice in SSE. Parental
involvement is, on average, scored lower by respondents compared to student involvement. Except for
Portugal it the other way around. Across all participating countries it was found that factors at the system and
organisational level explain differences in the inclusion of parent and student voice in SSE. The paper discusses
the implications for researchers, policy makers and the field of practice.
Key Words: Quality Assurance, Educational Evaluation, Inclusion
Towards clarity on Distributed Evaluation and Planning in Schools
A conceptual framework Introduction
School self-evaluation, which involves consulting and collecting data from not only school staff but key
stakeholders such as parents and students, has become a key strategy for improving the quality of provision
in many education systems. In this paper, we present a conceptual framework for stakeholder involvement
devised as part of an Erasmus+ funded project entitled ‘Distributed Evaluation and Planning in Schools’. We
propose an overview of distibuted evaluation and planning as a way of approaching school self-evaluation that
intersects participatory approaches to evaluation and distributed leadership, as well as student and parent
voice in education. This framework is based on an analysis of the literature and research conducted in the four
partner countires: Belgium, Ireland, Portugal and Turkey. The development of such a conceptual map gathers
and connects existing research and literature and acts as a mechanism for analysis, interpretation, and
practice.
Key Words: Student Voice, Parent Voice, Distributed Leadership, Participatory Evaluation
14
A Training Module for Distributed Evaluation and Planning in Schools
Introduction
As a part of DEAPS project, a teacher training module and online course was designed for (student) teachers
and school leaders (all levels of school management) at an (under)graduate-level to be familiar with the
concept of Distributed Evaluation and Planning in Schools. It aims to broaden participants’ understanding of
why and how student and parent voice can be included in a school’s self-evaluation. This training module can
be offered as a part of initial teacher education programme or a standalone short course for the professional
development of teachers and practising school leaders. To facilitate transnational usage, the module is
available in four languages: Dutch, English, Portuguese and Turkish.
The module is developed following a blended learning approach and apart from a series of lectures the
participants can also participate in group learning activities, self- study tasks, providing and receiving peer and
tutor’s feedback and engaging with formative and summative assessments. The learning objectives are
organised at the levels of knowledge, application and reasoning. The participants will be introduced to the
theoretical model through the lectures and the reading materials provided. They will get the opportunities to
work with hands-on materials, apply the newly acquired knowledge in their practice and will be encouraged
to develop a critical stance towards the distributed model of SSE that involves parents and students’ voice.
The course it is suggested, can be taught to the equivalent to 3 ECTS and ISCED level 5. The prerequisites to
undertake this course include familiarity with the legislation around the evaluation of schools; forms of
evaluation and assessment of students; and change in professional organisations.
Course Content
The course comprises five core topics; the outline and organisation of the content in each core topic are briefly
described below:
Lecture 1: The context of School Self-Evaluation
The participants will be introduced to the self-evaluation process, its significance and how it is placed in the
overall school evaluation.
Lecture 2: Understanding Distributed Evaluation and Planning in Schools
In this section, participants will explore the theoretical underpinnings of the DEAPS concept i.e. the
participatory model of evaluation, distributed leadership and role of stakeholders in the SSE process. The
second half of this lecture aims to familiarize participants with possible instruments that correspond with the
ideas of DEAPS, and how they can use these instruments in their own contexts. Learners will also identify
opportunities and threats regarding the inclusion of parents and students in an SSE process, and insights in the
current extent of inclusion of parent and student voice in SSE processes.
Lecture 3: Drawbacks and challenges on working with students in SSE
Participants gain insight into the possible drawbacks and challenges while working with students in SSE
activities. They explore the possibilities of engaging students in SSE activities and get hands-on experience in
developing instruments for the inclusion of students in SSE.
Lecture 4: Drawbacks and challenges on working with parents in SSE
Participants will be exposed to possible drawbacks and challenges regarding working with parents in SSE
activities. They will search for the possibilities of working with parents in SSE activities and get the opportunity
to develop instruments for the inclusion of parents in SSE.
15
Lecture 5: Reflection and experiences
The participants will be asked to critically review the inclusion of parents and students in the framework of
distributed evaluation and planning in schools; develop a critical attitude towards instruments that facilitate
the inclusion of parents and students in SSE; and establish strategies to engage parents and students in the
process of distributed evaluation and planning in schools.
Learning Activities and tasks
Learning activities and tasks are carefully designed to provide maximum opportunities to the participants to
interact with each other and with materials to develop an in-depth understanding of DEAPS practice. All tasks
have practical value that will prepare the students for their future role in schools. For example, a role play is
designed and the students will be allocated a role: parents, students, school principals or teachers. Statements
will be assigned to every group which will be discussed within the stakeholding groups. The statements can be
as follows:
- Parents and students are merely a source of inspiration when going through the
process of SSE
- Parents and students have insufficient knowledge about what SSE is all about
- Including parents and students in SSE activities, adds an extra layer of accountability to the process.
These discussions will enable the participants to understand the perspective of every stakeholding group and
will make them more forthcoming towards parents and students when they are actually working in schools.
Working in pairs, they will develop/adapt instruments that can be used to collect stakeholders’ feedback or
point of view about various aspects of school life. In every lecture of the module, reading current and relevant
research is a compulsory segment so that participants are knowledgeable of what is happening in the field and
what more can be done. This will enhance their repertoire of techniques and practices and will facilitate
implementations of DEAPS.
Another important feature of this training programme is the use of peer feedback. On completion of their
assignments learners will be given an opportunity to share their experiences regarding the use of instruments
for including students/parents in evaluation and planning in their context as a whole class so that the other
learners can comment on how they can further improve the efficacy of their approach or instrument.
Assessment
It is suggested that participants will undertake two assignments and a written examination to complete the
module. However, how these assessments are conducted may vary depending on the context in which this
module is taught. These assessments are aligned with the cognitive levels of the learning objectives:
knowledge, application and reasoning. The assignments are more inclined towards the application level while
the written examination will assess the knowledge and reasoning.
16
A Toolkit to enhance Distributed Evaluation and Planning in Schools
Introduction
This toolkit aims to support school leaders and teachers with the provision of guidelines and strategies on how
to engage multiple stakeholders in SSE. The research carried out as a part of the DEAPS project and prior to
this highlights several barriers to adopting a DEAPS approach and the capacity of school leaders to engage a
range of stakeholders in the SSE process emerges as the most significant inhibiting factor. This toolkit is
designed to overcome this deficiency and build DEAPS capacity of school leaders.
To facilitate transnational usage, the toolkit is available in four languages: Dutch, English, Portuguese and
Turkish. The toolkit is also integrated into the DEAPS MOOC that is available on the DEAPS website and serves
as a complementary resource for the teacher training module developed to build DEAPS capacity of school
leaders and teachers.
The toolkit is organized into four distinct sections that offer the readers a complete DEAPS experience. Section
one shares the theoretical perspective on DEAPS including all the concepts that constitute this hybrid term.
Section two links the DEAPS concept with the working of a school and provides guidelines as well as practical
suggestions about how to conduct effective SSE leading to noticeable school improvement. Section three
provides a series of resources in the form of templates that can be adapted according to the school needs to
collect data or report the school findings. Finally, section four provides a list of the research articles, books,
official documents, dissertations, and websites that were consulted to develop this toolkit in the event that
school leaders would like to refer to them for further information.
Understanding some basic concepts
(SSE, Parent and Student Voice and the Role of Board of Management and Understanding DEAPS)
The first section of the toolkit provides a brief description of the background and context of the project and
the meaning and significance of parent and student voice. The three definitions of SSE highlight the three
aspects of the process. Van Petegem’s (2005) definition refers to the process being initiated by the school,
systematically managed by the selected school personnel, and leading to overall improvement. To Kyriakides
and Campbell (2004) it is a democratic process that values the participation of teachers, students and parents
in the decision making for school. In Irish legislation features of the first two definitions: being school-led and
collaborative are combined, and reflection is added as the third prominent feature (DES, 2016).
SSE in many education systems is considered complementary to external evaluation and schools are
encouraged to use the framework of quality, quite often provided by the inspectorates, as the criteria to
measure their performance. The more valid and reliable the external evaluators find the SSE, the longer a
school is left on its own. This earned autonomy results in differentiated, focused or short inspections. Nelson
et al. (2015) mention evaluation literacy, resources, leadership and supportive culture and external support
and accountability as conditions necessary for the effectiveness of SSE. This toolkit aims to build the evaluation
capacity of the school leaders so that they feel confident to involve other stakeholders in the process.
Parent and student voice in the SSE and school improvement process are in fact the main focus of this project.
According to legislation in several countries, the outcome of the parent and student participation in the SSE
process should be taken into consideration in the school’s decision-making. Parents role in raising student
outcomes in terms of attendance, behaviour, school retention, academic achievement and wellbeing (Povey
et al., 2016) cannot be denied. Similarly, students’ accounts about the quality of their work, the progress they
17
make over time and teacher effectiveness are the primary source of information regarding school performance
(Macbeath, 2005). School can engage parents through Parent associations, Councils, volunteering or special
meetings and students through student council or a range of other activities (see Benner et al., 2019).
Though there is resistance, challenges and objections in engaging parents and student voice in school decision
making, school leadership can play a crucial role by embedding a whole school vision that values stakeholders’
inclusion in the school decision making. This increases parents and students’ participation in the process and
makes it amenable for other stakeholders.
In many education systems across the globe setting up a school board of management is a legal obligation and
the board has a definitive role in the school improvement process. The board has a governance role to oversee
the school policies and monitor if the school is meeting statutory requirements. It is also responsible to review
the effectiveness of the school using student achievement data and evaluative information. Distributed
evaluation expects school boards to participate effectively in the school review process. The research shows
(see Brown et al., 2020) that sometimes school boards lack the capacity to satisfy the requirements of their
role however, there are professional development opportunities exclusively for school boards that can be
availed to overcome this deficiency.
Distributed evaluation intersects three main concepts the participatory approaches to evaluation, distributed
leadership and stakeholders’ voice resulting in a shift from systematic SSE to a new form of SSE that is
systematic, distributed and collaborative. The participatory evaluation provides for the active participation of
those that have a stake in the programme while considering four basic aspects of inclusion why (purpose), who
(stakeholders whose participation matters), when (at what stage of the process) and how to include.
Distributed leadership, unlike other forms and types of leadership, is concerned with leadership practice,
instead of the role and leadership position. Those who have expertise are offered opportunities to lead the
situation. Distributed leadership is co-performing leadership practice, affecting interactions among leaders,
followers and the situation leading to decision-making. Thus, distributed leadership comprises three variables:
interaction, situation and leadership practice where the practice is the product of interaction among leaders,
followers and the situation over time. Hence, DEAPS makes school leaders and teachers aware of the fact that
the stakeholders’ involvement in the SSE and improvement process provides them with not just a broad
authentic database to achieve their improvement targets as well as innovative approaches to improve teaching
and learning.
Core Ingredients to make DEAPS work
This section has mainly two sub-sections the first sub-section offers practical guidelines and strategies to
implement DEAPS. Schools are directed on how to build the SSE team, plan SSE, collect and analyse data, and
prepare SSE report and improvement plan. The second sub-section has instructions regarding designing and
conducting surveys and organizing and managing focus groups.
For the effective management of SSE, school leaders are advised to form the SSE team. The composition of the
team may vary from school to school depending upon the size and needs. Generally, the SSE team may
comprise a member of the school management team, two or three teachers, non-teaching staff, students,
parents and local community members. Certain subjects can be grouped together, for example, i) history and
geography and ii) business subjects, to keep the SSE team from becoming too large. In the case of a large
school, several working groups can be formed and the leader of each group can represent the working group
18
on the core SSE team. In both cases, school leaders should hold one or two initial sessions with the SSE team
for team building.
SSE planning procedures are taken from the Department of Education and Skills publication on Self-evaluation guidelines.
The six steps of SSE and school improvement planning process: Identify focus, Gather Evidence, Analyse and make
judgements, Write and share SSE report and Improvement Plan, Put Improvement Plan into action and Monitor actions
and evaluate impact (DES, 2019), are explained with examples from school life. The segment also elaborates why, how
and when parents and students can be engaged in the process. It is also suggested that if the schools do not have a
framework of quality prescribed by their Ministry of Education or inspectorate school leaders by involving teachers,
parents and pupils can create their own criteria. In this process, all stakeholders get an opportunity to discuss ideas and
negotiate the criteria as well as learn about each other’s views and expectations from the school (Kyriakides & Campbell,
2004).
Data collection and analysis section shares Bernhardt’s (2013) classification of school data: Demographic data, School
process data, Student learning data and Perception data and explains these categories further. It sheds light on the
significance of gathering data from a range of sources while at the same time warns of data inundation. Schools are also
cautioned that when gathering evidence, they must focus on the big picture and avoid nitpicking. A list of possible sources
of data adapted from DES Self- Evaluation Guidelines is also included in this section for school leaders’ reference. With
examples, it is explained what sources of evidence to rummage for any given area of school improvement. Practical tips
are given on data analysis and how to arrive at quality judgements about school performance.
Writing the SSE report and preparing the school improvement plan is the final step of the planning process followed by
the implementation stage. SSE report has its significance in keeping all those involved in the process fully informed of its
outcome, it reflects school leaders’ awareness of the quality of education at their school and it also serves as an initial
document to external evaluators while planning school inspection. Nevertheless, the report needs to be a concise and
straightforward document. School improvement plan (SIP) also needs to be a user-friendly document free from any
jargon. The toolkit has comprehensive instruction on developing an SIP especially setting SMART targets. The link between
baseline information received as a result of data analysis and target setting is elaborated with examples.
Like any other form of applied research to achieve authentic results SSE also values data collected from multiple sources
using both qualitative and quantitative methods therefore, this section concludes on comprehensive guidelines on two
most widely used methods of data collection: surveys and focus group. This part of the toolkit shares the value of using
both techniques sequentially or separately. The various types of questions: structured or fixed response, rating, ranking
and unstructured or open response are explained with examples relevant to schools followed by a list of points to be
considered while designing and conducting a survey questionnaire. In the same way, the toolkit also has detailed
procedures for organizing and managing a focus group. There is information about the choice of venue and moderator,
how the session is planned as well as instructions for the moderator on how to keep the discussion focused and what
needs to be avoided to collect quality information.
Resources
This final section has the instruments and formats that schools can use as they are or adapt them according to the needs
of their schools. There are two survey questionnaires one for parents and the other for students. The items cover most
of the aspects of quality education, for example, student questionnaire covers areas: teaching and learning, school
environment, student safety and well-being and students’ role in SSE. While parents’ questionnaire includes items about
communication between school and family, home-school partnership, student safety and well-being, teaching and
learning and parents’ role in SSE among others. The toolkit also has some sample questions for conducting focus groups
of students and parents. The questions are formed aiming to collect information about the overall effectiveness of a
school. Schools may use these questions as a stimulus to generate discussions or they can form their own questions using
the format according to the areas that they are focusing on for school improvement. This section also contains a template
for the SSE report and another for the school improvement plan.
19
Bibliography
20
Addi-Raccah, A., & Arviv-Elyashiv, R. (2008) Parent empowerment and teacher professionalism: Teachers’
perspective. Urban Education, 43(3), 394–415.
Addi-Raccah, A., & Ainhoren, R. (2009) School governance and teachers’ attitudes to parents’ involvement in
schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(6), 805–813.
Baxter, J. (2019) Exploring the role of school inspectors in implementing and shaping policy: A narrative approach.
In A. Wilkins & A. Olmedo (Eds.), Education governance and social theory: Interdisciplinary approaches to research
(pp. 83–102). Bloomsbury.
Beckmann A, Cooper C and Hill D (2009) Neoliberalisation and materialisation of ‘education’ in England and Wales
– a case for reconstructing education. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies 7(2): 311–345.
Benner, M., Brown, C. and Jeffrey, A. (2019) Elevating Student Voice in Education. Centre for American Progress.
Retrieved October 17, 2019, from https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education-k-
12/reports/2019/08/14/473197/elevating-student-voice-education/#fnref-473197-14
Bernhardt, V. (2013) Data analysis for continuous school improvement. New York: Routledge.
Brown, M., McNamara, G., O’Hara, J., & O’Brien, S. (2016) Exploring the changing face of school inspections.
Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 66, 1–26.doi: https://doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2016.66.1
Brown, M., McNamara, G., O’Hara, J., & O’Brien, S. (2017) Inspectors and the process of self-evaluation in Ireland.
In J. Baxter (Ed.), School inspectors: Operational challenges in national policy contexts (pp. 71–96). Springer.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52536-5_4
Brown, M., McNamara, G., O’Hara, J., Hood,S., Burns, D., and Kurum, G. (2019) Evaluating the impact of
distributed culturally responsive leadership in a disadvantaged rural primary school in Ireland'.
Educational management and administration, 47 (3):457-474.
doi: https://doi-org.dcu.idm.oclc.org/10.1177/1741143217739360
Brown, M., McNamara, G., O’Brien, S., Skerritt, C., O’Hara, J., Faddar, J., Cinqir, S., Vanhoof, J., Figueiredo, M.,
Kurum, G. (2020). Parent and student voice in evaluation and planning in schools. Improving Schools, 23(1), 85–102.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1365480219895167
Burr, B. S. (2015). Student voices in teacher evaluations [Doctoral thesis]. Brigham Young University.
Chapman, C., & Sammons, P. (2013). School Self-Evaluation for School Improvement: What Works and
Why? Reading: CfBT Education Trust.
Department of Education and Skills - Ireland (2016). School Self-Evaluation, Guidelines for Post-Primary Schools.
Dublin: DES.
Department of Education and Skills - Ireland (2019). School Self-Evaluation Update, Primary Edition, Issue 14. Dublin:
DES. Available online:
http://schoolself-evaluation.ie/post-primary/2019/12/24/sse-update-14/
Dozza, L., & Cavrini, G. (2012). Perceptions of competence: How parents view teachers. Procedia-Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 46, 4050–4055.
Duma, M. A. N. (2013). The principals’ views on parent participation in governance of rural schools. Studies on Home
and Community Science, 7(2), 99–107.
Ferguson, D. L., Hanreddy, A., & Draxton, S. (2011). Giving students voice as a strategy for improving teacher
practice. London Review of Education, 9(1), 55–70.
21
Fielding, M. (2011). Patterns of Partnership: Student Voice, Intergenerational Learning and Democratic Fellowship.
In N. Mockler & J. Sachs (Eds.), Rethinking Educational Practice Through Reflexive Inquiry (pp. 61–75).
Figueiredo, M., Ramalho, H., & Rocha, J. (2017). Country Background Report on Distributed Evaluation and Planning
in Portuguese Schools. Instituto Politecnico De Viseu. Viseu, Portugal.
Fleming, D. (2011). Student voice in Irish post-primary schools: is the challenge too challenging? . The Boolean, 66-
70.
Fleming, D. (2015). Student Voice: An Emerging Discourse in Irish Education Policy. International Electronic Journal
of Elementary Education, 8(2), 223-242.
Fleming, B. (2016). Irish Education, 1922-2007: Cherishing all the Children? Dublin: Createspace Independent
Publishing Platform.
Harris, A., & Spillane, J. (2008). Distributed leadership through the looking glass. Management in Education, 22(1),
31-34.
Harris, A. (2003). Teacher leadership as distributed leadership: heresy, fantasy or possibility? School Leadership &
Management, 23(3), 313-324.
Harris, A. (2004). Distributed leadership and school improvement: leading or misleading? Educational Management
Administration & Leadership, 32(1), 11-24.
Harris, A. (2008). Distributed Leadership: according to the evidence. Journal of Educational Administration, 46(2),
172-188.
Harris, A. (2012). Distributed leadership: Implications for the role of the principal. The Journal of Management
Development, 31(1), 7-17.
Harris, A., & Goodall, J. (2008). Do parents know they matter? Engaging all parents in learning. Educational Research,
50(3), 277–289.
Harris, A., & Spillane, J. (2008). Distributed leadership through the looking glass. Management in Education, 22(1),
31-34.
Hart, R. (1997). Children’s Participation: The theory and practice of involving young citizens in community
development and environmental care. London: Earthscan.
Hart, A. W. (1995). Reconceiving school leadership: Emergent views. The Elementary School Journal, 96(1), 9-28.
McBeath, J. (1999) Schools must speak for themselves. London: Routledge
MacBeath, J. (2005). Leadership as distributed: A matter of practice. School Leadership and Management, 25(4),
349-366.
Mokoena, S. (2011). Participative decision-making: Perceptions of school stakeholders in South Africa. Journal of
social sciences, 29(2), 119-131.
MoNE. (2018). MEB Öğretmen Performans Değerlendirme Yönetmelik Taslağı [Teacher performance evaluation
regulation draft]. 13 Nisan 2018 tarihinde https://www.memurlar.net/haber/730414/meb-ogretmen-performans-
degerlendirme-yonetmelik-taslagini-goruse-acti.html sitesinden alınmıştır.
Nelson, R., Ehren, M. & Godfrey, D. (2015). Literature Review on Internal Evaluation. Institute of Education,
University College London: London.
22
Ni, Y., Yan, R., & Pounder, D. (2018). Collective leadership: Principals’ decision influence and the supportive or
inhibiting decision influence of other stakeholders. Educational Administration Quarterly, 54(2), 216-248.
Odhiambo, G., & Hii, A. (2012). Key stakeholders’ perceptions of effective school leadership. Educational
Management Administration & Leadership, 40(2), 232–247.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2013). Synergies for better learning: An
international perspective on evaluation and assessment. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD).
Povey, J., Campbell, A. K., Willis, L. D., Haynes, M., Western, M., Bennett, S., ... & Pedde, C. (2016). Engaging parents
in schools and building parent-school partnerships: The role of school and parent organisation
leadership. International Journal of Educational Research, 79, 128-141.
Sellman, E. (2009). Lessons learned: Student voice at a school for pupils experiencing social, emotional and
behavioural difficulties. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 14(1), 33–48.
Spillane, J.P., & Diamond, J.B. (2007). Taking a Distributed Perspective. In J.P. Spillane & J.B. Diamond
(Eds.), Distributed Leadership in Practice (pp.1-15). New York: Teachers College Press.
Spillane, J. P., Camburn, E. M., & Stitziel Pareja, A. (2007). Taking a distributed perspective to the school principal's
workday. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 6(1), 103-125.
Tüzün, I., & Sarıışık, Y. (2015). Türkiye’de Okullarda Çocuk Katilimi: Durum Analizi [Participation of children at schools
in Turkey: A case analysis]. Istanbul: Istanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayinlari
Van Petegem, P. (2005). Vormgeven aan schoolbeleid: effectieve-scholenonderzoek als inspiratiebron voor de
zelfevaluatie van scholen. Designing school policy: School effectiveness research as a starting point for school self-
evaluation]. Leuven: Acco.
Vanhoof, J., & Van Petegem, P. (2007). Matching internal and external evaluation in an era of accountability and
school development: Lessons from a Flemish perspective. Studies in educational evaluation, 33(2), 101-119.
Vanhoof, J., & Van Petegem, P. (2010). Evaluating the quality of self-evaluations: The (mis)match between internal
and external meta-evaluation. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 36(1–2), 20-26.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2010.10.001
Vanhoof, J., Van Petegem, P., Verhoeven, J. C., & Buvens, I. (2009). Linking the policymaking capacities of schools
and the quality of school self-evaluations: The view of school leaders. Educational Management Administration &
Leadership, 37(5), 667-686.
Vincent, C., & Martin, J. (2000). School-based parents’ groups-a politics of voice and representation? Journal of
Education Policy, 15(5), 459–480.
Whitty, G., & Wisby, E. (2007). Whose voice? An exploration of the current policy interest in pupil involvement in
school decision-making. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 17(3), 303–319.
Woolner, P., Hall, E., Wall, K., & Dennison, D. (2007). Getting together to improve the school environment: User
consultation, participatory design and student voice. Improving Schools, 10(3), 233–248.
Xaba, M. I., & Nhlapo, V. A. (2014). Principals’ views on challenges of their school governance roles. Africa Education
Review, 11, 424–444.
Zabaleta, F. (2007). The use and misuse of student evaluations of teaching. Teaching in Higher Education, 12(1), 55-
76.
23
